Malkin: “I’m skeptical of anything with ‘Bill of Rights.’”
By on Feb 16th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Malkin: “I’m skeptical of anything with ‘Bill of Rights.’”
Right-wing author and pundit Michelle Malkin filled in for Bill O’Reilly tonight on The O’Reilly Factor. During a segment on a newly-proposed Airline Passengers Bill of Rights, Malkin said, “So you’re behind this Passengers’ Bill of Rights move. I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.” Watch it:
[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/02/billrights.320.240.flv]
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bayh
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Supreme Court
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The true conservative view.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pmI have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.
Truer words were never spoken.
Nothing like blurting out your true agenda, [edited]
February 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pmHorrible woman.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:06 pmYou know, more often than not it is the Immigrants and their children who have a better appreciation of what freedom and the defense of same means. More so I dare say than those of us born here. I wonder what happened to her? What an idiot!
February 16th, 2007 at 9:07 pmMalkin is a fascist, and does not believe in any Bill of Rights, so she is a horribly vile person.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:12 pmSo let’s see now… uh… um… what has “Bill of Rights” tacked on to it… hmmm? Uh… well… there is that silly little thing called The Consitution of the United States of America… is that what she is skeptical of?
Conservatives don’t believe in The Constitution of the United States of America.
Why does Michelle Malkin hate America?
February 16th, 2007 at 9:13 pmMalkin looks like she’s had that surgery to make her eyes look rounder.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:14 pmEdited???? That’s new.
All the trolls spew all their filth ceaselessly here, but I make an innocent comparison of Michelle Malkin to a female canine, and I get “[edited]“?
Well, at least it’s preferable to simply yanking my entire post. Thanks for that. I normally don’t stoop to profanity, but that poisonous little <expletive deleted> Malkin is a special case.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:14 pmTo support conservatism you MUST be opposed to all ideas and principles which empower the individual or the citizen over government or corporation. CONSERVATISM = FASCISM. Our government has “melded” with corporations, and now uses the facade of a free & open society to control, manipulate, and oppress the population. They want the public to only have enough knowledge to do their day-jobs, and have a singular interest in “living the American dream” through blind consumerism. These are the true enemies of America and it citizens.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:16 pmWe don’t need no stinkin Bill of Rights, we got Jesus on our side. Abe Lincoln 2/16/2007.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:17 pmMalkin is 2 cans of shlitz away from doing a donkey show in Crawford Tx.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:18 pmMichelle Moron Malkin.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:19 pmRacial profiling = OK. (I wonder if her Filipino parents were ever subjected to racial profiling.)
Bill of Rights = Not OK ( I wonder if she could freely spew ad hominem attacks against those with whom she disagrees if she didn’t enjoy the freedom of speech.)
Why does this woman hate America and its very foundation? Or is she merely a prostitute, using her vile form of journalism as her tool of the trade?
That split screen shot of Malkin says it all. Dumb as a board!
February 16th, 2007 at 9:19 pm“[edited]�
TMM, that’s a new one.
Which is weird because what you said was absolutely true. Maybe one day TP will remember that we’re all grownups around here, and if we use bad language, we can accept responsibility for it.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:20 pmI find it sad that hatred gets passed onto to people who didn’t exist when the stuff happened. Malkin bears the hatred that her parents have/had (I don’t know they’re still alive). Hatred is a disease that passes quickly, infecting person after person. It’s one of human’s worst aspects, besides greed. Hatred is our damnation.
I’m not explaining away Malkin’s hatred, so don’t say that. She’s a hateful person, and probably will be for the rest of her life. Hatred stays for a long time.
Neither am I immune from hatred.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:23 pmShe is a Filipino who’s a whitey wannabe and should be reminded of that everytime.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:24 pm[...] and here’s a bonus quote from arch-conservative bigoted commentator Michelle Malkin today: “I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked [...]
February 16th, 2007 at 9:25 pmI have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.â€
Too bad the Shrub has the same atittude towards the Bill of Rights as well.
There we have it America, right on the old idiot box.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:25 pmthis IS the Philosophy of the Republican Party, folks.
Me too, that document guaranteeing me my freedoms is such a f*cking crock, oh my god. You really have no idea.
But in all seriousness, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard all day.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pmWould be hot except she sh*ts from the wrong hole.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:28 pmWell in today’s Washington Post, media “reporter” Howard Kurtz wrote a love letter to Malkin:
Poor Michelle. She’s so brave, fighting against the dirty hippies of the left.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:31 pmShe should be interned
February 16th, 2007 at 9:33 pmAmazing how someone of this background (Filipino, female) can go around prostituting for the Good Ol-boy Party and be able to look themselves in the mirror when they get up in the morning. It’s people of that exact type of background (minority race and gender) that are oppressed the most by these fascist policies…simply amazes me.
BTW, who’s the bag on the right? Looks like she could be related to Annthrax.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:38 pm#20 – corrine
That’s a totally disgusting article. Howie’s gonna be outside Michelle’s place tonight holding his boombox over his head blasting “In Your Eyes.”
February 16th, 2007 at 9:39 pmRead People of the Lie by Scott Peck. There she is. Malignant Narcissism……..cannot look at or see their own imperfections…they project their fears and hatred onto the world.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pmThey are “perfect” and they are very very very sick.
Zooey sez:
I honestly don’t fault TP for this action…if they apply it to the trolls who spew their sexist and racist hatred as well, it’s a good thing. Profanity is the last refuge of the vocabulary-impaired anyway….I needn’t…and shouldn’t…resort to it. It’s just that Malkin is such a vile little parasite that she tends to bring out the worst in me.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:49 pmI doubt anyone here could even list half of the amendments in the bill of rights without looking them up. Maybe someone here can prove me wrong.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:53 pmIt’s just that Malkin is such a vile little parasite that she tends to bring out the worst in me.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
At least your whole comment didn’t go down the crapper. :)
I’m trying to improve my vocabulary impairment. Heh.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:54 pmNew rule….
Anyone against the ‘Bill of Rights’ shouldn’t be forcibly subjected to it.
Let’s lock her up in Guatanamo
February 16th, 2007 at 9:55 pmPerhaps she meant Bill (O’Reilly) of the Right and she plans to steal his show.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:56 pmMalkin is ill Tripmaster. ( I completely here you by the way…it is so frustrating) This type of illness presents a jeering smiling rock solid facade. Underneath is a ripening and rotting person. Unfortunately a major symptom of this narcissism – personality disorder – is blame. People like M project everything they fear in themselves onto others and they make other’s lives miserable. Because most normal healthy people don’t do this, they are confused and knocked back on their heels by it. They don’t understand. I do. I have a parent like this and have known others like M. I spent a lot of time dealing with and thinking about this. This cabal in power has sought out others, ill in the way they are, to surround themselves with. That is the tragedy. It is time for the majority to act…speak up and oust this group. I wish people weren’t so confused by this illness. It would lose it’s power if more did see it for what it is. My humb.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:56 pmI can name them….
1. Thou Shalt not commit adulterty
2. Thou Shalt not commit murder
3. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s ass
4. Thou shall not take the lords name in vain
5. Thou shall not worship false idols
6. Thou shall not steal
There’s more than half
February 16th, 2007 at 9:58 pmOh, wait. You said amendments….my fault…it’s getting so confusing in this country with all you bible-thumpers and stuff :)
February 16th, 2007 at 9:59 pm#26: I doubt anyone here could even list half of the amendments in the bill of rights without looking them up. Maybe someone here can prove me wrong.
Forgive me, Mandolin, but how would it be possible for someone to “prove” he or she isn’t looking something up?
February 16th, 2007 at 9:59 pmCan’t we trade her to Kazakhstan for Borat; since they share the same beliefs.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:59 pmNew rule….
oh, Bill is on tonight. =)
February 16th, 2007 at 10:01 pmWonder if he is going to call her on that soon. Keith O will, you can bet on it.
#33
February 16th, 2007 at 10:01 pmI would make you swear on a copy of An Inconvenient Truth.
I love Michelle Malkin’s contemptful scare quotes when she utters the phrase “Bill of Rights.” I shouldn’t be surprised that a modern-day neocon would have such contempt for the U.S. Constitution, but I guess I still am. I’m still flabbergasted that there are so many powerful and influential people in this country who have no sense of the principles on which this nation was founded.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:02 pmWell, what’s good for the goose is sauce for the gander ;)
February 16th, 2007 at 10:02 pmmandolin sez:
And just what did you hope to accomplish with this comment, mandolin? Here on the internet, we can look up anything in a matter of seconds, so if anyone takes you up on your challenge, you can just claim they cheated and looked it up.
Seeing as how it’s thus impossible for anyone to verifiably answer your challenge, I have to wonder at your motives for issuing it. Perhaps you can explain them to us.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:03 pmThere’s more than half
Comment by jay severin has a small pen1s
Aw hell, that’s funny. :)
February 16th, 2007 at 10:03 pm[...] mislead people about their position by claiming to be supporters of freedom and limited government, Think Progress quotes Michele Malkin as providing an honest view of where she stands. “So you’re behind [...]
February 16th, 2007 at 10:05 pm#39
February 16th, 2007 at 10:06 pmYou can’t name them. Don’t be ashamed of it. 99.5% of the population couldn’t name them. I just wanted to show that the .5% that could name them do not congregate here.
mandolin sez:
I see. TP, can we have another troll, please? This one appears to be broken.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:06 pmI’ll give you a clue. The first is a right to an abortion. The second is a right to birth control. The third is a right to work in a bakery for more than 8 hours.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:08 pmAnd by the way, swearing is one of the most ancient and honourable of professions. I hear it’s the first of foriegn languages you learn in any concentration camp with pretentions to anything.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:09 pmmandolin sez:
You didn’t answer my question, dolt. How does someone respond to your challenge without you accusing them of cheating?
If we take you up on your little challenge, you accuse us of cheating. If we refuse to rise to your idiotic bait, you crow that we can’t do it. You probably think your little catch-22 is clever. Trust me, it’s not.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm#41: I just wanted to show that the .5% that could name [the first 10 Amendments] do not congregate here.
How, exactly, do you think you’ve “shown” this? Because no one here is willing to take the bait and play your little game?
February 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pmI doubt anyone here could even list half of the amendments
Comment by mandolin — February 16, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
And your point is…..?
February 16th, 2007 at 10:17 pmCan’t that chubby Karl Rove at least hire some intelligent trolls for the TP threads? Send the existing ones to DailyKos.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:17 pmmandolin sez:
I doubt anyone here could even list half of the amendments in the bill of rights without looking them up. Maybe someone here can prove me wrong.
Yet a congressman cannot quote Abraham Lincoln correctly?
February 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pmNow these wingnuts need to admit they’re skeptical of anything with a ‘Constitution’.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pmMaybe you mandolin, can prove your question in congress?
February 16th, 2007 at 10:19 pmmandolin sez:
I doubt anyone here could even list half of the amendments in the bill of rights without looking them up. Maybe someone here can prove me wrong.
I doubt congress can list Abrahams quotes, oh yeah, they have ALREADY proven themselves wrong.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pmI wonder how she got the fill in job from Bill O’Reilly. It’s not like Bill is a perv or anything like that.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pmMalkin has a pretty face (both of them, really) and a lyin’, cheatin’ heart. Oh, I forgot; she doesn’t have one. -Never mind.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pmIt’s beyond me how some people can say such repulsive and vile things so easily and not flinch an iota. All to simply appeal to thier base, thier public and to sell ratings and books. They’re like professional parasites out to sensationalize. What a waste of intellect; or lack, thereof.
Still waiting, mandolin.
Explain how someone could verifiably answer your challenge, or admit it’s nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a trap.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:26 pmThe Neocons love to break one commandment on a regular basis. “Thou shall not bear false witness”.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:26 pmAt least she didn’t swear, like liberals always do.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pmI wonder how she got the fill in job from Bill O’Reilly. It’s not like Bill is a perv or anything like that.
Comment by OxyCon
Bill O will be sniffing his chair on Monday.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pmAt least she didn’t swear, like liberals always do.
Comment by Shoelimpyâ„¢
Always?
If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate!
We all know swearing is the most important issue of our times.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pmThank you, Shoelimpy.
/sarcasm
At least she didn’t swear, like liberals always do.
Comment by Shoelimpyâ„¢
Ah yes, Shoelimpy, jack, dith. (Rachel)
You are easily refuted.
Dare me?
February 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pmWhen I heard her say this I almost fell out of my chair!
Because, I knew there were millions of people who have trouble understanding and interpreting statements, and those “very special” people would be mentally incapable of understanding the significance of “tacked on to it”.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:33 pmWhen I look at the title of her book, “In defense of internment” and then hear her “lock em all up” hate, it crawls at my gut. To hear this vile from someone is shades of Europe, Mid 20th century. Hopefully, this movement is on it’s deathbbed.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:38 pmLooks like mandolin ran off.
How disappointing.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:43 pm#62: I knew there were millions of people who have trouble understanding and interpreting statements, and those “very special†people would be mentally incapable of understanding the significance of “tacked on to it[."]
What is telling, of course, is that Malkin has contempt not only for phrases with “Bill of Rights tacked on to it,” but for the Bill of Rights itself. She spoke more verily than she intended.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:54 pmor admit it’s nothing more than a clumsy attempt at a trap.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
mmm, hopefully the tender trap.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:59 pmAnd no, my name was not hijacked. I just remembered the metaphor.
Be sure to read my newest book ever: Sum Ting Wong Wiv Bill of Wights, or, Diary of A Mad Neo-Con. Bye, now.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:00 pmMichelle Malkin
All the trolls spew all their filth ceaselessly here, but I make an innocent comparison of Michelle Malkin to a female canine, and I get “[edited]�
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Trip,
February 16th, 2007 at 11:00 pmI agree with you about the trolls, but perhaps you shouldn’t insult female dogs with a comparison to Ms. Malice.
Malkin is filling for bill o’really? any chance of getting Arrianna Huffington to sit in for Olbermann when he is off?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:00 pm“Those who learn from the past are destined to watch others repeat it.” not Abraham Lincoln
February 16th, 2007 at 11:01 pmLeave it to a fascist enabler like Mandolin to play word games about the Bill of Rights- as if to say that if you can’t enumerate them then you shouldn’t have those rights. That’s pretty rich, considering our fine President, Mr. Dimbulb Bush, doesn’t know his head from his ass but he still gets to be “the decider.”
How the hell can you slimey bastards (Mandolin and his/her ilk) defend swine like Malkin, who clearly believes that civil rights should be reserved only for conservatives?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pmIs it me or is Rachel just mailing it in these days?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:05 pmForget that back-stabbing female, doggie-style Michelle. Be sure to read MY new book: Take Your Bill of Rights And Shove Them Up Your Yankie Doodle Dandy.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:10 pmYour good friend, Bill O’Reilly
#73 Ach, I was going to respond to mandolin but I realized it wasn’t talented enough to respond to. There were some very weak attempts in this thread.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:12 pmAnti-democracy, unAmerican TRAITORS…
…Malkin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly…
…the whole stinking, filthy, rotten lot of them…
…Patriot Act their TREASONOUS a*ses…
…and the corporate criminals they serve…
February 16th, 2007 at 11:16 pmBy the way. Who the hell does she think she is? She is supportive of Japanese internment camps in WWII. She is Asian. I am guessing she wouldn’t get a free pass.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:24 pmWho is the blonde woman in the pic above with Malkin?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm“Truer words were never spoken.
Nothing like blurting out your true agenda, [edited]
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — February 16, 2007 @ 9:03 pm”
Which is?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pm#81 I actually think he said they should be sprinkled with Dijon mustard. Tasty bastards…it is their own fault.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:47 pmjeez michael. pay attention!
February 16th, 2007 at 11:53 pm#83 That would be a righty. They have situational attention spans.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:55 pm“#
jeez michael. pay attention!
Comment by zeigel — February 16, 2007 @ 11:53 pm”
Nice sidestep? In your words what is our true agenda?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:57 pm“I wonder what happened to her? What an idiot!”
Jim, what is your problem with her?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pm“#
Malkin is a fascist, and does not believe in any Bill of Rights, so she is a horribly vile person.
Comment by Jay Randal — February 16, 2007 @ 9:12 pm”
Jay, you can back up your charge of her being a racist?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:00 amJay, you can back up your charge of her being a racist?
Comment by michael
I can back up the charge you can’t read.
He said FASCIST not Racist, einstein.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:04 amsheesh
“#
Malkin looks like she’s had that surgery to make her eyes look rounder.
