Michelle Malkin Brings The Full-On Crazyface To New Book Tour
Tweet
Serial conservative liar Michelle Malkin is currently promoting her new anti-Democratic book allegeging a “culture of corruption” (sorry, you guys on the right did that far better than the left ever could). But what I want to note about Malkin after a considerable absence from the media (she used to be on Fox almost daily), is her wide-eyed zealotry. Literally. She’s an attractive woman, but the way her mind works is at such a level of perversion – even for a conservative – she literally gets so worked up that she becomes a wide eyed zealot. It’s super nutty.
(Fox’s Bill Sammon gets into this mode too, whereas folks like O’Reilly are such automatons they can hold the crazyeyes in.)
209 Responses to “Michelle Malkin Brings The Full-On Crazyface To New Book Tour”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I just like the under-blurb about the launch of the Arihant, “Destroyer of Enemies”–very apropos.
attractive? Umm, that is if you like your women to have the figure of a 12 year old boy, then maybe.
Crazy face. Wide-eyed.
No racist overtones there at all.
So… you’re making fun of an Asian’s… eyes?
I guess this is what solving racism looks like.
wide-eyed
Adjective
1. innocent or naive
2. surprised or frightened: wide-eyed astonishment
Adverb
in a frightened, surprised, or excited manner: they looked at me wide-eyed
You’re welcome
Love Michelle. She’s great.
Thanks, durablend, but:
overtone
noun
1. a secondary effect, quality, or meaning : suggestion, connotation
examples: Critic cites racial overtones in cartoonists’ drawings of Obama’s lips
Sharpton blasts Post cartoon linking stimulus bill to chimp for racial overtones.
I think you guys know what racial overtones are.
Why do you like her, Gabriel? Starbursts?
Okay durablend, so now that we’re only to consider the actual meaning of words and not the context in which they’re used, I can refer to a black person’s hair as “nappy”?
Xcept the stereotype for Asians is slant-eyed, beady-eyed, inscrutably hooded. So wide-eyed has nothing to do with racist stereotypes, it has to do with the fact that Michelle is a hysterical nutjob.
Like if one of you was to make fun of Obama’s ears (which people do all the time). Big ears are not a stereotype for people of African descent, so that kind of fun-poking has no necessary connection to racism.
SFC B,
You’d have a point if “slanted” was printed instead of wide. But unfortunately for you, that isn’t the case.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Slant-eyed, beady-eyed, inscrutably hooded.” By 1968 you can’t say “slant-eyed”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like ‘crazy face’, wide-eyed’, ‘super-nutty’ and all that stuff.
Dennis,
Please show me a context in which “wide eyed” was used as a racist stereotype of a person of Asian descent. I’m pretty sure you made that up, and unless you can show it to me, then we will know that you need to create racism where none exists.
Exactly, Repack. Just another right-wing false equivalence. Seriously, it’s all they’ve got.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Slant-eyed, beady-eyed, inscrutably hooded.” By 1968 you can’t say “slant-eyed”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like ‘crazy face’, wide-eyed’, ’super-nutty’ and all that stuff.
?????
Is this supposed to…
…make sense?
…somehow dilute the Republican Party’s mantra (since 1968)?
…be funny?
Repack Rider,
That quote from Dennis is an extrapolation of one of Nixon’s Southern Strategy speeches. Little Denny felt convenient to replace wide eye’d/slanted eye’d with the N-word. Dennis didn’t think we’d check. He’s not clever enough to not think that we wouldn’t check. But we checked.
Scroll down to evolution section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Michelle is Hot, your all wrong!
Dennis,
How could I never mistook you for being original?
Oliver Willis needs to get a life.
Dude, about that solving racism thing? Did you just hack on an asian person’s eyes?
Racist!
Oh yeah, her book is #1 on the best-seller list….already.
And hows that approval rating now? Down…down…..down…below 50%!
Haaaaaaaaaaha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
And it’s not a secret that liberals have often taunted Michelle Malkin with racial epithets. About once a week on her site she posts hate mail where this happens. In fact, there are some on there today on this exact subject.
It bothers liberals to see a minority woman not need their freebees and entitlements to succeed. The cognitive dissonance drives them batshit crazy.
Wilbur, if I hadn’t been accused of dog-whistle racism about a hundred times from people that ‘need to create racism where none exists’, quite the popular occurrence to be sure here, with not one single reality-based community citizen poster here having spoken out against that absurdity, then your charge of false equivalence might have some merit. Right now, it doesn’t. You’re trying to defend the indefensible. The overtones are there, they are real, and they are meant to demean.
love her. she’s overly-expressive – big deal.
Can’t refute the arguments, so attack the person. How tolerant and compassionate of you.
