Comments on: Why the hell would The New Yorker want to write a profile of Michelle Malkin? http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:50:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Moonbats-R-Us http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin/comment-page-3#comment-62848 Moonbats-R-Us Thu, 01 May 2008 18:53:21 +0000 http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin#comment-62848 "Keep talking moonbat". Party - as you seem to be a particularly dense variety of wingnut, please note that folks - even your most frothing RW compatriots - stopped arguing in this thread a few days ago. It. Is. Finished. And you lost. Instead of performing comment section necromancy, why don't you have a go at the couple of more recent posts that discuss your girl. I'll meet you there if you like. Then you can show me how 'ignorant' I am. “Keep talking moonbat”.

Party – as you seem to be a particularly dense variety of wingnut, please note that folks – even your most frothing RW compatriots – stopped arguing in this thread a few days ago.

It. Is. Finished. And you lost.

Instead of performing comment section necromancy, why don’t you have a go at the couple of more recent posts that discuss your girl.

I’ll meet you there if you like.

Then you can show me how ‘ignorant’ I am.

]]> By: Party Girl http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin/comment-page-3#comment-62821 Party Girl Thu, 01 May 2008 16:40:48 +0000 http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin#comment-62821 It's no surprise Moonbat again speaks without checking out it's information. Just like it's refusal to truly understand the nofollow in a link, it doesn't bother looking at Cafe Press' everyday operations. Cafe Press is trigger happy and will pull anything and everything that it feels would bring anything/anyone down on them for allowing it and calls it all "copyright" concerns. Keep talking moonbat, you prove yourself more ignorant with each post. It’s no surprise Moonbat again speaks without checking out it’s information. Just like it’s refusal to truly understand the nofollow in a link, it doesn’t bother looking at Cafe Press’ everyday operations. Cafe Press is trigger happy and will pull anything and everything that it feels would bring anything/anyone down on them for allowing it and calls it all “copyright” concerns.

Keep talking moonbat, you prove yourself more ignorant with each post.

]]> By: D-Hoggs http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin/comment-page-3#comment-62188 D-Hoggs Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:48:40 +0000 http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin#comment-62188 What a frigging idiot you are moonbats. Malkin states that Cafe Press "CITED" copyright infringement. She in no way admits to it, which is why the shirts are being sold on another site, nor does it make it true just because they "CITED" it. What an idiot you are. If there was a copyright concern, they wouldn't be sold on the authenticgop site either jackass. Furthermore, if you really believe that the other sellers on cafepress have received some kind of permission for using similar artwork, you are more retarded than I ever imagined. What a frigging idiot you are moonbats. Malkin states that Cafe Press “CITED” copyright infringement. She in no way admits to it, which is why the shirts are being sold on another site, nor does it make it true just because they “CITED” it. What an idiot you are. If there was a copyright concern, they wouldn’t be sold on the authenticgop site either jackass. Furthermore, if you really believe that the other sellers on cafepress have received some kind of permission for using similar artwork, you are more retarded than I ever imagined.

]]> By: JW http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin/comment-page-3#comment-62171 JW Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:37:59 +0000 http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin#comment-62171 "Surprise said, April 25, 2008 @ 3:12 am..." I never claimed that she couldn't kick people off at will. In fact, I think I said that she can. What I was refuting was the claim that she just randomly kicks people off left and right every time they disagree with her positions. That's simply not true. As for the example you gave, it looks to me like see-dubya removed that commenter because of the racist sounding comment. And as far as I can see, Simon has said he has to get rid of inappropriate comments on this thread. It appears that you think it's wrong for Michelle to have a policy on that, but okay for others. And I would bet that it is because of your preconceived notions, which means that there is probably no point to me discussing it with you. “Surprise said,
April 25, 2008 @ 3:12 am…”

I never claimed that she couldn’t kick people off at will. In fact, I think I said that she can. What I was refuting was the claim that she just randomly kicks people off left and right every time they disagree with her positions. That’s simply not true.

As for the example you gave, it looks to me like see-dubya removed that commenter because of the racist sounding comment. And as far as I can see, Simon has said he has to get rid of inappropriate comments on this thread. It appears that you think it’s wrong for Michelle to have a policy on that, but okay for others. And I would bet that it is because of your preconceived notions, which means that there is probably no point to me discussing it with you.

]]> By: Frank Lobo http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin/comment-page-3#comment-61645 Frank Lobo Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:40:06 +0000 http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin#comment-61645 Miss (or is it Mrs.?) Mootbat said: "Blah, blah, blah- liberal talking point, liberal talking point, blah, blah. I have no real point, blah, blah, blah, I'll bring up Republican sex scandals, but don't you dare point out that Democrats have sexual predators in thier ranks from the President on down! More blah, blah, blah, I'm so smart and clever - all the other girls at KosKids and HuffPo tell me so! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Oh, yeah- one more thing- BOOOOOOH is eeeeeeeevil." Miss (or is it Mrs.?) Mootbat said:
“Blah, blah, blah- liberal talking point, liberal talking point, blah, blah.
I have no real point, blah, blah, blah, I’ll bring up Republican sex scandals, but don’t you dare point out that Democrats have sexual predators in thier ranks from the President on down!