Comment by Zooey — February 16, 2007 @ 9:14 pm”
zooey, you never let me down with your stupid idiotic comments! Keep it up!
February 17th, 2007 at 12:04 am#86 Read the story, you moron.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:04 am“but that poisonous little Malkin is a special case”
Care to provide an intelligent reason why you feel that way?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:05 am“now uses the facade of a free & open society to control, manipulate, and oppress the population”
It sounds like you have experienced this first hand? Care to share that with us?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:07 am“#
Malkin is 2 cans of shlitz away from doing a donkey show in Crawford Tx.
Comment by Vance — February 16, 2007 @ 9:18 pm”
Just get excepted into the 4th grade?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:08 amMichael, you right wing tool. Do you think someone who is skeptical of the Bill of Rights is a good Merkin?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:10 am“Why does this woman hate America and its very foundation? Or is she merely a prostitute, using her vile form of journalism as her tool of the trade?
Comment by Marie — February 16, 2007 @ 9:19 pm”
Why do you feel she hates America? Prostitute? Do you have to resort to name calling to make a point?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:10 amKeep it up!
Comment by michael
Hey, toyboy, you havent used your thumbs yet.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:10 amI called Malkin a fascist, not a racist. Big difference between those 2 words.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:10 am“#
That split screen shot of Malkin says it all. Dumb as a board!
Comment by Jim — February 16, 2007 @ 9:19 pm”
Dumb as a board? You think you could stand up to her? Not based on your very childish comment!
February 17th, 2007 at 12:11 am#95 Why do you attack Marie for the word prostitute? Your buddy Glen Beck called Cindy Sheehan a prostitute. I didn’t see the thread where you defended her. Maybe you could find that and maybe cut and paste it?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:12 ammicheal the lying troll is on his nonsense posting spree. Don’t expect him to actually state any facts that he can prove or back up.
it’s hard for him to pull his proof out of his a$$ and post on the internet tubes.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:13 am#97 Semantics!!! Don’t confuse him. It is almost the same word!
February 17th, 2007 at 12:14 amIt sounds like you have experienced this first hand? Care to share that with us?
Comment by michael
Care to first share with us your view, first hand?
Ever make a statement without a ?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:15 amHave you?
Huh?
#97 Semantics!!! Don’t confuse him. It is almost the same word!
Comment by JPark
LMAO!!
February 17th, 2007 at 12:16 ammicheal? the lying troll? is on his nonsense posting spree??.
Don’t expect him to actually state any facts?? that he can prove or back up.??
Michael is easy to defuse, he only posts questions to any answer.
Lamer.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:16 am“I’m not explaining away Malkin’s hatred, so don’t say that. She’s a hateful person, and probably will be for the rest of her life. Hatred stays for a long time.
Neither am I immune from hatred.
Comment by E_I — February 16, 2007 @ 9:23 pm”
What/who does she hate?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:18 amDumb as a board? You think you could stand up to her? Not based on your very childish comment!
Comment by michael
LOL, the AP showed her up, outright, and her answer was!
‘Moving on’. No Apologies, no nothing.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:19 am“#
She is a Filipino who’s a whitey wannabe and should be reminded of that everytime.
Comment by AH — February 16, 2007 @ 9:24 pm”
What to explain that STUPID comment?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:19 amBush lover trolls are getting more lame every day on here. Who the hell would want to defend Malkin? Or Ann Coulter for that matter?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:20 amWhat/who does she hate?
Comment by michael
another question, and no real debate.
As Malkin Michael.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:20 am” this IS the Philosophy of the Republican Party, folks.
Comment by Wayne — February 16, 2007 @ 9:25 pm”
Wayne, just what is my philosophy?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:20 am#105 Umm, everybody? Have you ever listened to her?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:22 am“#
Me too, that document guaranteeing me my freedoms is such a f*cking crock, oh my god. You really have no idea.
But in all seriousness, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard all day.
Comment by Granola Hippy — February 16, 2007 @ 9:26 pm”
That document guarantees you and your friends don’t have to sit on a runway for 10 hours?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:22 amSo, Mikey, do YOU like the bill of rights?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:22 am“#
Would be hot except she sh*ts from the wrong hole.
Comment by wake-n-bake — February 16, 2007 @ 9:28 pm”
wake, where did you perfect your debating skills?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:23 am#114 Where exactly did you get yours? You are not debating anything. You are just being a jackass.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:24 amI’m new here so I don’t know, but it seems that this “michael” character is kind of dense. He kept asking questions about obvious things. Like he didn’t read any of the article or something. I think he needs to lay off the jungle juice.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:25 amYour Questions are predictable Michael.
Lamer
February 17th, 2007 at 12:25 am“He said FASCIST not Racist, einstein.
sheesh
Comment by Wayne — February 17, 2007 @ 12:04 am”
Ok, back it up? It really doesn’t matter whether they said racist of fascist, back it up?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:25 amMichael is easy to defuse, he only posts questions to any answer.
Lamer.
Comment by Zep Tepi
He said he had proof of less than 30,000 at the DC ralley, yet lied and never provided the source.
He also could not give the code for his job assignment when he left the service after claiming to be a vet. He claimed he didnt have one, that he didn’t have a job while in.
So sometimes he says more than just questions.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:25 ambut yeah he is a lamer. =)
Just get excepted(SIC) into the 4th grade?
Comment by michael
michael,
February 17th, 2007 at 12:25 amIt’s obvious from your spelling (not to mention the drivel you frequently post here) that you haven’t even been ACCEPTED into the fourth grade yet.
michael is a tool that goes from the first to the last post of any night thread and review them with his wonderful insight on political and social events. He wont answer, he is just disrupting. He is as useful as a sh*t tasting lollypop.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:26 amwake, where did you perfect your debating skills?
Comment by michael
another question!
See, no answers.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:26 am“#
#86 Read the story, you moron.
Comment by JPark — February 17, 2007 @ 12:04 am”
I read the article stupid! Back it up!
February 17th, 2007 at 12:26 amOk, back it up? It really doesn’t matter whether they said racist of fascist, back it up?
more questions. Yawn.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:27 am#116 The proper term is kool aid…and yes, he drinks a lot of it.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:27 am“#
Michael, you right wing tool. Do you think someone who is skeptical of the Bill of Rights is a good Merkin?
Comment by JPark — February 17, 2007 @ 12:10 am”
Who’s skeptical of the Bill of Rights?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:28 ammichael, PAY ATTENTION!!!
February 17th, 2007 at 12:28 amKarl Rove just sends drunk trolls on here or hires SEIXON the Norwegian > lol.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:28 amWhy do you feel she hates America?
Comment by michael
It should be rather obvious that someone who disdains the Bill of Rights does not like America. Zeigel in #116 is correct in saying ‘this “michael†character is kind of dense.’
February 17th, 2007 at 12:30 am#123 If you read the article you wouldn’t need to ask what his problem with her is. By the way, #what???
February 17th, 2007 at 12:31 am#126 Are you kidding?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:31 amOk, back it up? It really doesn’t matter whether they said racist of fascist, back it up? Comment by michael
God, what an idiot.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:32 amThat is so sad it’s funny.
I really should not laugh at someone so mentally impaired though.
Who’s skeptical of the Bill of Rights?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 12:28 am
OK!! This one was just too easy!! To quote the article:
“I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it”
February 17th, 2007 at 12:37 am#132 Just think, Wayne. This guy votes. Wiped the smile off my face when I thought of that.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:37 ammichael, I would have a battle of wits with you, but evidence from your posts tonight show that you seem to be totally unarmed.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:39 amOk, back it up? It really doesn’t matter whether they said racist of fascist, back it up? Comment by michael
Actually it does matter. Like when you said “excepted to 3rd grade”. Hell, a 3rd grader would know it’s spelled “accepted”.
Typical “bright” minded Repuke “loser”.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:39 am#133 Yup, that would include the Constitution, I am guessing.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:39 amzeigel,
February 17th, 2007 at 12:42 amFrom what I’d seen so far of michael’s trolling on various previous posts, I had already concluded that this guy has very poor reading comprehension. But I’ve got to admit that his particular show of idiocy this time really takes the cake!
So Michael what DO YOU think of the B o Rights?
Michael do you know whom your dealing with?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:42 amTruly?
To those who ask posters to prove that Malkin is a fascist.
If you advocate locking away an entire minority group in a concentration camp you just might be a fascist.
If you are suspicious of “bills of rights” to protect against the excesses of government or big business you just might be a fascist.
If you routinely call for your followers to attack or harass private citizens with whom you disagree, you just might be a fascist.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:43 am#138 Michael is a pretty common name. Maybe this Michael troll is just slower than the rest.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:44 amzeigel,
From what I’d seen so far of michael’s trolling on various previous posts, I had already concluded that this guy has very poor reading comprehension. But I’ve got to admit that his particular show of idiocy this time really takes the cake!
Comment by Lora
I want to hear Michaels opinion, as long as it his opinion, and his opinion only.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:45 amIf you are suspicious of “bills of rights†to protect against the excesses of government or big business you just might be a fascist.
No, the definition of fascism is quite the opposite.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:49 ammaybe michael needs “special” help. It’s sad to see illiteracy especially if he’s on a computer. Maybe he’s only 10 or 11 years old?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:52 amZep Tepi,
February 17th, 2007 at 12:52 amI don’t see your point.
Zep Tepi,
I don’t see your point.
Comment by Redleg
Privatization is???????????????????
February 17th, 2007 at 12:58 amIf you are suspicious of “bills of rights†to protect against the excesses of government or big business you just might be a fascist. — redleg
I don’t see your point.
— Redleg
The government/corperations would be fascist, they violate the bill of rights or take them from you, of course you would be sceptical then, but not the fascist in this example.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:59 amThis is a silly post, and it’s silly that any blog is linking to it. If I declared I was introducing a “Bloggers’ Bill of Rights” and the rights provided therein only secured my rights while infringing on everyone else’s, there would be reason to be skeptical of the title. That’s Malkin’s point: that entitling something with high-falutin’ language doesn’t thereby make the legislation comport with the definition that the language evokes. C’mon now.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:01 amI read the article stupid! Back it up!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Irony is you calling someone else stupid, while pretending you read articles!!! That’s funny!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:05 amUmm she said ‘passengers bill of rights.’
February 17th, 2007 at 1:06 amOk, back it up? It really doesn’t matter whether they said racist of fascist, back it up? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 12:25 am
I don’t believe you know what racism or facism is – back it up!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:06 amwake, where did you perfect your debating skills?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 12:23 am
Says the troll with no debating skills.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:07 amWho’s skeptical of the Bill of Rights?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 12:28 am
Prove you know what the bill of rights is?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:07 amWayne, just what is my philosophy?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 12:20 am
You have a philosophy? There’s no proof of that, care to provide some?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:08 amPASSENGER BILL OF RIGHTS
These aircraft fly overseas.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:09 amWhy do you feel she hates America? Prostitute? Do you have to resort to name calling to make a point? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Why do you hate America, and act like a Prostitute?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:09 amSorry Pat, that sound you just heard. It was a gong. Nice try but you lose. Let the next pathetic troll have a crack at spinning it.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:11 amHey Michael, what is my philosophy?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:15 am#148 Pat, you know what she means? If you watch it then you know damn well that’s not what she meant. She is published so we know where she stands. She doesn’t need you to try to spin for her.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:15 am“Michael is easy to defuse, he only posts questions to any answer”
It’s unfortunate that I have to keep reminding you jerks, I don’t post articles here, I challenge them! You fools logon and fall all over yourselves supporting all the liberal propaganda, stepping right into my trap! I challenge you on your amateurish comments and you CAN’T back them up! I have so much fun because I don’t have to produce anything that supports my beliefs because I’m not telling you what my beliefs are. You’re just assuming you know. So, what have you defused? I’m sorry, I missed that!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:16 amOh my God. She’s an insane person. Did she just say her position is against rights? Watch her hand motion that she does at the start, that’s clearly a indicator of something odd.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:16 am“#
Bush lover trolls are getting more lame every day on here. Who the hell would want to defend Malkin? Or Ann Coulter for that matter?
Comment by Jay Randal — February 17, 2007 @ 12:20 am”
ME! You wouldn’t last 1 second with either!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:17 am“#
#105 Umm, everybody? Have you ever listened to her?
Comment by JPark — February 17, 2007 @ 12:22 am”
Uh, yes! I’m a big fan of her, so please explain who does she hate?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:19 am#160 You don’t challenge anything. You bleat like a sheep until people ignore you.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:20 am“#
micheal? the lying troll? is on his nonsense posting spree??.
Don’t expect him to actually state any facts?? that he can prove or back up.??
Michael is easy to defuse, he only posts questions to any answer.
Lamer.
Comment by Zep Tepi — February 17, 2007 @ 12:16 am
What facts do you want me to state? Remember, I’m challenging you, I’m not stating anything, BIG difference. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:21 amIt’s unfortunate that I have to keep reminding you jerks, I don’t post articles here, I challenge them! You fools logon and fall all over yourselves supporting all the liberal propaganda, stepping right into my trap!
Your trap has no teeth. Ergo it is not grounded in truth. You have not proven anything. You simply question science.
At what speed does light travel Michael?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:22 am“#
So, Mikey, do YOU like the bill of rights?
Comment by JPark — February 17, 2007 @ 12:22 am”
Of course I do jpark, what’s your point?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:22 amNice Michael…so…when you are challenging you don’t need facts. Got it. Thanks for the clarification, my dear bleating lamb.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:23 amDo you agree that light travels at a certain speed michael?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:23 amAnd how do you know this?
#160 — It’s unfortunate that I have to keep reminding you jerks, I don’t post articles here, I challenge them!
Prove it! Show us where!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:24 amWhat facts do you want me to state? Remember, I’m challenging you,
thus you are equal to an opposite from the challenger,
February 17th, 2007 at 1:24 am“#
#114 Where exactly did you get yours? You are not debating anything. You are just being a jackass.
Comment by JPark — February 17, 2007 @ 12:24 am”
Again, for the 100th time, I’m challenging your stupid comments which nobody and I mean NOBODY has been able to back up all night!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:24 am#160 — You fools logon and fall all over yourselves supporting all the liberal propaganda, stepping right into my trap!
Show us the trap. Prove it!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:25 amI’m sorry, I missed that!
Comment by michael
You miss alot by not reading or comprehending when reading, the article first, before trying to issue you idiotic “challenges”.
You are the one making yourself look like and idiot, lamer
February 17th, 2007 at 1:25 amIt’s not our fault everything just seems to go right over your head.
“#
I’m new here so I don’t know, but it seems that this “michael†character is kind of dense. He kept asking questions about obvious things. Like he didn’t read any of the article or something. I think he needs to lay off the jungle juice.
Comment by zeigel — February 17, 2007 @ 12:25 am”
Welcome Z! You may be sorry you tangled with me. What obvious things are you referring to? Let’s hear it?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:27 am#160 — It’s unfortunate that I have to keep reminding you jerks, I don’t post articles here, I challenge them!
Prove it! Show us where!
Comment by michaels advocate
I don’t post facts, I do not agree with facts, I only question them consistently and do not back up my supposed facts, which are unquesionable because I listen to Rush, who has no facts as well, he only questions facts and denies them. -Michael
Dude, your so boring.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:27 ammichael, they have answered your challenges over and over. Do you not see this? You only look like a fool.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:28 am“#
Your Questions are predictable Michael.
Lamer
Comment by Zep Tepi — February 17, 2007 @ 12:25 am”
So why won’t anybody give me an intelligent coherent answer?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:28 amYou may be sorry you tangled with me.
Comment by michael
Yeah, kind of like stepping in dog doo in the yard.
Micheal, what is your opinion of the article?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:29 amWelcome Z! You may be sorry you tangled with me. What obvious things are you referring to? Let’s hear it?
Comment by michael
Dude your like totaly lame, like a psychologist, you answer everything with a question. How obtuse and boughten you must be.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:29 am“He said he had proof of less than 30,000 at the DC ralley”
That’s still up for debate but it’s interesting that you defer to another subject to avoid answering my questions? Gotcha!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:30 amSo why won’t anybody give me an intelligent coherent answer?
Comment by michael
Why dont you ever give a intelligent coherent answer?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:31 amGotcha!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:33 am“He claimed he didnt have one, that he didn’t have a job while in”
NEVER claimed that! I don’t know if a person in my position had one, but that’s none of your business. But once again, a clear example of deflecting the subject of the conversation to avoid answering my questions!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:34 amMichael you brain dead rote trained Idjut.