Dennis, if you’re going to claim that Oliver is being racist, at least get your racial stereotypes right. People of Asian descent have never been noted for having wide eyes, always “slanty” eyes. You can’t disagree with this unless you’re completely daft.
She is a beautiful woman and the writer of this article is really reaching at straws in insulting her looks.
The writer of this article implies that corruption for Obama is OK since the Republicans did it. And I thought Obama was going to dawn a new day in Washington. Well..so much for that. Add that to the ever growing trash heap of broken promises.
I think calling people you disagree with “crazy” is seriously stepping off on the wrong foot. You are playing fast and loose with clinical information, and implying that simply disagreeing with you indicates you may not be in your right mind.
Do you want to politicize mental illness? There was almost a dangerous attempt to cook up political trials for people in the Bush administration. Wanna change that into competency hearings?
Maybe you can imitate the Soviet psychiatry trials.
Michelle Malkin is not crazy; she probably isn’t neurotic. Liberals are just getting more adept at dehumanizing their opponents. That could turn around and bite you some day, forgetting about how totally despicable it is.
I love Michelle. She’s hot, shes smart, and shes a conservative. Can’t wait to read the book.
Further evidence that the left is the new home of racism in America.
Is this blog post supposed to be funny?
Who doesn’t make strange faces IN THE PROCESS OF talking on TV?
Maybe try to start acting a little more mature than a friggin 12 year-old.
Holy jumping fucking shitballs. Really guys? Really? You conservatives are calling racism right here? Reeeeeally? Really. After dozens of times of defending people who distributed pictures of Obama with a bone through his nose, and with Sotomayor in a caricature in a national newsmagazine, you pick this post to call Oliver out. Again… really?
Wow.
Where did Oliver call Malkin a slanty-eyed Twinkie? Nowhere? Oh. Ok.
Wide-eyed and crazy does not equal a racist statement. Oliver cites Bill Sammon as being crazy-eyed too, in this very post.
Jesus, you guys can be really, really stupid. This kind of thing makes me sick.
”
Why do you like her, Gabriel? Starbursts?
”
Conservative. Intelligent. And cute.
“Do you want to politicize mental illness?”
Three words: Bush Derangement Syndrome. Plus calling somebody “crazy” (like “You’re crazy) is pretty common outside the context of literally accusing someone of being mentally ill, get off your victim horse.
“Crazy” is not a clinical term.
(Now repressing a great many pointless comments that do include former clinical terms that have fallen into the vernacular.)
God damn, Chowder, I don’t know how I could’ve been more blatantly obvious. I’m somewhat glad you came out of the lurker closet, but sheesh, man, buy a clue. Nary a week goes by without some numbskull printing that quote from Atwater. They bring it out in these cases, when they want desperately to call a conservative poster a racist but they don’t have the goods; they just want to make it up. Or they’ll just say it was a dog-whistle.
I think calling people you disagree with “crazy” is seriously stepping off on the wrong foot.
Frank, would you apply that to what Gorgon said up above?
Wilbur, if I hadn’t been accused of dog-whistle racism about a hundred times from people that ‘need to create racism where none exizzzzzzzzzsts’,
Dennis,
a) What you’re saying is that you feel badly treated so you’ve decided to treat us badly? Isn’t that an example of the ‘inconsistency’ you’re constantly concern-trolling us about?
b) I can speak about every charge of racism levelled against you, but I think in most cases the charge, whether valid or not, is at least an allegation of something that’s actually racist. You on the other hand, are just making stuff up. Calling a person who happens to be Asian “wide eyed” is not harping on _anyone’s_ Asian stereotypes. If I said “Michelle Malkin has bad taste in clothes” would you try to tell me that is racist?
It’s not surprising that you think the concept of “racism” is so fungible — like most right-wingers you really don’t have a clue what racism really is.
Gabriel: “Conservative. Intelligent. And cute.”
If she wasn’t batshit crazy I would think she’s cute too. And there’s no doubt that she’s intelligent – but intelligence isn’t necessarily a positive quality. It depends on what the intelligent person does with their brain. Malkin is a perfect example of the pathetic misuse of intelligence.
My 2 cents, posts like this hurt you more than her. You are above personal attacks.
Hey lil Denny, looks like I tapped a nerve eh?
For someone who has chided another poster for being “obsessed” with the Southern Strategy (see CS Strawbridge), I find it ironic that you ran straight to the SS to make a point. Just an unusual but interesting observation I had to point out. LOL!
Okay now you can carry on.
“If she wasn’t batshit crazy I would think she’s cute too. And there’s no doubt that she’s intelligent – but intelligence isn’t necessarily a positive quality. It depends on what the intelligent person does with their brain. Malkin is a perfect example of the pathetic misuse of intelligence.”
Ah yes. She doesn’t agree with you therefore she is crazy. Rational thinking!
