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:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
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 thro