WTFU
February 17th, 2007 at 1:34 ammichael, they have answered your challenges over and over. Do you not see this? You only look like a fool.
Comment by zeigel
I and my girlfriend laughing so hard at his posts, he is really outdoing himself tonight =D
February 17th, 2007 at 1:35 am“michael,
It’s obvious from your spelling (not to mention the drivel you frequently post here) that you haven’t even been ACCEPTED into the fourth grade yet.
Comment by Lora — February 17, 2007 @ 12:25 am”
Lora! You can provide an example of that drivel?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:36 amEcch. God dammit. I hate having to defend people like this, but people, haven’t you ever noticed that laws with names like “’s Bill of Rights” do in fact tend to be glib, feel-good laws that make a good sound bite but don’t accomplish anything? Sensible people should be skeptical of those laws.
Sure, it’s funny out of context because Malkin is a totalitarian wannabee who argued in favor of internment. She’s a horrible human being, yadda yadda. But there’s nothing actually wrong with what she said this time.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:36 amNEVER claimed that! I don’t know if a person in my position had one, but that’s none of your business. But once again, a clear example of deflecting the subject of the conversation to avoid answering my questions!
Comment by michael
Oh jeebus. I don’t know, But I do know, but once again, avoidance.
You really are pathetic. I hope your parents didn’t pay for this.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:37 am“Glen Beck called Cindy Sheehan a prostitute. I didn’t see the thread where you defended her. Maybe you could find that and maybe cut and paste it?
Comment by JPark — February 17, 2007 @ 12:12 am”
Don’t know if I would have used those words, but I agree with MOST of what Beck says!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:38 am“He wont answer, he is just disrupting. He is as useful as a sh*t tasting lollypop.
Comment by Juan C — February 17, 2007 @ 12:26 am”
Won’t answer what?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:39 amAgain, for the 100th time, I’m challenging your stupid comments which nobody and I mean NOBODY has been able to back up all night!
Scrolling back……..gee, wally, the stupid comments all belong to Michael, he says he backs them, but never does!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:39 am“more questions. Yawn.
Comment by Zep Tepi — February 17, 2007 @ 12:27 am”
Perfect example of making statements and not being able to back them up! Thanks!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:40 am“Welcome Z! You may be sorry you tangled with me. What obvious things are you referring to? Let’s hear it?
What are you going to do, michael. Hit me with your keyboard! Should I be shivering? You’ve shown that you’re not too bright so I don’t have any worries there. So should I be scared?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:42 am“#
#116 The proper term is kool aid…and yes, he drinks a lot of it.
Comment by JPark — February 17, 2007 @ 12:27 am”
jpark, I don’t recall you being able to backup anything said on this thread that was critical of Malkin. I’m waiting?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:42 amDon’t know if I would have used those words, but I agree with MOST of what Beck says!
Comment by michae
so you agree with one mans opinion. And that makes it universally true.
Your a genius! Why did not I see this before! TV makes people wise!!
Forget Jesus and the planets he spoke of!!
Michael watches teebee!!
Wooooo Heeeee!!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:42 amPerfect example of making statements and not being able to back them up! Thanks!
Comment by michael
Yes, yours.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:43 amI agree with MOST of what Beck says!
Comment by michael
Give us some examples, michea.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:43 aml
“#
Karl Rove just sends drunk trolls on here or hires SEIXON the Norwegian > lol.
Comment by Jay Randal — February 17, 2007 @ 12:28 am”
This blog is almost as bad as “SJIHFN”! You dopes on the left make all kinds of accusations about Malkin and we are up to almost post #150 and NOT 1 fact to back up your hatred for this woman. Not 1!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:45 amSo michael you know more than the lord?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:45 am“Yes, yours.
Comment by Zep Tepi — February 17, 2007 @ 1:43 am”
Come on zep, let’s show everyone how smart you are? What comment in support of Malkin did I make that I can’t back up?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:49 am“#
So michael you know more than the lord?
Comment by Zep Tepi — February 17, 2007 @ 1:45 am”
No, I just know more than your typical no nothing liberal!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:50 am“Give us some examples, michea.
l
Comment by Wayne — February 17, 2007 @ 1:43 am”
I’d be glad to if you start a thread on Beck. This thread is about Malkin.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:51 amYeah, so I rewatched the tape… and she’s still making the same point. Must be my Christofascistic bias poking through. Lo siento.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:51 amFollow my name Michael.
You, my son, are ignorant, yet that is to be expected, ignorance is redemption. Have you seen the morning star?
Why do you deny Jesus and his teachings of truth and astrology?
Why do you forsake me for a television pundit?
Do you know how close you are?
WHy do you proclaim the lords word and deny it?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:51 amMalkin was debunked by the AP some time ago…Michael
February 17th, 2007 at 1:53 amHer crediblity is toast, done, poof, gone, history, kaput.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:54 amCome on zep, let’s show everyone how smart you are? What comment in support of Malkin did I make that I can’t back up? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 1:49 am
You made a relevant comment on topic within the thread? Not possible.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:55 amNo, I just know more than your typical no nothing liberal!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 1:50 am
If you knew anything, you wouldn’t have posted this.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:55 ammichael. Everything has been backed up. I’ve posted several comments to back mine up. You are ignoring those posts. This is normal for a psycotic. She has written an ENTIRE book. It’s not like she is some vague character where nobody has anything written by her. So, like I said twice earlier, PAY ATTENTION!!!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:55 am“#
Yeah, so I rewatched the tape… and she’s still making the same point. Must be my Christofascistic bias poking through. Lo siento.
Comment by Pat — February 17, 2007 @ 1:51 am”
Pat, what point are you referring to?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:56 amPerfect example of making statements and not being able to back them up! Thanks! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 1:40 am
I’m glad to see that you know what your posts are all like, perfect examples of not being able to back up your statements.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:56 amSo why won’t anybody give me an intelligent coherent answer?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 1:28 am
So why don’t you ever ask an intelligent coherent question, or read the intelligent coherent discussions?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:57 amgood night everyone. my mommy said it’s my bedtime. I will come back here again.
michael, I’m going to tell my daddy that you are my new online boyfriend. I’ll bet he’s going to be real happy. He’s a probation officer.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:58 amAgain, for the 100th time, I’m challenging your stupid comments which nobody and I mean NOBODY has been able to back up all night!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 1:24 am
Posting your stupid comments, isn’t a challenge, it’s an embarrassment that you don’t have enough self confidence to handle, so you ignore it.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:58 amFor the rest of you liberals on this blog I want you to pay close attention to this post that is suppose to support this thread which is critical of Malkin. I’m serious! I didn’t make this up! One of you did and you expect to be taken seriously?
“Follow my name Michael.
You, my son, are ignorant, yet that is to be expected, ignorance is redemption. Have you seen the morning star?
Why do you deny Jesus and his teachings of truth and astrology?
Why do you forsake me for a television pundit?
Do you know how close you are?
WHy do you proclaim the lords word and deny it?
Comment by Zep Tepi — February 17, 2007 @ 1:51 am”
Thank you so much for the ammunition!
February 17th, 2007 at 2:00 amWhat facts do you want me to state? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 1:21 am
You don’t know any facts, why would you be able to state them?
Remember, I’m challenging you, I’m not stating anything, Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 1:21 am
Challenging people because you know better states you know better. Challenging people because you don’t know anything states you don’t know anything. Challenging always states something, in your case it states you’re a fool.
BIG difference. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 1:21 am
Says the troll that doesn’t understand what challenging means.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:00 am#159 Pat, you know what she means? If you watch it then you know damn well that’s not what she meant. She is published so we know where she stands. She doesn’t need you to try to spin for her.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:01 am“#
Malkin was debunked by the AP some time ago…Michael
Comment by Zep Tepi — February 17, 2007 @ 1:53 am”
Debunked about what? Please share it with us if you can?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:01 amThank you so much for the ammunition!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:00 am
Yet with a world of ammunition, you only shoot blanks :)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:01 amPat, what point are you referring to?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 1:56 am
Why do you ask questions, that you don’t have enough intellect to understand?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:02 am“#
Her crediblity is toast, done, poof, gone, history, kaput.
Comment by Zep Tepi — February 17, 2007 @ 1:54 am”
Why? Care to share that with us? I doubt it. Don’t you just love me keeping you honest?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:02 am“You made a relevant comment on topic within the thread? Not possible.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 1:55 am”
Nice sidestep? But even liberals aren’t stupid enough to fall for that!
February 17th, 2007 at 2:04 amThank you so much for the ammunition!
Comment by michael
What, did you run out of blanks?
You really do not realize what kind of fool you made of yourself in this thread, do you? Your comprehension of reality is really that bad.
that is so sad, micheal. it really is.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:05 amWhy? Care to share that with us? I doubt it. Don’t you just love me keeping you honest? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:02 am
We’ve already been shared with. You keeping someone honest, through your dishonest and irrelevant posts? That would be a trick.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:05 amNice sidestep? But even liberals aren’t stupid enough to fall for that! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:04 am
Yet you conservatives are stupid enough to fall for almost anything your leaders tell you.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:06 amIf michael were any more stupid, he’d have to be adopted by the Bush clan.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:07 am“#
michael. Everything has been backed up. I’ve posted several comments to back mine up.
Comment by zeigel — February 17, 2007 @ 1:55 am”
Ok, maybe I missed that; how about giving me the post #’s so I can see where you have provided this info? I don’t think I will hold my breath because there is NOTHING there, but I’m waiting!
February 17th, 2007 at 2:08 amYou really do not realize what kind of fool you made of yourself in this thread, do you? Your comprehension of reality is really that bad.
that is so sad, micheal. it really is.
Comment by Wayne — February 17, 2007 @ 2:05 am
Michaels goal is to make a fool of himself, it’s because he has low self esteem. He thinks he’s funny, but as is typical of republicans, that’s just another one of the big lies they tell themselves :)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:08 amOk, maybe I missed that; Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:08 am
You miss everything, that’s kind of the point.
how about giving me the post #’s so I can see where you have provided this info? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Giving you a fact, is like giving food to valiant venus – it’s a waste of good product to someone incapable of digesting it.
I don’t think I will hold my breath because there is NOTHING there, but I’m waiting! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Please, Please, hold your breath, it would be the only responsible thing I’m sure you’ve ever done in your life.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:13 am“Challenging people because you know better states you know better”
Wrong! challenging people means you better be able to back up what you say about another person. If you can’t, then it’s your personal venom and NOT fact!
“Challenging people because you don’t know anything states you don’t know anything”
Wrong again! You don’t know what I know, but it’s obvious from your lack of response from my challenge you don’t know what you are accusing Malkin of. It’s about time you step up to the plate and explain your disdain for this woman on this subject because nobody else has.
“Challenging always states something, in your case it states you’re a fool”
Challenging you states my disbelief in what you fools are falling all over yourselves saying about Malkin, which you haven’t been able to support in over 200 posts!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 2:00 am”
February 17th, 2007 at 2:18 am“how about giving me the post #’s so I can see where you have provided this info? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Giving you a fact, is like giving food to valiant venus – it’s a waste of good product to someone incapable of digesting it.”
Oh my God! That’s all the proof we need! You CAN’T provide those numbers because they DON’T exist! How about you and me on this subject? 1 on 1?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:21 amWrong! challenging people means you better be able to back up what you say about another person. If you can’t, then it’s your personal venom and NOT fact! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:18 am
Challenging with what? You’ve got nothing.
Wrong again! You don’t know what I know, but it’s obvious from your lack of response from my challenge you don’t know what you are accusing Malkin of. Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:18 am
What challenge? You didn’t offer any challenge.
It’s about time you step up to the plate and explain your disdain for this woman on this subject because nobody else has. Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:18 am
Where did I attack this woman, you haven’t proven or challenged anything, because you can’t debate anything I’ve said.
Challenging you states my disbelief in what you fools are falling all over yourselves saying about Malkin, which you haven’t been able to support in over 200 posts! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:18 am
You haven’t challenged anything, other than people’s patience for your NAH, NAH, NAH childish posts. Where did I say anything about Malkin, little liar boy.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:25 amYou People Are So F*cking Easy!
February 17th, 2007 at 2:26 amOh my God! That’s all the proof we need! You CAN’T provide those numbers because they DON’T exist! How about you and me on this subject? 1 on 1? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:21 am
You can’t provide proof, because it doesn’t exist, coward, draft dodger.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:26 amYou People Are So F*cking Easy!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:26 am
And like all spoiled, and undisciplined children, you’re so difficult and disorderly. Thanks for reminding everyone why conservatives shouldn’t reproduce.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:27 ammichael, why are you such a coward as always, and run off when I debate you? I know it’s just because you can’t refute my posts, and I show you to be a liar every time we debate. Why are you so f*cking easy to defeat every time we debate – were you brain damaged from banging your head on the desk while hiding from active duty in Vietnam? Like the rest of your fellow coward republicans?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:38 am“Challenging with what? You’ve got nothing”
I don’t need anything! I’m supporting Malkin in case you haven’t noticed and I’m waiting for you dopes to level some verifiable charges against her which I will gladly challenge you on. Thus far? ZERO!
“What challenge? You didn’t offer any challenge”
Have you been asleep? I’m challenging you on ANYTHING negative you say about her, ANYTHING, ANYTHING!
“Where did I attack this woman, you haven’t proven or challenged anything, because you can’t debate anything I’ve said”
I’ve responded to 100 posts tonight and I don’t keep track of who I am responding to but one thing has been consistent, I’m the only one defending Malkin and not one of you have been able to present ANY evidence to support the negative things being said about her.
“You haven’t challenged anything, other than people’s patience for your NAH, NAH, NAH childish posts. Where did I say anything about Malkin, little liar boy”
I’ve challengenge EVERYTHING! Again, I love Malkin’s politics! It’s not my fault that after 250 posts you losers still have not been able to come up with ONE fact to support that she doesn’t support the Bill of Rights!
February 17th, 2007 at 2:39 am“#
michael, why are you such a coward as always, and run off when I debate you? I know it’s just because you can’t refute my posts, and I show you to be a liar every time we debate. Why are you so f*cking easy to defeat every time we debate – were you brain damaged from banging your head on the desk while hiding from active duty in Vietnam? Like the rest of your fellow coward republicans?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 2:38 am”
Are you ready to take me on 1 on 1 in front of everybody?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:41 am“You can’t provide proof, because it doesn’t exist, coward, draft dodger.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 2:26 am”
You and me? 1 on 1? You’re not going to shame yourself in front of your liberal buddies by declining, are you?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:43 amI don’t need anything! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
That must be helpful when you don’t have anything.
I’m supporting Malkin in case you haven’t noticed and I’m waiting for you dopes to level some verifiable charges against her which I will gladly challenge you on. Thus far? ZERO! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
Supported her with what, you haven’t posted anything to support her. Prove there are charges against her, and that she isn’t guilty.
Have you been asleep? I’m challenging you on ANYTHING negative you say about her, ANYTHING, ANYTHING! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
Prove I said anything negative about her, and prove she isn’t guilty.
I’ve responded to 100 posts tonight and I don’t keep track of who I am responding to but one thing has been consistent, Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
So your defense is that you can’t read, you don’t know, and I’m supposed to do your work for you? Where did I attack her?
I’m the only one defending Malkin and not one of you have been able to present ANY evidence to support the negative things being said about her. Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
You’re defending her? Where, you haven’t defended anything.
I’ve challengenge EVERYTHING! Again, I love Malkin’s politics! It’s not my fault that after 250 posts you losers still have not been able to come up with ONE fact to support that she doesn’t support the Bill of Rights! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
You haven’t challenged or defended anything – where have you done either? It’s not my fault that you’re bad at your job, and that you’re such a loser you don’t know what you’re defending, and can’t post a single fact to support her.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:46 amAre you ready to take me on 1 on 1 in front of everybody?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:41 am
Can you prove that you’re really ‘1′? So far, I can’t see even half of a man.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:46 amYou and me? 1 on 1? You’re not going to shame yourself in front of your liberal buddies by declining, are you? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:43 am
You and me? You’re not my type, but Vince might bend over for you, he’s one of your fellow conservatives, and is probably used to fat stupid conservatives that can’t defend themselves or attack anyone like a man (like yourself). When you stop throwing like a girl, people will take your threats of 1 on 1 seriously.