I think she’s cute even when she’s wide-eyed, but yes, seriously bonkers. (Whoa! I’m objectifying women! Stop me before I become a Republican!!)
BTW, Frank ‘bonkers’ is a clinical term recognized by the APA since 2001. Its symptoms include advocating the internment of your fellow citizens, stalking children and cheerleading corrupt and incompetent authoritarian administrations.
I think calling people you disagree with “crazy” is seriously stepping off on the wrong foot.
I love how ridiculously broad the sentiment in the above sentence is, without any kinds of qualifiers or exceptions. By his “logic,” you shouldn’t call ANYBODY “crazy.” Nonsense.
“Conservative. Intelligent. And cute.”
Writing a book DEFENDING the interment of the Japanese Americans during WWII is neither conservative nor intelligent nor cute.
The “his” in “his ‘”logic”‘ is meant to refer to Frank.
I guess “wide eyed” isnt as bad as a closet chain smoking Prez who lectures obese Americans (who cost us $150 billion per year) on being good stewards of one’s own health. What exactly do lungs look like after 27 years of nicotine Mr. Prez?
Love her. Zealous, a bad thing?
Oy. Again, Chow mein, please, buy a clue. I’ll even pay for it if you send me the receipt.
It’s not irony. It’s imitating people here who do the same thing and throw out that line from a man dying of brain cancer at the time he said it. I’m mocking those guys who do the same thing to call other people racists. And when I have to explain it it loses its effect. But I guess if it helps you it’s worth it.
personal attacks? wow. how far u have sunk.
Wilbur: I would characterize Gorgon as “overzealous”.
=;-}
Seriously, Gorgon might be totally unhinged , but I have never even seen him post here before. He might be a member of the Tin-Foil Hat Brigade.
But Oliver is fixated on Michele Malkin, and seizes any opportunity he can to call her crazy . As I said above, calling people names dehumanizes them — it doesn’t matter who is calling, and who is being called. The unconscious plan of the caller is to cluster and compartmentalize the “callee”. The effect on the “callee” is that they have been considered a person; no, you’re “crazy”, you’re a “truther”, you’re a “denier”. You have been replaced.
As for Bush Derangement Syndrome, it was certainly real. Were all of Bush’s opponents “deranged” ? No, but the press supplied the name for the phenomenon not each of the people in it.
I am not making an assessment here – I am just voicing a word of caution.
“Oh yeah, her book is #1 on the best-seller list….already. ”
So what, crack-cocaine has been on the best-seller list for years. That doesn’t make it any less of a f$#ked up product….
Oliver- you have the stoopidest trolls in all of blogland. A noteable achievement in the face of heavy competition and long tradition.
Daniel Rotter [quoting me] I think calling people you disagree with “crazy”.
Then adds that it is “without any kinds of qualifiers or exceptions.”
What do you think this meant?
Today’s Amazon Bookseller list:
1. “Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies” by Michelle Malkin.
3. “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine” by Glenn Beck.
9. “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto” by Mark R. Levin.
13. “Catastrophe” by Dick Morris.
No liberal books on the list.
As one very famous conservative blogger asks, “Do liberals read?”
It’s not irony.
Boy howdy!
It’s imitating people here who do the same thing and throw out that line from a man dying of brain cancer at the time he said it.
Um, what? How is the fact that the Evil Peckerhead Atwater had brain cancer relevant? Was someone mocking that unfortunate fact? Was Atwater somehow disingenuous or not lucid when he calmly explained the key element of the Republican Electoral Strategy (since 1968)?
I’m mocking those guys who do the same thing to call other people racists.
Huh?
And when I have to explain it it loses its effect.
What effect? There’s no effect to lose. It can’t really get any lamer.
But I guess if it helps you it’s worth it.
Epic fail. Epic.
Dennis only likes her because she changed her name to Malkin from Liebowitz.
I don’t mean to change the subject, but Beck looks like he’s playing footsie with her while his finger is up his own butt.
Dick Morris? Wow, you want to hold that guy up and say you are proud to buy his books?
Go right ahead. All these right wing books all say the same thing; libruls is teh bad. They never say what is so great about being conservative. It’s all politics of resentment from bitter angry people. It’s like listening to some old man yell at a cloud, except they aren’t old men yet.
Glen Becks Common Sense? You are fucking kidding me, right? Don’t you get irony?
As one very famous conservative blogger asks, “Do liberals read?”
Yes, we do, we read a broad array of things: books on politics, biography, history, gardening, cognitive science, polo, vegan cuisine. We have zillions of books to choose from, so it’s hard for any individual book to crack the top ten. In contrast those of you who are interested in batshit right-wing screeds have a pretty limited list to buy from, so those books tend to do pretty well.
A more pressing question is: “do right-wingers think?”