More blah, blah, blah, I’m so smart and clever – all the other girls at KosKids and HuffPo tell me so! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, yeah- one more thing- BOOOOOOH is eeeeeeeevil.”

]]> By: Moonbats-R-Us http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin/comment-page-3#comment-61642 Moonbats-R-Us Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:30:15 +0000 http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin#comment-61642 Uh-uh Frank. Didn't mention anything about underage sex, which despite your somewhat perplexing efforts to shoe horn into the discussion, has nothing to do with anything. You're grappling, so let me make it clearer - I implied that you were sexually confused. After being told that I'm a bloke - a big bloke who is tougher than, and undoubtedly outweighs, your scrawny ass - you insist on calling me "Miss", "Lady" and "Mary". This would indicate a certain level of sexual identity confusion. Others who suffer from this 'confusion' are people like Craig, Foley and Haggard, who not only vehemently deny being gay, but actively, and ferociously, campaign against the gay. While trying to give other blokes blow jobs. That sort thing. Anyhoo, face it Frankie boy. You lost. You got spanked. And this incessant wriggling on the line just makes you look stupid. By extension, you're making Malkin look silly. While bleating about discourse and debate, you actually haven't made One. Single Point. So how I've managed to prove that point is beyond me. It's to the point where I'm actually starting to feel a little pity, so here's what I'm gonna do. Just for you Frankie boy. I'll bow out now and give you the very last word. Make sure it's a good one. Perhaps the Clown Car will come back and give you a hand. I won't post in this thread again, and you can boast to your ditto-head friends that you stomped a Good. Little. Liberal. The fact that you never really stood a chance will be our dirty little secret. As will all the weird sexy stuff. Go. Uh-uh Frank. Didn’t mention anything about underage sex, which despite your somewhat perplexing efforts to shoe horn into the discussion, has nothing to do with anything.

You’re grappling, so let me make it clearer – I implied that you were sexually confused. After being told that I’m a bloke – a big bloke who is tougher than, and undoubtedly outweighs, your scrawny ass – you insist on calling me “Miss”, “Lady” and “Mary”. This would indicate a certain level of sexual identity confusion.

Others who suffer from this ‘confusion’ are people like Craig, Foley and Haggard, who not only vehemently deny being gay, but actively, and ferociously, campaign against the gay. While trying to give other blokes blow jobs. That sort thing.

Anyhoo, face it Frankie boy. You lost. You got spanked. And this incessant wriggling on the line just makes you look stupid. By extension, you’re making Malkin look silly. While bleating about discourse and debate, you actually haven’t made One. Single Point. So how I’ve managed to prove that point is beyond me.

It’s to the point where I’m actually starting to feel a little pity, so here’s what I’m gonna do. Just for you Frankie boy. I’ll bow out now and give you the very last word. Make sure it’s a good one. Perhaps the Clown Car will come back and give you a hand. I won’t post in this thread again, and you can boast to your ditto-head friends that you stomped a Good. Little. Liberal. The fact that you never really stood a chance will be our dirty little secret. As will all the weird sexy stuff.

Go.

]]> By: Frank Lobo http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin/comment-page-3#comment-61640 Frank Lobo Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:01:57 +0000 http://bloggasm.com/why-the-hell-would-the-new-yorker-want-to-write-a-profile-of-michelle-malkin#comment-61640 Well, unlike Foley or Craig- its DEMOCRATS that actually HAVE SEX with underage persons (boys and girls), ie- Gary Studds, Mel Reynolds. But, I digress... I only wished to point out to the operator (and readers) of this site the silliness of his Malkin post. But, your own messages, Miss Moonbat - have done more to prove my point than any of the nonsense Simon has posted. You have chosen to demonstrate how dumb and intellectually vapid conservatives are... by BEING dumb and intellectually vapid. Good. Little. Liberal. People who live in glass nut-houses shouldn't throw stones. Well, unlike Foley or Craig- its DEMOCRATS that actually HAVE SEX with underage persons (boys and girls), ie- Gary Studds, Mel Reynolds.

But, I digress…

I only wished to point out to the operator (and readers) of this site the silliness of his Malkin post. But, your own messages, Miss Moonbat – have done more to prove my point than any of the nonsense Simon has posted.

You have chosen to demonstrate how dumb and intellectually vapid conservatives are… by BEING dumb and intellectually vapid. Good. Little. Liberal.

People who live in glass nut-houses shouldn’t throw stones.

]]>