Until then I’ll continue to make fun of how you shame yourself in front of your fellow conservatives that come to watch you priss and whine.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:48 ammichael is so easy, what a silly little schmuck.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:49 amReading this thread just further confirms that lefties are not working with an abundance of IQ points. But you sure make up for in malice and racism.
I’ll explain, because you’re stupid:
If the read the pertinent literature in political theory, you’d learn that there’s a distinction between positive and negative liberty. The later idea means freedom from interference from the government, and is embodied in the actual Bill of Rights. E.g. freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc. The former idea means a right to have specific goods provided to you by your neighbors, under the coercive direction of the government, e.g., the “right” to health care, housing, etc.
Now, advocates of positive liberty, otherwise known as Free Stuff, typically like to borrow the historical glory of the Bill of Rights, a charter of negative liberty, in order to lobby for, e.g. a statutory “Health Bills of Rights,” a statutory “Housing Bill of Rights,” etc. So it’s a bit deceptive, a bit like false advertising, although it’s not a criminal offense and no one dies as a result.
Now if you lefties had more than the collective intelligence of bag of wet hair, you’d already know this stuff. This is freshman material.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:51 am“I don’t need anything! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
That must be helpful when you don’t have anything.
I’m supporting Malkin in case you haven’t noticed and I’m waiting for you dopes to level some verifiable charges against her which I will gladly challenge you on. Thus far? ZERO! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
Supported her with what, you haven’t posted anything to support her. Prove there are charges against her, and that she isn’t guilty.
Have you been asleep? I’m challenging you on ANYTHING negative you say about her, ANYTHING, ANYTHING! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
Prove I said anything negative about her, and prove she isn’t guilty.
I’ve responded to 100 posts tonight and I don’t keep track of who I am responding to but one thing has been consistent, Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
So your defense is that you can’t read, you don’t know, and I’m supposed to do your work for you? Where did I attack her?
I’m the only one defending Malkin and not one of you have been able to present ANY evidence to support the negative things being said about her. Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
You’re defending her? Where, you haven’t defended anything.
I’ve challengenge EVERYTHING! Again, I love Malkin’s politics! It’s not my fault that after 250 posts you losers still have not been able to come up with ONE fact to support that she doesn’t support the Bill of Rights! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:39 am
You haven’t challenged or defended anything – where have you done either? It’s not my fault that you’re bad at your job, and that you’re such a loser you don’t know what you’re defending, and can’t post a single fact to support her.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 2:46 am”
WE COULD PUT THIS ALL TO REST IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE IN FRONT OF ALL YOUR LIBERAL BUDDIES? JUST YOU AND ME! OK?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:51 amReading this thread just further confirms that lefties are not working with an abundance of IQ points. But you sure make up for in malice and racism.
I’ll explain, because you’re stupid:
If the read the pertinent literature in political theory, you’ll learn that there’s a distinction between positive and negative liberty. The later idea means freedom from interference from the government, and is embodied in the actual Bill of Rights. E.g. freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc. The former idea means a right to have specific goods provided to you by your neighbors, under the coercive direction of the government, e.g., the “right” to health care, housing, etc.
Now, advocates of positive liberty, otherwise known as Free Stuff, typically like to borrow the historical glory of the Bill of Rights, a charter of negative liberty, in order to lobby for, e.g. a statutory “Health Bills of Rights,” a statutory “Housing Bill of Rights,” etc. So it’s a bit deceptive, a bit like false advertising, although it’s not a criminal offense and no one dies as a result.
Now if you lefties had more than the collective intelligence of bag of wet hair, you’d already know this stuff. This is freshman material.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:53 amNow if you lefties had more than the collective intelligence of bag of wet hair, you’d already know this stuff. This is freshman material.
Comment by Brian — February 17, 2007 @ 2:51 am
Yet you show no command of the topic, irony, or just typical conservative bags of hair? ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:55 amDebunked about what? Please share it with us if you can?
Comment by michael
The Jamil Hussein story. Y’know, she went to Iraq to prove he wasn’t real — until he was found.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:56 am“Until then I’ll continue to make fun of how you shame yourself in front of your fellow conservatives that come to watch you priss and whine.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 2:48 am”
I take that as a way to get out of embarrassing yourself? I think you just lost a lot of respect with your fellow lefties. Anyone else care to pinch hit for this coward?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:56 amim kinda skeptical of any book that makes the authors name bigger than its title. seriously
February 17th, 2007 at 2:56 amLora! You can provide an example of that drivel?
No, I just know more than your typical no(SIC) nothing liberal!
It’s not my fault that after 250 posts you losers still have not been able to come up with ONE fact to support that she doesn’t support the Bill of Rights!
Idiocy by michael
Michael can’t spell nor can he read English very well, being a know-nothing Neo-con.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:57 amThe topic of this thread concerns the following quote from Michelle Malkin, which michael still can’t understand despite it being repeated in several posts here:
“I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.†(Michelle Malkin–have to write this twice for michael)
Sorry, michael, but you are too stupid to bother further with. Please come back when you learn how to spell and read English at least at a secondary school level–meaning beyond elementary school.
WE COULD PUT THIS ALL TO REST IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE IN FRONT OF ALL YOUR LIBERAL BUDDIES? JUST YOU AND ME! OK? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:51 am
Prove to me you can’t debate first, you haven’t shown any proof that you can. Show me where you’ve posted a single debate point, or post one, and I’ll respond to it.
You won’t start a debate, and you won’t debate anyone else when they post. So why do you lie about wanting to debate, when your posts all avoid it?
Prove you can debate michael, show me where you’ve done this before.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:57 amNow if you lefties had more than the collective intelligence of bag of wet hair, you’d already know this stuff. This is freshman material.
Comment by Brian — February 17, 2007 @ 2:53 am
It wasn’t stupid enough the first time you posted this, that you had to post it again? You must be planning to repeat freshman year, junior ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:59 amIf the (sic) read the pertinent literature in political theory, …
leeze take your think-tank swill to the nearest toilet, and do us all a favor. “Negative liberty” is a term only an idiot would swallow – and I see that you have.
Pathetic, really the quality of trolls lately . . .
February 17th, 2007 at 3:00 amI take that as a way to get out of embarrassing yourself? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:56 am
Prove that accusation.
I think you just lost a lot of respect with your fellow lefties. Anyone else care to pinch hit for this coward? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:56 am
Is that how you handle being a coward, by avoiding debate and putting it on others? I would call for a conservative to step in and replace your incompetence, but we both know you are all incompetent.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:00 amAnyone else care to pinch hit for this coward?
Comment by michael
I’ve already punked you once. Wanna try again?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:02 ammichael is such a sill little schmuck, what a buffoon. He won’t debate, and is too much of a coward to have someone do his debating for him.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:02 ambut we both know you are all incompetent.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
And lazy.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:03 am“You haven’t challenged or defended anything – where have you done either? It’s not my fault that you’re bad at your job, and that you’re such a loser you don’t know what you’re defending, and can’t post a single fact to support her.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 2:46 amâ€
You don’t dissapoint me! Because you support the original article but WON’T answer any of my challenges it’s impossible to defend anything! This thread is critical of Malkin and the lefties who posted made some outrageous comments which I have pointed out and challenged whithout a single response. I challenge those stupid comments and it’s up to you lunatics to BACK THEM UP and you haven’t! You and me, 1 on 1????????
February 17th, 2007 at 3:03 amCome on michael, put up or shut up, start to debate. Oh wait, you can’t debate, you’re still hiding under your desk from your Vietnam service at the pentagon ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 3:04 am“#
michael is such a sill little schmuck, what a buffoon. He won’t debate, and is too much of a coward to have someone do his debating for him.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 3:02 am”
YOU AND ME, 1 ON 1? Do you have the NERVE?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:05 amI’ve already punked you once. Wanna try again?
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:02 am
Ah, poor michael can’t offer proof, or debate, so it’s really funny when he pretends he wants to and has the capacity to! Poor little desk hugger!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:05 amYou don’t dissapoint me! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:03 am
Unlike you, who disappoints everyone.
Because you support the original article but WON’T answer any of my challenges it’s impossible to defend anything! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:03 am
Prove that, you can’t, so you can’t defend your lies, and instead just repeat them. Typical conservative.
This thread is critical of Malkin and the lefties who posted made some outrageous comments which I have pointed out and challenged whithout a single response. Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:03 am
I challenged you to prove that you did this, without a single response from you proving that you did.
I challenge those stupid comments and it’s up to you lunatics to BACK THEM UP and you haven’t! You and me, 1 on 1????????
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:03 am
I challenged those stupid comments from you and it’s up to you, you lunatic to back up your comments, and you haven’t. If you want 1 on 1, you have to start debating, but you won’t.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:08 am“#
Come on michael, put up or shut up, start to debate. Oh wait, you can’t debate, you’re still hiding under your desk from your Vietnam service at the pentagon ;)
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 3:04 am”
Thanks for accepting! Let’s start with why you think Michelle Malkin doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights? Answer the question then ask me a question.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:08 amYOU AND ME, 1 ON 1? Do you have the NERVE?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:05 am
I’m waiting, but you’re a chicken desk hugger. You can’t debate, but I do enjoy you pretending you want to, or could!
I’m waiting, start debating. You can’t, you haven’t and you won’t because you’re a coward draft dodger.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:09 amCome on michael, where did I comment on malkin, and I’m still waiting for you to prove malkin is innocent. You can’t do it, you haven’t done it, you just avoid the facts, because you can’t disprove them.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:10 amDebunked about what? Please share it with us if you can?
Comment by michael
The Jamil Hussein story. Y’know, she went to Iraq to prove he wasn’t real — until he was found.
Gee Mike, didn’t notice that I posted this?
She was debunked about her claims regarding Hussein.
Comments?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:10 am“I’m waiting, start debating. You can’t, you haven’t and you won’t because you’re a coward draft dodger.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 3:09 am”
Read 266 fool! I’m waiting?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:11 amThanks for accepting! Let’s start with why you think Michelle Malkin doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:08 am
Prove that I think this, and prove that she is or isn’t.
Answer the question then ask me a question.
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:08 am
Answer the question yourself, prove that you and malkin respect the Bill of Rights.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:11 amI’m waiting Vince, prove that Malkin respects the bill of rights.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:13 amThanks for accepting! Let’s start with why you think Michelle Malkin doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights? Comment by michael
Strawman.
Point to Val.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:14 amStrawman.
Point to Val.
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:14 am
Of course it’s a strawman, that’s why it’s so funny to ‘debate’ michael. He’s just a stupid schmuck, that thinks he’s being ‘funny’ and ’smart’ by being a ’schmuck’. What’s even funnier is that he thinks others don’t see his childish games. Any parent knows this sort of behavior, and usually parents correct the behavior out of their children before they attend primary school. It’s pretty obvious michael has SSHit parents from his childish behavior. Maybe he’s a bush, it would explain the crap parenting.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:17 amI’m waiting Vince, prove that Malkin respects the bill of rights.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
If you cannot prove it, it’s another point to Val, Mike.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:18 amI accept your defeat michael, conservatives aren’t suited to debate so when you can answer my question sufficiently we can continue.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:19 am“Answer the question yourself, prove that you and malkin respect the Bill of Rights.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 3:11 am”
You just proved my point! You have NO idea how to debate intelligently. I challenged you and you didn’t live up to it! I was hoping this would happen because it is 12:30! But I was prepared to stay up all night to embarrass you! I didn’t think it would happen with the first jab! I’m better than I thought! You better go back to school to learn that you don’t answer a challenge with a question. AMATEUR! This was pretty easy!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:19 am“Of course it’s a strawman, that’s why it’s so funny to ‘debate’ michael. He’s just a stupid schmuck, that thinks he’s being ‘funny’ and ’smart’ by being a ’schmuck’. What’s even funnier is that he thinks others don’t see his childish games. Any parent knows this sort of behavior, and usually parents correct the behavior out of their children before they attend primary school. It’s pretty obvious michael has SSHit parents from his childish behavior. Maybe he’s a bush, it would explain the crap parenting.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 3:17 am”
YOU AND ME? 1 ON 1!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:22 amThis was pretty easy!
Comment by michael —
Um, you’ve lost once Mike, and soon it will be twice if you cannot back up your other assertion – y’know, that debate stuff you were talking about?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:23 amYOU AND ME? 1 ON 1!
Comment by michael
Dumbshit doesn’t even know it’s started already!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:24 amYou just proved my point! You have NO idea how to debate intelligently. Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:19 am
You just proved my point! You have NO idea how to debate intelligently.
I challenged you and you didn’t live up to it! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:19 am
I challenged you back and you didn’t live up to it!
I was hoping this would happen because it is 12:30! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:19 am
That explains why you disappointed me, because you’re sleepy and lazy, as well as incapable.
But I was prepared to stay up all night to embarrass you! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:19 am
Yet you disappointed me because you can’t debate.
I didn’t think it would happen with the first jab! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:19 am
I did, because you can’t debate, you failed to answer my question.
I’m better than I thought! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:19 am
At failing to debate.
You better go back to school to learn that you don’t answer a challenge with a question. AMATEUR! This was pretty easy!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:19 am
You better go back to school to learn that you didn’t debate, you asked a question. DOH!!!
What a little loser you are michael. When you hit puberty, maybe you won’t be such a stupid little pussy.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:24 am“and soon it will be twice if you cannot back up your other assertion – y’know, that debate stuff you were talking about?
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:23 am”
Point it out?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:24 amYOU AND ME? 1 ON 1!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:22 am
That’s what were doing until you conceded defeat, and refused to debate. Loser pussy boy.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:25 amPoint it out?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:24 am
Point out where you debated, pussy boy. You lost, prove you didn’t.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:25 amI challenged you and you didn’t live up to it!
No, you made an assertion, and Val challenged that. Do you even know the rules of debate?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:26 amDumbshit doesn’t even know it’s started already!
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:24 am
AH, he’s just another typical pussy boy. That’s why he spent his time under a desk, when he could fight in the real military. He’s just a loser pussy.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:26 amYou better go back to school to learn that you don’t answer a challenge with a question. AMATEUR! This was pretty easy!
Comment by michael
Take your own advice, michael. Probably nobody here has posed more questions, instead of giving answers, than you. Also, as I have already pointed out, you need to go back to school to learn some spelling and basic English comprehension. Still don’t understand the meaning of“In general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.†(Michelle Malkin), do you?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:26 am“Um, you’ve lost once Mike, and soon it will be twice if you cannot back up your other assertion – y’know, that debate stuff you were talking about?
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:23 am”
I lost? Care to point out where? I’d be willing to take on you 1 on 1 also, if you have the nerve!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:27 amNo, you made an assertion, and Val challenged that. Do you even know the rules of debate? Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:26 am
That would imply he wants to debate, or to know anything. There’s no proof of either.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:28 amTake your own advice, michael. Probably nobody here has posed more questions, instead of giving answers, than you. Comment by Lora — February 17, 2007 @ 3:26 am
What’s funny is that michael is using a common troll tactic, that makes him as common, base and useless as sewage.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:29 am“Also, as I have already pointed out, you need to go back to school to learn some spelling and basic English comprehension. Still don’t understand the meaning of“In general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.†(Michelle Malkin), do you?”
So explain to us your criticism of Malkin? Be specific?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:29 amPoint it out?
Comment by michael
See what I mean, Val? Lazy.
You attempted to present a strawman argument, and Val challenged it. You could not prove the assertion you made — which is a point to Val.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:29 amHe(michael)’s just a loser pussy.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Could you find a better term than “pussy,” Val? Please don’t insult my cats by comparing them to michael.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:30 amMalkin has a point. Ever hear the phrase “Tax Payers Bill of Rights?”
February 17th, 2007 at 3:30 am“AH, he’s just another typical pussy boy. That’s why he spent his time under a desk, when he could fight in the real military. He’s just a loser pussy.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 3:26 am”
Waiting for our 1 on 1 debate that everyone can witness! When?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:31 amSo explain to us your criticism of Malkin? Be specific?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:29 am
Prove I’ve criticized Malkin, and prove that she’s innocent, be specific.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:31 amHe’s just a loser pussy.
There are women present Val, who might not like the comparison. I prefer to think of him as a Weiner — er, Savage.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:32 am#
Point it out?
Comment by michael
See what I mean, Val? Lazy.
You attempted to present a strawman argument, and Val challenged it. You could not prove the assertion you made — which is a point to Val.
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:29 am”
Talk about LAZY! When are you going to point it out?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:32 amWaiting for our 1 on 1 debate that everyone can witness! When?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:31 am
Waiting to start? Or waiting until you have the courage to admit you lost the last one.