Referring to an Asian’s eyes as “wide-eyed” is making a derogatory reference to something which they have no control over. And if I’ve learned anything reading OW.com it is that making derogatory comments about the culture, clothing, or physical traits of anyone who is non-white is racist.
And that is wrong.
As I said above, calling people names dehumanizes them — it doesn’t matter who is calling, and who is being called… As for Bush Derangement Syndrome, it was certainly real.
Frank, really, go to bed, you’re embarrassing yourself.
You aren’t clutching your pearls hard enough, SFC B.
But I’m glad to know that you’ve been making annual contributions to the NAACP, B’nai Brith, and various Asian-American charity organizations out of your abiding concern for political correctness and fairness in America.
And if I’ve learned anything reading OW.com it is that making derogatory comments about the culture, clothing, or physical traits of anyone who is non-white is racist.
Got it: a picture of Obama as witch doctor, just a bit of fun.
Cartoons of Obama with pizza peels for ears: shitz and gigglz
Saying anything negative about Michelle Malkin: racist
May I suggest, SFC B, that you haven’t learned anything. Back to the chalkboard with you!
“As I said above, calling people names dehumanizes them”
I couldn’t agree more. All those times between 2003 and 2005, before America realized what a disaster Bush was and how he’d screwed up in Iraq and Afghanistan so badly, that I was called a “terrorist” or some other anti-American term?
Yeah, you can go fuck yourself Frank. You assholes love to dish it out. Know you need to learn how to take it.
Wait liberals are complaining about conservatives name calling? That’s rich. Hypocrisy knows no bounds, I guess.
Referring to an Asian’s eyes as “wide-eyed” is making a derogatory reference to something which they have no control over.
Reading comprehension 101. “Wide eyed zealotry” uses the term as an adjective modifying the noun “zealotry.” No reference is made to her facial features, which are Asian and pretty much the opposite of “wide eyed.” Instead, “wide eyed” is used in its most common sense, indicating naivete.
Read it again. WIDE EYED ZEALOTRY. Zealotry. Not features.
Do you guys go to a special school to avoid knowledge, or what?
Gabriel, why do you hate America?
i’m mostly on the opposite side of her opinions. but she’s a hella spirit, right or wrong i love her for pullin all that weight.
Who called you a terrorist, Jaim? What did you say back to them? Did they say it to your face?
”
Gabriel, why do you hate America?”
Wait…I’m a Republican. If I hated America and the Constitution I’d be a liberal. Just kidding. Well…kind of.
Wait liberals are complaining about conservatives name calling?
Are you from Bizarro World or what? Dozens of posts by conservatives making bogus complaints that O-Dub used a racist term, and you say that it’s the liberals complaining about name calling. Projection much?
How do you go about your daily business if you see down as up, black as white, wet as dry, square as round, old as new…
Wait, I get it.
Ignorance is strength.
Freedom is slavery.
Peace is war.
We have always been at war with EastAsia.
No, Wilbur, not just anything. Attacks on her looks, specifically her eyes…. c’mon. With eight pictures of her?
You guys would be clucking like a bunch of old ladies at a church quilting if Michelle Malkin had eight pictures of Oliver on her blog and said something about his looks and related it to his craziness. No matter what she said, you’d all be calling it racist.
^ I really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about….Carry on!
If I hated America and the Constitution I’d be a liberal. Just kidding. Well…kind of.
Kind of…so, what does that mean? Liberals kind of hate America and the Constitution? Based on what exactly?
This line of attack never ceases to amuse me.
I’ve never had issues with my own patriotism — standing up against the illegal occupation of Iraq was the American thing to do. I had to deal with a number of fuckwits, however, who either directly (in person) or through the media constantly questioned my patriotism, and actually asked me “Why do you hate America?” (The joke was lost on Gabriel, of course.) It led to some interesting arguments in most cases, and a few shouting matches that I’m not proud of. But let’s not forget was a poisonous environment America became under Bush’s lack of leadership as his presidency crumbled into complete failure and his supporters could do nothing but shout and bitch louder and louder at the very MSM that supported him all the way as he started his illegal war in Iraq.
Just saying that it’s a little late for Republicans to be too concerned about name-calling after what they tried to do a few years ago in smearing all anti-war Americans as terrorists of some sort. And please Dennis, don’t play dumb like you usually do and pretend this didn’t happen.
As for Malkin, she’s a loon. Comments on her personal appearance are probably a bad idea, however. Although “crazy eyes” seems like a pretty good description of her when she’s in full-on rant mode.
My favorite moment of her insanity came when she dressed up like a cheer-leader, however, oblivious to the masturbation-fodder she provided for all the pasty, aging Limbaugh fans out there:
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/michelle-malkin-does-not-accept-your-apology-no-sir-she-most-certainly-does-not/
I mean, please try to explain to me how that video isn’t fucking insane. Or not to mention incredibly stupid and pathetic.
if Michelle Malkin had eight pictures of Oliver on her blog and said something about his looks and related it to his craziness. No matter what she said, you’d all be calling it racist.
No, we wouldn’t, we really wouldn’t. We might call her many things but we wouldn’t call her racist unless her comments were directed at things that are stereotypical of Oliver’s race. You really have no clue, do you?
No, Jaim, not playing dumb, just asking you who called you a terrorist? Was it a specific incident, or just some generic quote from a conservative that you saw printed somehwhere or saw Keith Olbermann when he gave a special komment that you took personally. Or was it just a tit for tat argument you got into with someone on a blog.
You make it sound like you were wronged by someone specifically, so I’m just asking.
Explain how the above reference to Michelle Malkin in an obviously photo-shopped picture of her in a bikini, asking the question ‘Michele Malkin Bikini Shots’ after just posting nine pictures of her face and calling her ‘crazy-faced’ is fucking insane, incredibly stupid, or pathetic. Seriously, Jaim, if you did that with some Korean woman on your blog, would your supervisor not think you were being somewhat racist toward Asians?
Be honest for once and answer that question truthfully.
Some serious trollin’ and troll-feedin’ going on here.
I had some definite, in-my-face moments of wing-nuts accusing me of “hating America” or some such because I was skeptical of the reasons for occupying Iraq, and then later completely opposed to the occupation. I’ve got friends in the military, and this probably had something to do with it. Given some time, they’ve come closer to my original position (invading Iraq was stupid) than I ever came to theirs.
I’m not following you on the bikini thing. I’d prefer not to actually, since I find everything about her pretty damn repulsive. But I’ll take your word for it.
Saying Malkin has “crazy eyes” seems pretty fair game to me. It’s part of who she is as a talking head — she makes her living by going on television and saying outrageous things. Cf. Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Welcome to the “liberal” media landscape of 2009.
But Republicans whining about political correctness and people being too mean to them? That’s fucking rich.
nine pictures of her face and calling her ‘crazy-faced’ is fucking insane, incredibly stupid, or pathetic.
Um, I thought we weren’t supposed to call people names. Frank? You still awake?
Seriously, Jaim, if you did that with some Korean woman on your blog, would your supervisor not think you were being somewhat racist toward Asians?.
Now I’m confused, Dennis. Are you satirically imitating our bogus claims of racism against you (as you said before), or have you changed your mind believe that any comment about any aspect of the physical appearance of a member of a minority group is ipso fatso racist?
But Oliver is fixated on Michele Malkin, and seizes any opportunity he can to call her crazy
When was the last time I wrote about Michelle Malkin? Show your work.
And I’m sorry, but even in her tweet where she complains about this post (and plays the victim), Malkin admits “I have big eyes. I make funny faces.” She’s the very model of a wide-eyed zealot.
BTW, book sales success aren’t much of an indication of anything. In ’04-5 the book charts were topped by liberal books from people like Al Franken and Eric Alterman. And they did so without the benefit of Fox and conservative bulk-buying operations to prop ‘em up.
Well said Gorgon!
Coming from a young Conservative “wide/slant” eyed American.
But Republicans whining about political correctness and people being too mean to them?
I’ve personally seen – time and again – that they can’t take out half of what they dish. If liberals hand punched these guys in the nose a long time ago, they would have wilted back in the Reagan era.
I’m mocking those guys who do the same thing to call other people racists. And when I have to explain it it loses its effect.
Congratulations, Dennis, for a fine execution of Jay Tea Pathetic Excuse #453. Do you guys swap emails or something?
^ I really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about….Carry on!
Answering the question, “do conservatives read” with “not much besides Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, etc.”
Wait…I’m a Republican. If I hated America and the Constitution I’d be a liberal. Just kidding. Well…kind of.
Gabriel, can you draw? Maybe you should start a comic strip. Call it Purple Marten Van Buren or Rover Cleveland, or something like that. It would be a scream.
Some serious trollin’ and troll-feedin’ going on here.
Hey, have a heart. Trolls need to eat too!
“I’ve personally seen – time and again – that they can’t take out half of what they dish. If liberals hand punched these guys in the nose a long time ago, they would have wilted back in the Reagan era.”
Ah, yes..if the liberals would’ve been meaner Reagan wouldn’t have won 49 states!
“…wide-eyed” is making a derogatory reference to something which they have no control over.”
A person has no control over whether to widen his/her eyes or not?
Ah, yes..if the liberals would’ve been meaner Reagan wouldn’t have won 49 states!
If they had been smarter he wouldn’t have. And he lost DC too. What happens when liberals play tough? This.