I’m waiting to michael, but after your defeat last time, why must you subject everyone to continual humiliation at my hands? Wasn’t your loss to me last time enough?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:33 am“Prove I’ve criticized Malkin, and prove that she’s innocent, be specific.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 3:31 am”
This post is critical of Malkin! You and me 1 on 1?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:33 amSo explain to us your criticism of Malkin? Be specific?
Comment by michael
Learn to read English, michael. I haven’t even been criticizing Malkin; I only offered a pithy quote from her, which you still fail to understand. And, by the way, you were not asking questions, so question marks aren’t required. You were giving orders, and I don’t care to take orders from someone so lacking in basic education.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:34 amCould you find a better term than “pussy,†Val? Please don’t insult my cats by comparing them to michael. Comment by Lora — February 17, 2007 @ 3:30 am
Herding michael to a ‘point’, is much like herding those cats – I’m sure ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 3:34 amWe’re all still waiting michael, for you to actually defend malkin. Prove she’s innocent, or continue to concede defeat as you have for the previous 300 posts.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:35 amThis post is critical of Malkin! You and me 1 on 1?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:33 am
Then defend her, you haven’t done that, which proves you find her guilty. Before someone can debate you, you have to start, but you refuse to do that because you lose every time.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:36 amWe are almost at # 300 and not one of you have presented an example of where Malkin has suggested trampling on the Bill of Rights!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:36 amVal,
February 17th, 2007 at 3:37 amMy cats, unlike michael, are intelligent creatures who learn quickly and don’t have to be told the same thing over and over.
I’d be willing to take on you 1 on 1 also, if you have the nerve!
Comment by michael — February 17
Now, he’s sounding like the drunk at the end of the bar (and I’ve had a lot of experience with those).
Next, he’ll pass out in a grand display of drunken clumsiness . . .
February 17th, 2007 at 3:38 amTalk about LAZY! When are you going to point it out?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:32 am
You are LAZY! When are you going to point out where malkin is innocent? Post some facts for a change, instead of just whining like you usually do – girlfriend.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:38 amWe are almost at # 300 and not one of you have presented an example of where Malkin has suggested trampling on the Bill of Rights!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:36 am
We are almost at #300 and you haven’t once presented an example of where Malkin supports the Bill Of Rights. Come on michael, why so incompetent?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:39 amVal, My cats, unlike michael, are intelligent creatures who learn quickly and don’t have to be told the same thing over and over.
Comment by Lora — February 17, 2007 @ 3:37 am
I’m sure they are, but whiny little prissypants like michael hate that term (or in the case of Vince P maybe not). It was more for his benefit than any sentiment on my part, if you know what I mean ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 3:40 am“I’m waiting to michael, but after your defeat last time, why must you subject everyone to continual humiliation at my hands? Wasn’t your loss to me last time enough?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 3:33 am”
You’re not waiting, you’re avoiding. I asked you to point out where Malkin is trying to trample on the Bill Of Rights which is what this post is all about? I’m waiting?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:40 amNow, he’s sounding like the drunk at the end of the bar (and I’ve had a lot of experience with those).
Next, he’ll pass out in a grand display of drunken clumsiness . . .
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:38 am
I think michael seems more like the hillbilly heroine type. It’s why he can’t answer any of my questions, and why he can’t prove malkin is a loyal american.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:41 am“Now, he’s sounding like the drunk at the end of the bar (and I’ve had a lot of experience with those).
Next, he’ll pass out in a grand display of drunken clumsiness . . .
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:38 am” A response I’d expect from a drunk, a insecure drunk! 1 on 1?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:42 am“It’s why he can’t answer any of my questions”
What questions? 1 on 1?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:43 amTalk about LAZY! When are you going to point it out?
Comment by michael
Do you know what a strawman argument is?
Here’s an example:
Let’s start with why you think Michelle Malkin doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights? Comment by michael
You asserted that Val had said “Michelle Malkin doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights” which he never said. You are attempting to build a fake Val – a strawman that doesn’t exist in reality — by attributing to him things he never said. And that is why Val gets the point for challenging this straw assertion, which, being purely fiction, cannot be proved.
Get it now?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:45 amA response I’d expect from a drunk, a insecure drunk! 1 on 1?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:42 am
Self reflection from michael, now we’re getting somewhere!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:45 amWhat questions? 1 on 1?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:43 am
Any of them, must I do all of your work for you lazy conservatives? You can’t answer my questions, because you don’t have the answers.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:46 am1 on 1?
Comment by michael
I already posted my assertion, care to debate it?
Do you agree that Malkin is a fraud, as evidenced by her Jamil Hussein idiocy?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:48 amAnd that is why Val gets the point for challenging this straw assertion, which, being purely fiction, cannot be proved.
Get it now?
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:45 am
That’s like asking Britney to wear underwear, poor little cowardly michael doesn’t have the capacity to grasp hygiene or debate ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 3:49 amSo, to review, Val is up by 2, as Mike had all the time in the world to reply to Val’s assertion (about proving Malkin respects the Bill of Rights), and chose pettifogging instead. Gee, Mike, are you sure you know how to debate?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:53 amI already posted my assertion, care to debate it?
Do you agree that Malkin is a fraud, as evidenced by her Jamil Hussein idiocy?
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:48 am
He and Vince P just went off to bed together. Either it’s the same loopy freak, or his boyfriend. Wow, can you imagine what a freakish household that must be, especially if they both live in the same skull?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:53 amWell, it’s time to turn in! 314 posts, and not 1 of them was able to support malkins disdain for the Bill of Rights! Congratulation! I have challenged a few of you to 1 on 1’s only to be avoided with CUTE comments. You’re afraid! and I understand. You can’t backup anything you say which is obvious for anyone who can read your posts! You’re amateurs! I will be back tomorrow on other threads and will continue my endeavor to discredit your childish rhetoric. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy being amongst illiterates! It’s a challenge! But let’s make one thing VERY clear, if you don’t produce facts to back up your ridiculous nonsense, how can anyone take you seriously? I hope this massage NEVER sinks in.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:56 amcan you imagine what a freakish household that must be, especially if they both live in the same skull?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Rachel, have we got a guy for you!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:57 amDo you agree that Malkin is a fraud, as evidenced by her Jamil Hussein idiocy?
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:48 am”
No I don’t!
February 17th, 2007 at 3:58 am“He and Vince P just went off to bed together. Either it’s the same loopy freak, or his boyfriend. Wow, can you imagine what a freakish household that must be, especially if they both live in the same skull?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 17, 2007 @ 3:53 am”
This is serious debate? You should be ashamed of this, but I understand if you’re not; you’re liberals!
February 17th, 2007 at 4:00 amWell, it’s time to turn in! 314 posts, and not 1 of them was able to support malkins disdain for the Bill of Rights! Congratulation! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:56 am
Well its your turn, 315 posts, and not 1 of them was able to support malkins support for the Bill of Rights!
I have challenged a few of you to 1 on 1’s only to be avoided with CUTE comments. You’re afraid! and I understand. Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:56 am
You were challenged to a debate, for you to support malkin, but you avoided it with strawman and lies. You’re afraid! and I understand that you can’t defend a guilty person without your tactics.
You can’t backup anything you say which is obvious for anyone who can read your posts! You’re amateurs! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:56 am
You can’t backup anything you say which is obvious for anyone who can read your posts! You’re an amateur!
I will be back tomorrow on other threads and will continue my endeavor to discredit your childish rhetoric. Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:56 am
We all know you’ll just come back to post more childish rhetoric, since you can’t discredit anything with facts.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy being amongst illiterates! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:56 am
Which is why most of your posts are really about yourself and your lack of literate and/or debate skills!
It’s a challenge! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:56 am
Of course it is, you aren’t competent.
But let’s make one thing VERY clear, if you don’t produce facts to back up your ridiculous nonsense, how can anyone take you seriously? Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:56 am
But let’s make one thing VERY clear michael, if you don’t produce facts to back up your ridiculous nonsense, how can anyone take you seriously? Because they don’t!
I hope this massage NEVER sinks in. Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:56 am
You think you can give a ‘massage’ through the ‘tubes’? There’s your problem old timer! You’re nucking futz! ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 4:04 amNo I don’t!
Comment by michael
Why not? If it had been the AP who’d been wrong, you’d be blaming the liberal media for making stuff up — but when Malkin does it it’s OK?
Hypocrisy much?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:04 amNo I don’t! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:58 am
But you refuse to prove it. Failure.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:04 amThis is serious debate? You should be ashamed of this, but I understand if you’re not; you’re liberals! Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 4:00 am
I would be ashamed of your serious lack of debate, but I know you can’t debate, so that’s why only your mother has the shame that is you. If she hadn’t been a crack addict when she was pregnant with you, maybe you would be able to seriously debate ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 4:06 amAnd it’s spelled “message.â€
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 4:01 am
Not the way he and Vince P do it! ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 4:07 amMichael: posterchild example of the horrors of home schooling.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:08 amI enjoy being amongst illiterates。
comment by michael
That’s because you yourself are illiterate, as proven by your spelling, which is worst than that of many elementary school students!
February 17th, 2007 at 4:11 amnot 1 of them was able to support malkins (sic) disdain for the Bill of Rights!
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 3:56 am
Well, I think the title “In defense of internment” is rather self-explanatory.
And it’s “Malkin’s”
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy being amongst illiterates!
Says the man who posted “Just get excepted (sic) into the 4th grade?”, and “No, I just know more than your typical no nothing (sic) liberal!”, and (just a few lines after accusing everyone of being illiterate) “I hope this massage (sic) NEVER sinks in.”
Keep typing, michael, show us your superior education ::chuckle::
February 17th, 2007 at 4:12 amG’night Val.
I’ve got a busy day of Exley bashing planned, with a little bit of forced crow-eating, for his airheaded comments yesterday.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:13 amAnd it’s spelled “message.â€
Comment by Barfly
When living in Japan, I once got a chuckle out of a notepad that had the word “massage” written on it. But whoever was responsible for that had was Japanese and had the excuse that English isn’t his/her native language. So where does that leave michael, whom any talented third grader in an American elementary school could beat at spelling?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:16 amG’night Lora; and I see Gregor is up early. You now have the ‘con, steady as she goes . . .
February 17th, 2007 at 4:19 amThis Michael fellow sure is having fun getting everybody all tied up in knots. He’s sitting in his parents’ basement laughing at every one of you for getting so exasperated with him.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:49 amAnd every time one of you responds to his silliness, he wins.
Don’t you get it?
‘If you believe in the United States you stay in and you keep doing it and you accept the risk.’â€
Uh? Duh? Hello?
Since when did the military become the nations “welfare youth camp”?
There have always been risks in the military and anyone who signs up knows this BEFORE they enlist. Again I ask, since when did you Liberals make the military the nations “post leave the nest babysitter”?
Welcome to the new world people. Us Conservatives want OUR MONEYS WORTH out of these “troops” we have deployed in Iraq.
No more sitting around with a thumb up their ass getting paid and getting fat while us Conservatives have to foot the bill. These boys need to get their asses in gear. No more patty cake here. Lets see some results for a change.
We are doing the American taxpayers a great service by DEMANDING the American troops STEP UP TP THE PLATE and give us a better performance.
Hopefully Duckworth is a fighter and not a silly “Liberal Progressive Useless Eater” getting fat stateside.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:14 am‘If you believe in the United States you stay in and you keep doing it and you accept the risk.’â€
Uh? Duh? Hello?
Since when did the military become the nations “welfare youth camp”?
There have always been risks in the military and anyone who signs up knows this BEFORE they enlist. Again I ask, since when did you Liberals make the military the nations “post leave the nest babysitter”?
Welcome to the new world people. Us Conservatives want OUR MONEYS WORTH out of these “troops” we have deployed in Iraq.
No more sitting around with a thumb up their ass getting paid and getting fat while us Conservatives have to foot the bill. These boys need to get their asses in gear. No more patty cake here. Lets see some results for a change.
We are doing the American taxpayers a great service by DEMANDING the American troops STEP UP TP THE PLATE and give us a better performance.
Hopefully Duckworth is a fighter and not a silly “Liberal Progressive Useless Eater” getting fat stateside.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:23 amwow. you people are really stupid.
“tacked on” is clearly a qualifier, her meaning is clear. she is saying that those who hijack the phrase “bill of rights” to push what is clearly a trivial agenda by using sympathy engendered by that phrase, shouldn’t be trusted. it is a rhetorical parlor trick to prevent criticism:
“you can’t be against my proposal! if you are you are against people’s “RIGHTS!!!”
it cheapens the real bill of rights and only serves to get rubes’ support.
you idiots are the rubes.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:51 amSgt. Stryker,
February 17th, 2007 at 7:05 amIn addition to posting the exact same remark twice here (#338 and 339), you also submitted it to the Duckworth thread where it actually belongs. Tammy Duckworth already served in Iraq and lost both legs there. Is that your idea of getting ‘OUR MONEYS WORTH out of these “troops†we have deployed in Iraq?’
Her husband is named Bowlsbey; he is not Mr. Duckworth. Can’t you give a person who is possibly about to risk his life or at least some limbs the respect of addressing him by his proper name?
You obviously have some sexist problems, as seen from your treatment of Ms. Bowlsbey and in writing “These boys need to get their asses in gear. ” While calling Mr. Bowlsbey by his wife’s name, you don’t even acknowledge that American women are also stationed and dying or getting seriously injured in Iraq.
BTW, why aren’t you there, Sargie?
THANK YOU for correctly labeling Malkin as “right-wing” rather than “conservative.” There is nothing conservative about these people, either from the traditional political perspective (think Goldwater), or in the dictionary’s definition of the word.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:37 amThese people can call themselves members of the Divine Benevolent Movement, but that doesn’t make it so.
# 340
What if we all got what she meant almost instantaneously and still think she is and what she said was stupid? It cracks me up that there is always some person from the right saying we just don’t get the brilliance of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or other right wing nut case.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:48 am> We are doing the American taxpayers a great service by DEMANDING the
> American troops STEP UP TP THE PLATE and give us a better performance.
> Comment by Sgt Stryker USMC
Dear Sergeant,
Your remarks do not make any sense at all in base reality. Please state what you mean
by “better performance”. With numbers (e.g. SandNgrs offed by day etc.)
As you may be aware of, the military is not an “everybody does his best” outfit.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:50 amThe headline for this post is misleading. Malkin said, “I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights TACKED ON TO IT.”
Lying by omission, to make someone look evil, when they’re not, is disgraceful!
February 17th, 2007 at 9:55 amShame on you!
Malkin is correct.
We already have a Bill of Rights and the government doesn’t heed that one.
Rights are unalienable–inherent to the condition of being human. As such, they are not subject to being reduced to mere grants of privileges from political office holders–which can be modified or revoked. This whole concept trivializes what rights are.
Now if the proponents want to make this into a list of passenger demands–with an “or else” boycott, that’s something I could sign up for–but you and I both know you’d never get enough support from the marketplace to effect real change–people are just too apathetic and lazy to make real commitments–which is why legislating your demands when people really don’t want them bad enough to inconvenience themselves is a bad idea–unless you believe the problems in our society are caused by people taking too much responsibility for their own decisions and giving government too little power to regulate…
Me, I don’t want some Congressman telling me what my rights are. As an American, it’s my job to tell him.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:51 amMalkin appears to be “skeptical” of The Constitution of the United States of America. And well she should be. I don’t think the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, accords very well with her values.
However, as a Fire Breathing Liberal, I am ALSO skeptical of the use of this term in this (and other) contexts.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:55 amI’ve blogged an alternative proposal here:
The neo-fascists have no shame. They do what they do for pure sensationalism and could care less what you think of them. They stomp thier feet, pout and say all sorts of things to get you to pay attention. If you really want to hurt them where it counts, just laugh, turn your back and busy yourself with something else. Thier egos can’t stand it. They self-implode with self-righteous indignance.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:57 amOOOPS…
The link I provided above turned into something else… not sure why.
So here it is in RAW form. (or just click on the my name, I suppose):
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=358
February 17th, 2007 at 11:00 amoh come on, she’s making a reference to all the stupid regulations that get passed under the guise of bill of rights. I’m as hardcore liberal as they get and even have a physical nails-on-the-chalkboard reaction when i hear bush speak, but i’m with malkin on this one. Airline passengers bill of rights? Give me a freaking break. I fly for business all the time – you’re gonna get stuck on the runway for a few hours once in a while. Jet Blue knows they screwed up and will lose customers if they do it again. Federal regulation under the guise of “bill of rights” here has EVERY reason to make any rational person skeptical. Boxer should get off her soapbox and get back to the real problem at hand – namely the way this administration has so thoroughly botched foriegn policy. I would remind everybody here that boxer’s bahavior here is the very reason we lost all three branches of government for six years – this “every time any minor thing happens to somebody we need to race out and protect them with regulation” BS.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:07 am# 346
Sure, demand your rights on a commercial flight and you’ll end up on the terrorist list. As for myself, I don’t want to be packed in a stinking sardine can for ten hours, sitting on the runway because the airline is too cheap to deplane.
The funny thing about what Malkin said is that she supports and is an enabler of the Unitary Executive that leaves skid marks on the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and human rights in general. So we all know, full well, that she puts profits first, party second and the rest, she doesn’t bother her pea brain with.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:08 amThe Anchor Baby needs to be deported and sent back to Manilla on a Flotilla!!!!
February 17th, 2007 at 11:11 amThe Anchor Baby needs to be deported and sent back to Manilla on a Flotilla!!!!
Good one. Are you sure she’s from Manilla? So looks so vanilla. I guess that’s just her outer plastic-coating.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:41 amThe first thing that always crosses my mind whenever I see Malkin or read her comments is that the woman is just completely insane. There are lots of sane, reasonable, conservative commentators who can make legitimate arguments, but Malkin is just a raving lunatic who sees her debate partner as being in league with terrorists. That’s why she clings to the latest bogus right-wing smear story with such passion, even when she is clearly proven wrong, like with the Jamil Hussein fiasco, the picture of Kerry where troops supposedly did not want to sit with him, or recently, things like Democrats’ strategy on Iraq being “slow-bleed” (which was made up by a right-wing journalist, and not spoken by a single Democrat).
It’s not just what she says. Look at her eyes in her pictures. You can see the nuttiness/lunacy. Look at her body language, like how she flails her head around. The woman is insane and seething with anger.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:31 pmSgt. Stryker – lot of tough talk there Bud. Hope you realize that “you conservatives’ day in the sun is OVER – really OVER.
check back in 30-40 years, when everyone’s forgotten how completely “you conservatives” cocked up every last thing you got your hateful hands on.
i’m not sure you’d be impressed with “your money’s worth” out of the types they’re recruiting now, anyway…sounds pretty grim when they’re signing up criminals and special ed students. maybe YOU should go back and help them out.
Malkin is a rabid little bitch of a traitor for anything that will make her money.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:55 pmMaking superficial sense 2% of the time doesn’t earn her a pass to anywhere – she’s bound for the dustbin along with BO hannity coulter and the rest of that obsolete bunch.
Just follow the company line. Just like mAnn Coulter, Hannity et. al. Pay them no mind, that only gives them more power.
Who watches FauxNews anyway? The majority of Americans are on to the neocon job that has been going on for the last six years. Just keep your eyes on the prize:
IMPEACH
INDICT
IMPRISON the whole lot of them!!
February 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm““I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.â€
Comment by Lora — February 17, 2007 @ 2:57 am”
Ok Lora, just what do you think Malkin meant by her statement?
February 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pmMM couldn’t hold Maureen Dowd’s tampon.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:06 pmOk Lora, just what do you think Malkin meant by her statement?
Comment by michael
Isn’t it obvious? She doesn’t consider her words before speaking, and says whatever pops into that dank reservior of banality she calls a brain.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI predict that Michelle Malkin will be the guest of honor…
…AND main course at a pig roast…
…for the Conservative Citizens Council…
February 17th, 2007 at 2:23 pmOk Lora, just what do you think Malkin meant by her statement?
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Asking others to do your homework for you again michael? Just because you can’t post any defense for Malkin’s behavior? That’s why you refuse to debate anyone, isn’t it skippy? You don’t know anything ;)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pmwish we could put her ass in an internment camp.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm“Just because you can’t post any defense for Malkin’s behavior?”
What about her behavior? Tell us and I’ll defend her. Can you?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pmOk Lora, just what do you think Malkin meant by her statement?
Comment by michael —
michael,
February 17th, 2007 at 3:31 pmMalkin’s words are very clear. Unfortunately, in addition to being poor at spelling basic English, you obviously don’t read very well either. I’m too busy to explain things to a dunce who asks the same questions over and over.
Man, you folks have a serious case of Malkin Derangement Syndrome.
Have you ever considered getting a life? Why are you racist liberals so afraid of an intelligent woman?
February 17th, 2007 at 3:39 pmHave you ever considered getting a life? Why are you racist liberals so afraid of an intelligent woman?
Comment by JammieWearingFool
Where?
Oh, you were talking about Malkin? She has never had a serious thought in her life – unless you count the ones put their by her wingnut husband, Jesse. Michelle’s a third-rate intellect, at best.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pmThere’s a lot of evidence here to back up Malkin’s “dumb as rocks” assessment.
You oughtta take a cue from more reasonable folks on your side of the political aisle:
February 17th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Lots of racists comments on this thread.
When it comes to intelligence of party members, I like to look at the 2004 election demographics. The income level at which folks were most likely to vote for Democrats was under $33,000. Above that, most folks voted for Republicans.
So we have to assume that most Democrats make under $33K, while most Republicans make over $33K. For example, Bush beat Kerry soundly in the $50K-75K income bracket. Wasn’t even close. Above $75K, Bush’s margin of victory was even more dramatic. Kerry trounced Bush in the under $30K demographic, while the $30K-50K demographic was a tie.
In order to believe that Democrats are smarter than Republcans, one would have to believe that the smart folks make under $50K, while the less intelligent folks make over $50K.
Ludicrous.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:56 pmPoor jealous little zeros. Nothing to do but attack a woman because of her views. Maybe some day you could form an educated opinion of your own. I guess until then, you’ll just keep residing in your sewers, filled with rage, anger and hatred. I pity you.
You really should all see treatment for your MDS.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:57 pm“I’m too busy to explain things to a dunce who asks the same questions over and over.
Comment by Lora — February 17, 2007 @ 3:31 pm”
The comment by Malkin in question is:
“I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.â€
20 words and lora is too busy to explain Malkin’s meaning? Come on Lora? All eyes are looking at you! It’s really not that difficult, so it shouldn’t take you very long. What did Maulkin mean by her statement?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:03 pmIn order to believe that Democrats are smarter than Republcans, one would have to believe that the smart folks make under $50K, while the less intelligent folks make over $50K.
Ludicrous.
Comment by The Learning Curve
Typical Repug logic to associate income with intelligence. But, of course, when it is pointed out that the vast majority of professors at the leading American universities vote Democratic, then the Repugs complain about the liberals on campuses.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm“Have you ever considered getting a life? Why are you racist liberals so afraid of an intelligent woman?
Comment by JammieWearingFool — February 17, 2007 @ 3:39 pm”
I can answer that. Because they can’t debate her. They misconstrue what she says and when challenged, they invent all kinds of excuses to avoid giving a coherent answer. Look at Lora. When I ask her to interpret Malkin’s comment, she’s too busy!
February 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pm“Michelle’s a third-rate intellect, at best.
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 3:47 pm”
Can you provide an example to back that up?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:10 pmSo we have to assume that most Democrats make under $33K, while most Republicans make over $33K.
Why? To make your strawman stand on his own?
In order to believe that Democrats are smarter than Republcans, one would have to believe that the smart folks make under $50K, while the less intelligent folks make over $50K.
Ludicrous.
Comment by The Learning Curve
Ludicrous is right. Try doing it with facts if you want to be believed.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:11 pmAll eyes are looking at you! It’s really not that difficult, so it shouldn’t take you very long. What did Maulkin(SIC) mean by her statement?
Comment by michael
All eyes? Or just yours? Read it yourself, michael! Or can’t you read English?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:12 pmYou really should all see treatment for your MDS.
Comment by JammieWearingFool
Making up fake illnesses is par for the republicans course. It’s how they justify not enlisting.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:13 pmCan you provide an example to back that up?
Comment by michael
Her Jamil Hussein fantasy for one.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pmNothing to do but attack a woman because of her views.
comment by Jammiethefool
And you trolls aren’t attacking the liberal/progressive posters for their views, eh?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pm“All eyes? Or just yours? Read it yourself, michael! Or can’t you read English?
Comment by Lora — February 17, 2007 @ 4:12 pm”
Here it is again Lora:
“I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.â€
2o words and you can’t tell us what she meant? I thought you were too busy? Come on Lora? This can’t be too difficult! Can one of you lefties help Lora interpret Maulkin’s comment?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:16 pmNothing says “third rate intellect” like continuing to hold to a fantasy after it has been thoroughly debunked.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:17 pmLook at Lora. When I ask her to interpret Malkin’s comment, she’s too busy!
Comment by michael —
There’s nothing to interpret, michael. Malkin’s phrase “I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it†couldn’t be clearer, though you are obviously too dense to get it.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm2o words and you can’t tell us what she meant?
She meant that she doesn’t put much stock in the concept of a “bill of rights” – geeze, Mike, you’re thick today.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:19 pmComeback, Mike?
You asked for an example, and I provided one.
Next?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pmHer Jamil Hussein fantasy for one.
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
You mean this?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006637.htm
February 17th, 2007 at 4:25 pm“There’s nothing to interpret, michael. Malkin’s phrase “I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it†couldn’t be clearer, though you are obviously too dense to get it.
Comment by Lora — February 17, 2007 @ 4:18 pm”
20 words prompting 382 posts Lora. What do you think she meant by it? It’s really not that difficult of a question. Can’t you answer?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pm“She meant that she doesn’t put much stock in the concept of a “bill of rights†– geeze, Mike, you’re thick today.
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 4:19 pm”
She meant that? “I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.†Are you forgetting the last 4 words when you interpreted her statement? Would you like to try again?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:30 pmYou mean this?
Yes. She tried to prove that it was the AP who were lying, until they proved her wrong. At that point she was forced to admit the truth. But her credibility was shot, none-the-less.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pmAre you forgetting the last 4 words when you interpreted her statement? Would you like to try again?
Comment by michael — February
Nope.
I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.â€
“In general” means in every instance that she can envision. This would include the Constitution.
You must have a crush on her, to be defending her lame quotations like this (stupidly, and arrogantly, that is).
February 17th, 2007 at 4:36 pmSo “think” is just a name for a blog, not something you morons actually engage in. A more appropriate name would be “knee-jerk stupidity stone walling real progress.” Better yet, “simpering sycophants.” Even better, “turds that won’t flush.”
February 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pmTrolling for morons
Very apt moniker. You are trolling, and you’re a moron.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pmBetter yet, “simpering sycophants.â€
Talk is cheap, and conservative talk is intellect-free.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:42 pm20 words prompting 382 posts Lora. What do you think she meant by it? It’s really not that difficult of a question. Can’t you answer?
Comment by michael —
Barfly, among others, has already tried to explain the meaning of Malkin’s very clear statement; but you’re still too dense to get it. Why don’t you tell us what you don’t understand about it, michael?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:42 pmBarfly. No doubt an apt moniker. You really need to freshen up your weak material.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pmWow!!! . .
Such hatred sprewed on here. Nothing like free speech, eh? Free speech and the liberal message don’t jibe.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pm““In general†means in every instance that she can envision. This would include the Constitution.
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 4:36 pm”
Really? You really think she was referring to the Constitution? She was referring to the dopey Airline Passengers Bill of Rights that some jerks are trying to enact, not the Constitution! We already have a Bill of Rights! We don’t need another set of rights guaranteeing that passengers don’t sit on a runway for 10 hours! But leave it up to you dishonest lunatics to try and twist her words. Lora, does barfly speak for you?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pmBarfly. No doubt an apt moniker. You really need to freshen up your weak material.
Comment by Fool
I would expect no less from a JammieWearingfool like you. Do you wear the kind with the feet? How precious.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:50 pmWow!!! . .
Such hatred sprewed on here. Nothing like free speech, eh? Free speech and the liberal message don’t jibe.
Comment by Bryan Ruberson
Why?
Poor little troll, maybe you should go to Youtube; there, your precious sensibilities won’t be offended, little one.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pmShe was referring to the dopey Airline Passengers Bill of Rights that some jerks are trying to enact, not the Constitution!
I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.â€
Poor little confused troll. What is it about about “anything” don’t you understand?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:55 pmWe already have a Bill of Rights!
And she said she was against it, by saying “anything.”
You’re just digging the hole you’re in deeper. Maybe you should cut your losses now, before we really embarass you.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:57 pmThis is becoming old, and as the weather in San Diego is too good to stay indoors, I will leave the troll bashing to others.
Adios.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:01 pmSuch hatred sprewed(SIC) on here. Nothing like free speech, eh? Free speech and the liberal message don’t jibe.
Comment by Bryan Rube
And you’re not spewing or “sprewing” hatred here, eh? The mere fact that your post even appears here proves that “free speech and liberal message do jibe.” If a liberal/progressive tried to post the equivalent on a neo-con blog (that is, the ones that even accept comments), he/she would be banned.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pmHave a good day, Barfly. It’s raining cats and dogs where I am; but I think cleaning the bathroom today will be a better use of my time than dealing further with the silly trolls.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:19 pm#33 – Nobody can name half rights included in the Bill of Rights? That’s a beautiful thing.
See, in America, a person only has to know not to violate the law. They have to know not to do illegal things. They DO NOT have to carry around a list of the things they’re allowed to do. They’re allowed to do ANYTHING that isn’t directly itemized as illegal.
Also, I take issue with your assessment of people’s awareness of the Bill of Rights. Just about everybody could tell you about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion.
Just about every Republican and every redneck (oops…redudant terms…my bad) can tell you all about the right to bear arms.
Anybody who’s ever watched Law and Order reruns can tell you all about freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. They can also tell you all about the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront their accusers.
You project your own ignorance, sir (madam?), on the group.
But the bottom line remains…American’s don’t have to know, in detail, what their rights because there are too many of them to remember.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI love how she thinks that she is being so “wacky.”
February 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pmGood god I want to gouge my eyes out when I see her on television.
god, she’s awful.
but i’d still totally tap that.
(what? “tap that” went out of style in 84? i don’t care. pure evil gets me totally hot.)
February 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm“I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.â€
Poor little confused troll. What is it about about “anything†don’t you understand?
Comment by Barfly — February 17, 2007 @ 4:55 pm”
The topic for the segment was a conversation about the plane that sat on the runway for 10 hours and some loons who were trying to enact the dopey Airline Passengers Bill of Rights! The Constitution was never mentioned. To suggest that she was referring to the Constitution in her comments is both dishonest and stupid!
February 17th, 2007 at 5:53 pmThere is only one Bill of Rights ratifed circa 1791.
Any attempt to use the phrase ‘bill of rights’ on this or that piece of current legislation demeans and cheapens it’s real meaning.
That what Malkin meant and you know it.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pmWe already have a Bill of Rights! . . .
Comment by michael — February 17, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Actually, no, we don’t. Hitler Chimp did away with that in the Military Commisions Act of 2006 as well as habeas corpus, you know, things that are the foundation of our country. Wake up trolls, can’t you see these fascists don’t care about you, but only use you?! Rubes.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pmComment by The Learning Curve #367
Maybe you should post…
…where you got your statistics #1
…and #2
…who gives a sh*t…
…Bushites ARE ALL stupid…
…and they’re definitely greedy, racist and TREASONOUS…
…regardless of income…
…the more they make could prove…
…that they’re simply MORE dishonest…
…that’s given your statistics are accurate…
…which I doubt they are…
February 17th, 2007 at 6:09 pmWhat a bunch of morons you all are. And you complain about the Right taking quotes out of context? You guys are masters of it, evidently.
Do you not understand what she was saying? She meant that the phrase “Bill of Rights” is being done to death, in the service of too many pet causes. It was pretty obvious.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pmI believe this “Malcontent” is merely putting on a show. America is the land of quick celebrity and she is milking it while she’s reasonably young and somewhat attractive. Thanks to the Bill of Rights she’s entitled to say what she wants no matter how off mark or idiotic. Good for her.
Five years from now – with a Democrat in the White House and control of Congress firmly in the Democratic Party’s hands, no one will remember her or her moronic views.
Let’s just hope the doorknob hits her where the good lord split her when she walks out that door.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:02 pm#370
“when it is pointed out that the vast majority of professors at the leading American universities vote Democratic”
People who work in the business world, and academia isn’t, know that profs don’t have much creditablity with teaching students how to work in the real world, therefore inferring that they are TRUELY smart is a joke.