You guys that are trying to pretend this was racist: Have you ever heard the expression ‘wide-eyed’ before? Have you ever heard the expression ‘tall-eyed?’
‘Wide-eyed’ is an expression that means you open your eyes a little more than normal. Granted, the actual extra distance isn’t left-to-right width, and is instead top-to-bottom height, but the expression is wide-eyed. And you guys know it.
You’re just trolling.
“If they had been smarter he wouldn’t have. And he lost DC too. What happens when liberals play tough? This.”
No..Reagan won 49 states because he was popular, and the Democrats put up shitty candidates…
Obama won because it was a Democratic year….And McCain looked like the Crypt Keeper…Not because some awesome liberal badassery…You guys aren’t that scary.
It bothers liberals to see a minority woman not need their freebees and entitlements to succeed.
Nope, she just needs to get on wingnut welfare by stalking sick children.
Who called you a terrorist, Jaim
You, for one.
You guys aren’t that scary.
And yet you guys bitch and moan every day that Obama has secret plan to drain cons of their precious bodily fluids.
Crap. No sooner do the birthers get abandoned by their own that the crazy eyed keffiyeh konspiracy krew shows up here trying to start another wacky conspiracy. Figures.
“And yet you guys bitch and moan every day that Obama has secret plan to drain cons of their precious bodily fluids.”
Lol..Not ALL of us.
I am amazingly racist!
That woman is HOT plain and simple, even when leftist try to edit the photos, She still looks Hot!, to bad this combox doesn’t put pictures up next to peoples names, then you would see its all a bunch of angry overweight DMV women who need government handouts to keep up with smart and beautiful women like Michelle Malkin, and if conservatives edited the photos (and had as much anger) they would all have wild eyed looks on those Godless mugs too.
WOW
Cleanup in aisle 4
Dennis, you really should just admit that you are wrong. You are looking really silly. A couple other things you should check up on, as mentioned by ODub, bulk buying of books. See the little symbol beside the entry for those conservative books on the best seller list? Its sort of like you putting out a book and your mom buys a million copies so your feel better and count as a NYT bestseller. Sure, some of those copies were sold to people, but the smart conservatives join a book club and get these fish wrappers for free. Finally, I wouldn’t call her crazy. I’d call her a sociopath. Someone without a conscience. Because thats what it takes to call for rounding up ethnic groups and putting them in camps.
PaleoPat made quite a mess….
Yes, Asians are the only people on the planet who have wide eyes. They certainly aren’t a universally agreed upon sign of female attractiveness or anything.
And really, I wouldn’t touch her with a ten foot poll, but any guy who claims she isn’t Hot is simply lying. Being insane and hot are the only reasons this woman can even support herself.
Why don’t you read the book and try to dispute the facts she uncovers by doing a little research? No, you won’t because you think by ridiculing her eyes you can diminish her and prevent others from reading her book. Saul Alynsky would be proud. Pick a target, polarize it ,discredit it. And you really had to reach to find something personal to attack her on. Freeze frame pictures of a person passionately explaining her book. So what? She looks great!
Wow. Way to keep it classy, Paleo Pat. Have fun at your next Klan rally.
The link to the photoshopped pic of Malkin is above, just below the nine pictures of her, the first one in the ‘Related’ section, titled ‘Michelle Malkin Bikini Shots?’.
You didn’t answer my question though of what your supervisor would say, or if he thought it was racist of you to post nine pictures of a Korean woman you despised and in the caption called ‘crazy-faced’ and then twice referred to her ‘wide-eyed zealotry’, while below posting a photo-shopped image of her in a bikini.
What would he think of you?
If you had done that to a female school teacher in a competing school system, what do you think his impression would be?
Aside from the obvious racist overtones of this post, one thing does make me happy. Liberals are now on the defensive. Their messiah is cratering in the polls. The gloating and cocky ‘tude have been replaced with more bitching, whining and name-calling. Seriously, hacking on an asian woman’s eyes?
Keep on doublin down on stupid everyone. The “white regional southern party” may make a comeback because your party is turning out to be the “incompetent, socialist, racialist party.”
I guess Republicans not worrying about polls is pre-1/20 thinking.
Still riding your choo-choo, Dennis? No words of concern for your political ally Paleo Pat?
… you didn’t read the hard-core racist comment a few posts up, did you?
THAT is “obvious racist overtones”.
I can see how you might that confused with mocking Malkin’s facial expressions, but…
Actually, no. I have no idea how you managed to call this post “racist”. In light of the genuine stuff, you make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
WOOO WOOOO LOOOKEEE THAT ASIAN HAS FUNNY EYES HA HA HA HA HA!
No, this post isn’t racist at all.
/sarc
Re-read the post carefully.
You’re looking for the word “Asian”. Or any reference to Ms. Malkin’s race.