BTW I have never seen so much server space wasted as with this thread and you all up all night too. Very entertaining to say the least!
February 17th, 2007 at 7:19 pm“Good god I want to gouge my eyes out when I see her on television.
Comment by Fortyver — February 17, 2007 @ 5:39 pm”
Why?
February 17th, 2007 at 7:33 pm“Actually, no, we don’t. Hitler Chimp did away with that in the Military Commisions Act of 2006
Comment by Enlightened1 — February 17, 2007 @ 6:02 pm”
He did! What rights have you lost because I haven’t lost any of mine!
February 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pm“…Bushites ARE ALL stupid…
Comment by big papa — February 17, 2007 @ 6:09 pm”
And you can explain that dumb statement?
February 17th, 2007 at 7:38 pm“It was pretty obvious.
Comment by Sloan — February 17, 2007 @ 6:17 pm”
Thank you Sloan. They know that also it’s just there are so many dumb jerks on this blog, Lora being a perfect example, who will believe anything they are told as long as it’s negative about the opposition.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:41 pm“Thanks to the Bill of Rights she’s entitled to say what she wants no matter how off mark or idiotic.
Comment by John — February 17, 2007 @ 7:02 pm”
What did she say that’s idiotic? This:
“I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.â€
February 17th, 2007 at 7:44 pmThis is a sad thread.
1. The woman is indeed an idiot.
2. Her underlying point is valid, that politicians tack on “bill of rights” to something as a slogan to give it validity, watering down the powerful significance of the real Bill of Rights.
3. In the sense of being Madison Avenue Sloganeering, it is no different than the mindnumbing sloganeering done by Rove and Company.
4. The snotty comments about Filipinos on this thread are shameful. What kind of hypocrites are running TP that they censor the use of the harmless word “cracker”, yet allow a string of blatantly racist and xenophobic commentary?
Come on, people, we’re supposed to do better than the opposition.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:45 pmComment by michael #414
The world held hostage by…
…Bush’s America…
…(and your posts)…
…are all the proof I need…
February 17th, 2007 at 7:47 pmYou people are beyond deranged. Liberals are the greatest threat to liberty this country has ever seen. So nice to see you Dummocrats uniting behind treason just as you came together to support slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hypocrites and idiots.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pmLets see how many of you ignorant extremist liberals would support a Heterosexual Bill of Rights or White Man Bill of Rights. Or Unborn Baby Bill of Rights. Taking Malkin out of context is unfair and ignorant.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:10 pmUNBORN BABY BILL of RIGHTS
Caucasian Bill of Rights
Heterosexual Bill of Rights
February 17th, 2007 at 8:11 pmyou all are a bunch of hypocrites!
she said nothing against the constitution or the Bill of Rights, she said she is skeptical of anything (new) that tacks on the words bill of rights.
why? because it is typical lame tactic to make some hair-brain idea seem to have merit.
Unfortunately you liberals are blinded so badly by you’re hatred that you will skew anything said by a conservative to fit your agenda.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:17 pm9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by the US government under the direction of Bush and Cheney:
February 17th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
“9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by the US government under the direction of Bush and Cheney:
Comment by Joe — February 17, 2007 @ 8:34 pm”
Not the subject of this thread!
February 17th, 2007 at 8:42 pmMalkin sure brings out the whackjobs.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:44 pmPeople who work in the business world, and academia isn’t, know that profs don’t have much creditablity(SIC) with teaching students how to work in the real world, therefore inferring that they are TRUELY(SIC) smart is a joke.
BTW I have never seen so much server space wasted as with this thread and you all up all night too. Very entertaining to say the least!
Comment by Tracy —
I agree that some academics can not function in the real world, but I also know professors who have been invited to take up teaching posts after proving their credentials in the field (and I mean various types of fields here). Also, I, unlike you, recognize that there are different types of intelligence and do not necessarily think that a person who can read several languages or is good at math formulas is less intelligent than a person who has made lots of money in the business world.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:45 pmAs usual, you don’t have much credibility with your poor spelling. And, BTW, there are various time zones in the world; so I was not up all night in my current location. Glad to entertain you, anyway.
They know that also it’s just there are so many dumb jerks on this blog, Lora being a perfect example, who will believe anything they are told as long as it’s negative about the opposition.
Comment by michael
You, michael, are a perfect example of a dumb jerk who thinks he is so smart while misspelling third-grade level words and having very poor reading comprehension. BTW, I don’t believe everything I’m told about anything. I have seen, read and heard what neo-cons like M. Malice, Ann-thrax (”not a big fan of the First Amendment”) Coulter and Newt (”we ought to reconsider freedom of speech) Gingrich have said and base my opinions about them on that, in great contrast to your knee-jerk support of anything that comes out of Repug mouths.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:54 pm#426
“Also, I, unlike you, recognize that there are different types of intelligence and do not necessarily think that a person who can read several languages or is good at math formulas is less intelligent than a person who has made lots of money in the business world.”
But you do seem to think that just because profs vote Democratic that make them “smart”. BTW, again you don’t have much credibility by offering profs at universities as examples of “smart” people.
“And, BTW, there are various time zones in the world; so I was not up all night in my current location.”
And just what is your current location considering you posted at 12:45 a.m. and 3:37 a.m. EST?
February 17th, 2007 at 9:01 pmAnd just what is your current location considering you posted at 12:45 a.m. and 3:37 a.m. EST?
Comment by Tracy —
Where I currently am is none of your business. Let’s just say that it is not in the EST time zone.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:26 pmWhere I currently am is none of your business. Let’s just say that it is not in the EST time zone.
Comment by Lora
Heh.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:43 pmI know where Lora resides. Even the street address. Would you like a phone number too Tracy?
I will post it for you if you like.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:51 pmSame with any poster here. I can give you all the information you desire.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:52 pm#429
I am in the CST and live in the Dallas area. Why are you so scared to give out the time zone in which you live?
February 17th, 2007 at 10:01 pmnsa surveillance expert
February 17th, 2007 at 10:02 pmDo you the names of my husband and pets, too?
I am in the CST and live in the Dallas area. Why are you so scared to give out the time zone in which you live?
Comment by Tracy
I’m not scared; I simply don’t regard it as any of your business.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:03 pm#431
She isn’t worth it and if she lived right next door it still wouldn’t waste my time.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:03 pmShe isn’t worth it and if she lived right next door it still wouldn’t waste my time.
Comment by Tracy
Which is why you keep on asking, eh?
February 17th, 2007 at 10:07 pm#435
Well considering you are trying to convince me that you weren’t up all night and into the early morning hours and you won’t divulge something as general as a time zone I don’t believe for a second the you wern’t up for a very long time following this bizarre thread.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:08 pm#437
The poster made is sound like I would actually come to your address or call you to start a confrontation. Again I wouldn’t waste my time.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:11 pmIf I were in the West Coast or Hawaii, 3-something AM EST would not be an unreasonably late time to be up. But believe what you want; it doesn’t really matter to me.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:12 pmSo, goodbye for now. Hubby and I are going out for a while.
The poster made is sound like I would actually come to your address or call you to start a confrontation. Again I wouldn’t waste my time.
Comment by Tracy
Well, you certainly are wasting your time asking me repeatedly a question that is basically none of your business and a matter you could actually surmise about if you thought about all the time zones beyond EST and CST.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:18 pmAnyway, hubby is waiting. Adios, au revoir, ã•ã‚ˆã†ãªã‚‰ã€‚
“â€not a big fan of the First Amendmentâ€
Lora, glad to see you came out of your hibernation! Why do you say Michelle and Ann are not big fans of the First Amendment? Just slinging mud? Or can you back it up?
February 17th, 2007 at 10:41 pmMeow, pfffft! Pfffft!
I love a good cat fight.
Grow up “ladies”, or do you just tuck it in to appear more fem?
February 17th, 2007 at 10:42 pm#440
Great it always good to get away from those who you won’t condemn for calling people “pussies” and in fact going right along with it and further insulting the recipient by reinforcing it….
“Could you find a better term than “pussy,†Val? Please don’t insult my cats by comparing them to michael.”
I thought you don’t like it when other call people name in this blog? Or is that just what you wanted me to believe?
February 17th, 2007 at 10:44 pm#442
Here you go, michael, a quote from Ann Coulter, which pretty much repeats what I already wrote and put in quotation marks in #427. (Don’t you even know that quotation marks usually indicate that the statement is a quote?)
“Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”
Ann Coulter, University of Florida speech; October 20, 2005.
#444
“Could you find a better term than “pussy,†Val? Please don’t insult my cats by comparing them to michael.â€
I thought you don’t like it when other call people name in this blog? Or is that just what you wanted me to believe?
Comment by Tracy
That’s exactly what I said, Tracy. I try to avoid calling people names here, unlike michael who uses insults quite liberally (a word I’m sure he hates).
February 17th, 2007 at 10:52 pmOur departure was delayed by a phone call for hubby. Now we are really going out, so don’t expect any answers from me for a while.
Tracy, stop talking tough. You have a girl’s name.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:54 pmLora, you are too easy! Most idiot liberals are! Let’s put the Coulter quote in context by providing everything else she said?
“To expiate the pain of losing her first-born son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush’s Crawford ranch. … After your third profile on ‘Entertainment Tonight,’ you’re no longer a grieving mom; you’re a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.
“[Liberals] are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. … Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”
That was a quick date with your hubby. He couldn’t stand your company?
February 18th, 2007 at 12:03 amWhy do you say Michelle and Ann are not big fans of the First Amendment? Just slinging mud? Or can you back it up?
Comment by michael
I’ve heard this from you all day, and yet when others call you out, you run away, or pettifog.
Coward. I have yet to see you back up anything you have asserted.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:03 amOr can you back it up?
Comment by michael
Isn’t the first amendment in the bill of rights? What a maroon!
February 18th, 2007 at 12:05 am“Here you go, michael, a quote from Ann Coulter”
Lora, now that you provided us with a PARTIAL quote from Coulter, how about a full quote from Malkin?
February 18th, 2007 at 12:05 am“I’ve heard this from you all day, and yet when others call you out, you run away, or pettifog.
Coward. I have yet to see you back up anything you have asserted.
Comment by Barfly — February 18, 2007 @ 12:03 am”
Bad timing bar! Better read #447!
February 18th, 2007 at 12:08 amBad timing bar! Better read #447!
Comment by michael
Well, it only took 447 posts for you to actually post a quote. Maybe next time, you can do it in the first hundred.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:16 am“Well, it only took 447 posts for you to actually post a quote. Maybe next time, you can do it in the first hundred.
Comment by Barfly — February 18, 2007 @ 12:16 am”
I’m not here to post quotes! I’m here to challenge idiotic liberal statements like Lora’s!
February 18th, 2007 at 12:28 amLora, you are too easy! Most idiot liberals are! Let’s put the Coulter quote in context by providing everything else she said?
“To expiate the pain of losing her first-born son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush’s Crawford ranch. … After your third profile on ‘Entertainment Tonight,’ you’re no longer a grieving mom; you’re a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.
So your “context” assertion is that because chicken-neck said the above, it somehow negates the “Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment” part?
Please explain.
She has previously talked of her disdain for the Bill of Rights, by asserting that liberals need to see what’s-his-name get executed, to discourage them from speaking out.
Or didn’t you know that?
February 18th, 2007 at 12:34 amMalkin is the Paris Hilton of politics.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:35 amStraight up whoredogbitchapulooza.
Malkin is the Paris Hilton of politics.
She’s a whoredogbitchapulooza.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:37 amI’m not here to post quotes! I’m here to challenge idiotic liberal statements like Lora’s!
Comment by michael —
By doing what? Your rhetorical skills are strictly Junior High, so posting quotes to rebut what we assert is the only way, but you seem to think just you saying “nanny-nanny boo boo” carries some sort of intellectual weight — it doesn’t.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:38 amC’mon Mike, what’s the matter? Coulter got yer tongue?
February 18th, 2007 at 12:45 amBravely bold Sir Michael rode forth from his basement.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Michael!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Michael!
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Michael!
Brave Sir Michael ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Michael turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Michael!
His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
He is packing it in and packing it up
February 18th, 2007 at 1:01 amAnd sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge…
” So your “context†assertion is that because chicken-neck said the above, it somehow negates the “Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment†part?
Please explain”
Yes! Knowing Coulter as I do she was being provocative! She’s a expert Constitutional lawyer. She is one of the lawyers that brought on Bill Clinton’s impeachment! Do you really think that she wants to deny first amendment rights? Of course you don’t! She uses her somewhat outrageous statements to embarrass you liberals and she does a HELL of a job!
February 18th, 2007 at 1:04 am“She has previously talked of her disdain for the Bill of Rights, by asserting that liberals need to see what’s-his-name get executed, to discourage them from speaking out.
Or didn’t you know that?
Comment by Barfly — February 18, 2007 @ 12:34 am”
Who is what’s his name? You need to lighten up and understand that Coulter is just playing with you and obviously, she’s VERY successful! Go Ann!
February 18th, 2007 at 1:08 am“By doing what? Your rhetorical skills are strictly Junior High, so posting quotes to rebut what we assert is the only way, but you seem to think just you saying “nanny-nanny boo boo†carries some sort of intellectual weight — it doesn’t.
Comment by Barfly — February 18, 2007 @ 12:38 am”
Junior high? Bar, I have been picking on Lora most of today and she conveniently slips into hibernation and dinner with her hubby to avoid discussing things intelligently and I have missed responding to your liberal accusations about Malkin and now Coulter! Where do you want to begin? I’m all yours! You’ve got my full attention for a full half hour! Let’s go? You and me? 1 on 1?
February 18th, 2007 at 1:15 amKnowing Coulter as I do she was being provocative! She’s a expert Constitutional lawyer. She is one of the lawyers that brought on Bill Clinton’s impeachment! Do you really think that she wants to deny first amendment rights?
Yes. She’s shown how little she cares for jurisprudence and its tenets by claiming Clinton was a rapist, with no proof. How can you defend this slimy cretin? Being provocative isn’t a defense against unethical behavior, and the whole Clinton affair was a slimy, unethical morass; an unbridled cabal of government insiders and think-tank provacateurs, with one goal in life: unseating Clinton at all costs.
Whitewater was a wash, if you will remember, and the special prosecutor colluded with civil suit attorneys in constructing a perjury trap. The whole sordid chapter highlighted how little cabals of millionaire-financed fanatics could misuse the legal system for their own corrupt ends. Of course Coulter would ignore anything but winning – and if you think differently, you’ve got a rude awakening coming, pal.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:22 amYou and me? 1 on 1?
Comment by michael
And now the grade-school stuff appears. Next, you’ll be shooting spit-wads, and trying to trip the “special” students in the hall . . .
February 18th, 2007 at 1:25 amWho is what’s his name?
Lindh, the American from Berkley, Ca, who was captured and sentenced — you remember?
February 18th, 2007 at 1:34 am“the whole Clinton affair was a slimy, unethical morass; an unbridled cabal of government insiders and think-tank provacateurs, with one goal in life: unseating Clinton at all costs.”
WOW! We actually agree on one thing? Bringing Clinton down, but he brought it on himself! Unethical morass? Hardly! Blame that on the rapist!
“Clinton was a rapist, with no proof”
Are you discounting Broderick’s charges because Clinton is a Democrat?
“Whitewater was a wash”
A wash? You haven’t seen anything yet. Do you realize haw many people are now researching exactly what happened with the Mc’Dougals and Clintons with Whitewater? Including myself and it’s going to be like the Swiftboaters only we will have to come up with another name but we will make sure everyone in this country understands the corruption the Clintons were involved in with Whitewater! Stay tuned!
February 18th, 2007 at 1:35 am“Whitewater was a wash:
A wash? People went to and died in jail for this! A wash?
February 18th, 2007 at 1:37 am“Lindh, the American from Berkley, Ca”
There are NO Americans in Berkeley!
February 18th, 2007 at 1:39 amOh, and Mike? Do you think Coulter should lose her lawyer’s license if she’s convicted in that Florida voting thing? She’s supposed to be ethical, and it sure looks like she acted unethically, by falsely claiming to be a resident where she legally wasn’t, don’t you think? Is the “provacative” defense applicable?
February 18th, 2007 at 1:39 amAre you discounting Broderick’s charges because Clinton is a Democrat?