Find it yet?
I’ll be waiting…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“The “white regional southern party” may make a comeback because your party is turning out to be the “incompetent, socialist, racialist party.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Adj. 1. wide-eyed – exhibiting childlike simplicity and credulity; “childlike trust”; “dewy-eyed innocence”; “listened in round-eyed wonder”
dewy-eyed, round-eyed, childlike, simple
naif, naive – marked by or showing unaffected simplicity and lack of guile or worldly experience; “a teenager’s naive ignorance of life”; “the naive assumption that things can only get better”; “this naive simple creature with wide friendly eyes so eager to believe appearances”
2. wide-eyed – (used of eyes) fully open or extended; “stared with wide eyes”
wide
opened, open – used of mouth or eyes; “keep your eyes open”; “his mouth slightly opened”
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
wide-eyed
adjective 1. naive, green, trusting, credulous, simple, innocent, impressionable, unsophisticated, ingenuous, wet behind the ears (informal) unsuspicious, as green as grass
2. staring, spellbound, gobsmacked Brit. (slang) dumbfounded, agog, agape, thunderstruck, goggle-eyed, awe-stricken
Nope–no mention of “Asian” in there either. Guess those dicshunerry people are just Murika-hating libs as well
gobsmacked, that’s a good adjective for Malkin and other right-wing banshees of all races.
“The “white regional southern party” may make a comeback…
If the party of paleo pat (which is your party, Gorgon and Dennis) ever makes a comeback it will be a sad day for the USA.
She’s a cutie. Even with the crazy faces.
What I was looking for was not, Asian, but “in her book … “
Lol! Libs on the defensive over a racist post: priceless!
You guys should know the “race rules,” you wrote them. And one of them is “thou shall not make reference to the eyes of individuals of asian descent in any derogatory manner.”
Michelle Malkin, asian. Ridiculing Michelle Malkin’s eyes, RACIST!
You guys need some sensitivity training.
I am glad you didn’t include me in that “your party” Wilbur.
I suspect Paleo Pat is either a disturbed individual, or a left wing trouble maker, two species which are often indistinguishable.
Yes, we have ours, and you have yours .
Here you go, Frank
I think you have way more than we do, Frank, but otherwise, well put.
Gorgon reminds me of all the nonsense over the National Review cover: “They made Judge Sotomayor look like Buddha, implying she was Asian”
Karma’s a b!tch
And re: paleo pat as a left wing troublemaker: if you visit his blog (not recommended) you can see that it would a pretty elaborate charade
I have Unhinged, Wilbur. After about ten pages it was basically, “Very bad people have said very bad things about me” a lot of times.
But I knew that already.
This book is an attempt to get above the “I am just a blogger” niche she is now, I think.
She actually is kinda giddy, and unpretentious, but smart as a whip. I like her, even though I am not nearly as intense as she is.
Her work on how the 9/11 miscreants mixed in with the illegals was very good.
Oliver- you have the stoopidest trolls in all of blogland. A noteable achievement in the face of heavy competition and long tradition.
All of Dennis’ golf buddies, apparently.
WOOO WOOOO LOOOKEEE THAT
ASIANASSHOLE HAS FUNNY EYES HA HA HA HA HA!Fixed.
No liberal books on the list.
As one very famous conservative blogger asks, “Do liberals read?”
Sure they do. They just don’t have corporate shills and sugar daddies bulk-buy all their books to be given away as door prizes on cruise ships.
Hey everyone, why don’t ya make fun of white people now! Yay! And how ’bout we call black conservatives racist names too!
par for the course here.
Wilbur, first of all, you’re being a complete ass and I was wrong to ever assume there was a shred of decency about you, and I admit as recently as yesterday I did.
Second, regarding the link you just provided for Frank to Niewert, his book that was so earnestly lauded here and and on the usual left wing blogs to pump up his book sales is now ranked #29,717. His subject’s book of that lengthy post you directed us to….hers is ranked Numero Uno on Amazon. You can list all your usual reasons, bulk sales, cons books are bought by big right wing conspiracy outlets and distributed for free, liberals read lots of books not just liberal ones, but that in no way explains how his “The Eliminationists’ ranks 29,717 and Malkin’s ranks #1, when he makes his living critiquing her and Glenn Beck and liberal blogs try their hardest to build him up.
It’s because he pretends to be a serious journalist discussing serious subjects in an objective manner, but his biases reak from every sentence he writes. He’s not much different than News Reference, only he has a journalistic background and that’s what he does professionally.
Keep hawking him, it’s doing wonders.
After about ten pages it was basically, “Very bad people have said very bad things about me” a lot of times
leaving out the “…after I said a lot of very bad things about pretty decent people” which is what really marks it out as narcissistic swill.