Unproven charges? You bet. She’s been raking in the bucks off that scam for quite a while, eh? I’ll bet Scaife has some sort of endowment for her, as she carried his water most effectively.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:43 amThere are NO Americans in Berkeley!
Comment by michael
An example of you vaunted skills as a debator? I’m shakin.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:44 amA wash? People went to and died in jail for this! A wash?
Comment by michael
Ha, ha, ha …
Mike, a guy with a heart problem, and a wife with tax problems of her own will not make your case, no matter how hard you wish it too . . .
February 18th, 2007 at 1:46 am#470: There are NO Americans in Berkeley!
So, according to your logic, anyone who doesn’t agree with you politically is not an American? I’m sure glad you’re not the one who gets to decide who’s an American and who’s not. I’m content to let my legal status as an American citizen do the talking.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:46 ambut we will make sure everyone in this country understands the corruption the Clintons were involved in with Whitewater! Stay tuned!
Comment by michael
Mike, it’s not like he armed the same terrorists who held Americans hostage, and lied about it to the American people while it was happening. Whitewater was a decade-old land deal that went sour, nothing more. Try to orient yourself in this decade.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:50 am“#
Oh, and Mike? Do you think Coulter should lose her lawyer’s license if she’s convicted in that Florida voting thing?”
That’s been floating around for the last year and NOTHING has come of it, but you lefties just can’t let go in desperation! If anyone, including Coulter, votes in 2 states it’s against the law and they should be prosecuted so we should look into the 40,000 NY Snowbird Jews who are accused of voting for Democrats in NY & FL!
“it sure looks like she acted unethically”
Really? Can you provide anything to back that up except rhetoric?
February 18th, 2007 at 1:52 am“Ha, ha, ha …
Mike, a guy with a heart problem, and a wife with tax problems of her own will not make your case, no matter how hard you wish it too . . .
Comment by Barfly — February 18, 2007 @ 1:46 am”
Are you making light of the fact that the Mc’Dougals and the Governor
February 18th, 2007 at 1:55 amThat was a quick date with your hubby. He couldn’t stand your company?
Stupid question by michael
michael,
February 18th, 2007 at 1:57 amOver an hour passed before between my posting, “Our departure was delayed by a phone call for hubby. Now we are really going out, so don’t expect any answers from me for a while,” and your question above. Once again that you can’t read very well!
That’s been floating around for the last year and NOTHING has come of it, but you lefties just can’t let go in desperation!
The district attorney prosecuting the case is a republican, and I’m sure he would be amused at your characterization of his job.
Really? Can you provide anything to back that up except rhetoric?Comment by michael
G-O-O-G-L-E.
Man, you’re lazy.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:00 am“Whitewater was a decade-old land deal that went sour, nothing more. Try to orient yourself in this decade”
Whitewater was a deal between bankers and the Clintons and Mc’Dougals who had illegal financial investments in approving loans for the Clintons and it will come out and we will make sure the voters are made aware of her corruption!
February 18th, 2007 at 2:01 amAre you making light of the fact that the Mc’Dougals and the Governor
Comment by michael
Could you rephrase that in English? Wingnut is not a language I’m familiar with.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:01 am“michael,
Over an hour passed before between my posting, “Our departure was delayed by a phone call for hubby. Now we are really going out, so don’t expect any answers from me for a while,†and your question above. Once again that you can’t read very well!
Comment by Lora — February 18, 2007 @ 1:57 am”
Lora, I don’t expect any intelligent answers from you, EVER!
February 18th, 2007 at 2:03 am“The district attorney prosecuting the case is a republican, and I’m sure he would be amused at your characterization of his job”
I’m sure kerry was assured he had nothing to worry about when the Swiftboaters came on the scene! We will bury her! G’night!
February 18th, 2007 at 2:06 amWhitewater was a deal between bankers and the Clintons and Mc’Dougals who had illegal financial investments in approving loans for the Clintons and it will come out and we will make sure the voters are made aware of her corruption!
Comment by michael
I await with baited breath.
Not really.
I see that whole Reagan/traitor thing was too high-browed for you; how about: playing both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, and funding nun-killing contras with the proceeds? Is that basic enough?
Ah, nostalgia for the Clinton years; with the current state of republican affairs, i can see why you’d prefer to dwell in the past. This the ’00’s remember?
February 18th, 2007 at 2:09 amBoo hoo poor Billary, she/he will lose to Rudy!
absurd thought -
God of the Universe hates
firecracker journalists…
demonize minorities
February 18th, 2007 at 2:12 amwho don’t tow liberal line
.
I’m sure kerry was assured he had nothing to worry about when the Swiftboaters came on the scene! We will bury her! G’night!
Comment by michael
Bravely bold Sir Michael rode forth from his basement.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Michael!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Michael!
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Michael!
Brave Sir Michael ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Michael turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Michael!
His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge…
I loved Monty Python. They were truly non-pareil.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:14 amBoo hoo poor Billary, she/he will lose to Rudy!
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, …
Neither one will get the nomination, you twit!
February 18th, 2007 at 2:18 amThere are NO Americans in Berkeley!
I have been picking on Lora most of today and she conveniently slips into hibernation and dinner with her hubby to avoid discussing things intelligently
Comment by michael
So all the Nobel Prize-winning scientists teaching at UC Berkeley aren’t American in your eyes, eh? Not to mention my Philadelphia-born sister
February 18th, 2007 at 2:20 amand her husband originally from Chicago, who live and work in Berkely!
michael, you may not have a life outside of trolling here, but I do. You should also look up the definition of “hibernation” if you associate that with going out to dinner with one’s spouse.
Finally, michael, I didn’t quote Coulter in full (“[Liberals] are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. … Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.â€) to save space. But her suggestion concerning repressing the free speech of people to the left of her goes hand-in-hand with her final statement: “Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment”
Again you show poor reading comprehension. There’s nothing intelligent to debate with you because you can’t spell or understand clear English. Bye; it’s getting late.
So while you guys attempt to get it together about who knows what you tell me what you tell these people waiting for 11 hours on a plane while suffocating for air?
February 18th, 2007 at 2:49 amSo while you guys attempt to get it together about who knows what you tell me what you tell these people waiting for 11 hours on a plane while suffocating for air?
Comment by Virgil
Looking for thoughtful discourse at 2:49 am on a Sunday morning? You’re a little late for that.
We’re doing troll-swatting duties, if you haven’t noticed.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:54 amI’m sure kerry was assured he had nothing to worry about when the Swiftboaters came on the scene! We will bury her! G’night!
Comment by michael — February 18, 2007 @ 2:06 am
Zombies think they’ll bury everyone, prove you have the capacity to bury anything michael.
You thought you’d bury dems in 2006 as well, keep dreaming skippy.
You can’t debate, and you won’t post facts, so you lose again tonight michael/VinceP/Valiant Venus.
When you think Ann Coulter is ‘having fun’ and ‘messing with people’, and for ‘rights’, you remind everyone why extremism like yours and Coulter’s is a mental illness.
Keep it up wingnut, people like you make sure 2008 will blow out the Senate the way 2006 blew out the house. You do a service to liberalism, as does Coulter! Thanks skippy for your stupidity!
February 18th, 2007 at 4:05 amFolks: You complain about Malkin and the out of context “Bill of Rights” yet the left hates any part of the BOR that YOU don’t like, such as the 2nd Amendment. It’s either all of them or none of them, you can’t pick and choose. Abandon one to violation and you weaken them all. Part of where we are on rights is your fault. By constantly violating the 2nd you make the rest equally assailable.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:42 pmCome on people – practice ignoring the nutcases that come around to start pissing matches – this is probably the only place on Earth that most of those people get any attention at all, from anyone, so stop letting them be the stinky mangy dog that follows you home because you took pity and fed them something….
If they want some human interaction, let them put a cardboard sign on and hang around a streetcorner downtown – that’s where I hear their kind of talk the most – they’d probably be a lot happier there, anyway.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pmComment by Lora — February 18, 2007 @ 2:20 am
“Finally, michael, I didn’t quote Coulter in full to save space”
To save space? Sure Lora? You quoted her out of context to make a stupid political point. Save space? Or was it save face?
But her suggestion concerning repressing the free speech of people to the left of her goes hand-in-hand with her final statement: “Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendmentâ€
You obviously aren’t that familiar with Coulter. That’s how she slings her words. She doesn’t hold any political office and says what’s on her mind and sells a lot of books written along the same line. If you really think that she is trying to ban the First Amendment, you’re dumber than I thought!
“Again you show poor reading comprehension”
So? You show very poor political comprehension! I’ll bet you’re a teacher?
“There’s nothing intelligent to debate with you because you can’t spell or understand clear English. Bye; it’s getting late”
I’m not here to learn reading comprehension. You should stop deflecting from the topic because of my spelling. I’m here to challenge ridiculous liberal comments like yours. I’ll be looking for you!
Comment by Lora — February 18, 2007 @ 2:20 am
February 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pm“I see that whole Reagan/traitor thing was too high-browed for you; how about: playing both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, and funding nun-killing contras with the proceeds? Is that basic enough?
Ah, nostalgia for the Clinton years; with the current state of republican affairs, i can see why you’d prefer to dwell in the past. This the ’00’s remember?
Comment by Barfly — February 18, 2007 @ 2:09 am”
You bring up Reagan? I didn’t know Nancy was running for president? If she were then the Contras might be fair game. Hillary is running for President so every shady deal, including Whitewater, will be on the table BIG TIME!
February 18th, 2007 at 3:01 pmWell then Miss Malkin, you won’t mind this unwarranted strip search…
February 18th, 2007 at 3:04 pm“Zombies think they’ll bury everyone, prove you have the capacity to bury anything michael”
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the buried John Kerry!
“You thought you’d bury dems in 2006″
I never said that! I knew we were going to lose in 2006.
“You can’t debate, and you won’t post facts”
You really don’t have the capacity of remembering things I have said in the past. I come to this blog, not to debate, but to challenge stupid comments you liberals make. You know what? It’s a full time job!
“you remind everyone why extremism like yours and Coulter’s is a mental illness”
No, as Michael Savage says, “Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder”!
February 18th, 2007 at 3:09 pm“#
Come on people – practice ignoring the nutcases that come around to start pissing matches – this is probably the only place on Earth that most of those people get any attention at all, from anyone, so stop letting them be the stinky mangy dog that follows you home because you took pity and fed them something….
If they want some human interaction, let them put a cardboard sign on and hang around a streetcorner downtown – that’s where I hear their kind of talk the most – they’d probably be a lot happier there, anyway.
Comment by tom baker — February 18, 2007 @ 2:41 pm”
Hey Tom. What are you trying to say?
February 18th, 2007 at 3:50 pmI’m not here to learn reading comprehension. You should stop deflecting from the topic because of my spelling. I’m here to challenge ridiculous liberal comments like yours. I’ll be looking for you!
Comment by michael
If you can’t read well, you’re in no position to challenge other people’s ideas, because basically you don’t comprehend them. Don’t bother looking for me because I have no more time to deal with a guy whose reading comprehension and spelling are less than that of a bright third grader.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:38 pmã•ã‚ˆã†ãªã‚‰ã€é˜¿å‘†ï¼
“I have no more time to deal with a guy whose reading comprehension and spelling are less than that of a bright third grader.
ã•ã‚ˆã†ãªã‚‰ã€é˜¿å‘†ï¼
Comment by Lora — February 18, 2007 @ 4:38 pm”
I thought I had heard all the excuses to avoid a debate but Lora’s takes the cake!
February 18th, 2007 at 5:03 pmYou don’t debate, michael. You just throw out insults and ask the same questions over and over, because either you are too STUPID to understand them or else you are a paid troll who is here just to waste our time. And in either case you are a waste of time.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pmBTW, I am glad to take the cake. Since I don’t have a sweet tooth, I will either give it to the neighborhood children or to the homeless in a local park.ã•ã‚ˆã†ãªã‚‰ã€é˜¿å‘†ï¼
“You don’t debate, michael. You just throw out insults and ask the same questions over and over, because either you are too STUPID to understand them or else you are a paid troll who is here just to waste our time. And in either case you are a waste of time.
BTW, I am glad to take the cake. Since I don’t have a sweet tooth, I will either give it to the neighborhood children or to the homeless in a local park.ã•ã‚ˆã†ãªã‚‰ã€é˜¿å‘†ï¼
Comment by Lora — February 18, 2007 @ 5:16 pm”
And you just don’t get it. My main reason for visiting liberal blogs is to point out dopey comments by posters like you. If a debate results then fine. But as long as people like you continue to quote others out of context for political purposes, I will call them on it. And it figures that someone like you would even THINK about wasting that cake you earned on the homeless!
February 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pmAnd it figures that someone like you would even THINK about wasting that cake you earned on the homeless!
Comment by michael —
You’re too dopey to realize that Ann Coulter was not quoted out of context, which isn’t surprising given your less than third-grade level spelling and reading comprehension.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:37 pmFinally, I suppose you identify yourself as Christian but see no need to give charity to the poor. What a stupid hypocrite!
I will be going out–not what you think is “hibernating”– for a while in the next 20 minutes, so don’t expect any replies for a whilde. Unlike you, I have a life as well as a brain. You are probably the stupidest troll that has appeared here yet–too stupid even to realize that you don’t score any points with your misspellings and poor reading comprehension. There are conservatives such as Bill Buckley who at least write well, though I may not always agree with him. You, michael, are light years from that level.
ã•ã‚ˆã†ãªã‚‰ã€é˜¿å‘†ï¼
#445
But you sure like to hide behind other people and take your shots. LOL!
February 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pm#446
Tracy isn’t a girl’s name.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:59 pm#505
“Do you have anything to say about the original subject of the thread or are you going to continue pursuing what time I post, etc.?”
Considering TP is into propoganda and doesn’t bother posting more than 10 seconds without a shread of regard to presenting context, there isn’t much to say about what Malkin said. This why I said that this entire thread is the biggest waste of server space I have ever seen. Remember your first post in this thread had zero to do with the subject of the thread and was one of your trademake insults by using, other’s words.
“As for myself, I don’t hide behind others…”
You do all the time. It’s one of your trademarks here. Your FIRST post in this thread was one of them!….#69
“In the meantime, I will keep on encouraging posters not to insult ithe intelligence of certain animals,…”
Anyone here with half a brain know that wasn’t your intent. You aren’t fooling anyone.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:12 pmThis why I said that this entire thread is the biggest waste of server space I have ever seen. Remember your first post in this thread had zero to do with the subject of the thread
comment by Tracy
My first comment had everything to do with my view of Ms. Malice, but perhaps that was too subtle for you, who prefers to call other posters “bitch,” low level,” etc.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:24 pmBTW, if you feel this thread is such a waste of server space, why don’t you stop wasting further space on me? As I said, I’m not its subject, and, for lack of a better term, you are almost acting like a cyber stalker.
#506
“My first comment had everything to do with my view of Ms. Malice”
I had zero to do with what she said.
“BTW, if you feel this thread is such a waste of server space, why don’t you stop wasting further space on me?”
OK.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:26 am#95 Michael
I don’t think “prostitute” was intended as a name-calling type thing.
I think Marie was just pointing out that Malkin is selling something.
Malkin is selling her hatred of America and freedom and apparently a lot of people are buying.
I think, as is often the case, perhaps Malkin has a lot of self-hatred and has to turn that outward as a survival technique.
She seems to have a lot of bitterness for some reason.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:13 amThis VILE Fili-penis Michelle Malkin has consistently shown herself to have a diarrhea of obnoxious demagogic jingoism and a constipation of common sense and TRUE AMERICAN VALUES. She should be shipped off to Gitmo with the rest of Bushland Uber Allies, left to rot away and forgotten for the good of America. It is INHUMAN SCUM like Malkin that give moderate repugnant-repubs a BAD NAME, and that’s saying something! Whatever flows from her poison-pen or comes vomited out of her vile yap-trap maw is corrosive evil and must be blotted out and destroyed for the sake of sanity and The Bill of Rights, which is even now poised above her stinking rotten head like The Sword of Damocles to split her in two!!!!!
February 20th, 2007 at 7:16 pm[...] Camps today. Last Friday (Feb. 16, 2007), Malkin was filling in for The Lord of the Loofahs, when something most unfortunate happened. The guest was Kate Hanni, a consumer advocate pushing a “Passenger Bill of Rights” in [...]
February 25th, 2007 at 2:59 amYou know, it more than a little bit hypocritical for MalKKKin to complain about being taken out of context when she herself is perfectly willing to take “libruls” out of context when it suits the agenda that she’s pushing.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:57 am