Wilbur, first of all, you’re being a complete ass
I guess this is where, if I were Dennis, I would say something like “ooooh, guess I struck a nerve.”
Glad you liked the Niewart link, Dennis. Now, do you have some issue to take with any of the points that Niewart made, or is it all ad hominem?
And also, I doubt it escaped anyone’s notice that you have absolutely nothing to say against the quite valid reasons that I and others have brought up as to why your loud braying about amazon.com rankings is pretty pathetic.
Conservative. Intelligent.
What’s interesting (I didn’t slog through the rest of the comments) is that it’s easy to take a screen capture of single moment and make it out to be something more than it actually is.
I seem to remember the left going apoplectic when Drudge posted the image of Obama seemingly scoping out some woman’s ass. When watching the video however, there was nothing there. The image just happened to capture that split second in time where it makes something look much different than it totally was.
http://media.ft.com/cms/4f622356-6d3c-11de-8b19-00144feabdc0.jpg
In short: This is a stupid post.
See my post above, Duros. And you’re an idiot and a fool to claim liberals don’t have corporate shills and sugar daddies. And like I said, a book so many people here raved about and tried for several weeks to make the author out to be an expert on a subject you all thought was the number one crisis in the world is now ranked #29,717 on Amazon.
Which begs the question once again:
Do liberals read?
Naomi Klein’s ‘The Shock Doctrine’… #575. This after being in the midst of perhaps the greatest shock doctrine of all time.
Paul Krugman ‘The Conscience of a Liberal’… #2,309. This after a Nobel Prize designation, the man who predicted the housing bubble and economic crisis who so many of you here dutifully quote as being a near perfect voice of the economic mastery of liberal leadership.
The 50 year old ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is ranked way above Krugman’s and even above Kelin’s. 50 years old!
Referring to an Asian’s eyes as “wide-eyed” is making a derogatory reference to something which they have no control over.
Asians have no control of their unhingedness? Huh. I had no idea. Thanks for clearing that up.
Dennis: You are making the lefties very nervous. You should know by now that after reading the NY Times / Washington Post / LA Times (they are interchangeable) from front to back each day, they have learned exactly the most important things in the world for that day.
Then they watch CNN for one hour and learn what issues are relevant that day.
Then they watch Countdown and are told how to think about the relevant issues that were spoon fed to them by CNN with appropriate imagery and sloganeering (Gov Palin’s “Iquiterod” – combining a sports contest memorializing a life saving heroic feat with an image of Gov Palin, slinking out of the Gubernatorial mansion – cute, eh?).
After all that – books, schmooks !
Your general point is valid, Jay, but there is an important difference between the two cases you bring up: In the case of the Malkin pictures, the screenshots do represent something based in reality, or at least some people’s perception of it: a lot of us here could provide you plenty of evidence that, we think, shows that Malkin is indeed unhinged and “wide-eyed”.
On the other hand, you can’t provide even a scrap of evidence that suggests that Obama is actually a philanderer or a pedophile (we generally leave those vices to the republicans).
Liberals would flip out if someone made a comment about obama being “big lipped”, “big nosed” or “big eared”…
how do you get off calling michelle malkin “wide-eyed”?
Do liberals read?
Actually, I was wrong before. The big question is not whether right-wingers think (asked and answered long ago). The question is whether right-wingers read anything other than big-print short-sentence wank jobs do nothing but stroke their own prejudices
Wilbur, if people want to have a fun time ‘proving’ that Malkin is “unhinged” then by all means, go for it. But throwing up screen shots that represent a fraction of a second in time has ‘evidence’ is just childish.
As for the philandering and pedophilia vices, I’ll pass along those regards to Eliot, John and Mel.
….
Escellent point, Frank. You forgot The Daily Show, though. America’s most trusted anchorman.
Dennis ::
I wonder if they would leave him in their house with their stash unlocked , or even the liquor cabinet ?
I can’t comment Frank, or I’ll have to spend the next four months being cross-examined for why I once called him by his birth name, many of the same cross-examiners who now defend and deny the racial overtones of posting nine photos of Michelle Malkin’s ‘crazy face’ and ‘wide-eyed zealotry’.
Besides, Stewart’s fans just might think that “trusted” means “I can count on him to make me laugh”
Frank Disalle:
Frank, I have to admit, you might have a point. But, Frank, I’m not really sure I agree. You see, Frank, I think when you apply a name to someone, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Do you disagree, Frank?
In all honesty, Frank, I think that what matters is the name, and why it is being applied.
durablend’s posted definition of ‘wide-eyed:
Adjective
1. innocent or naive
2. surprised or frightened: wide-eyed astonishment
So far, no one has, Wilbur. Why don’t you be the first. At least the ‘wide-eyed’ description.
What is Malkin’s ‘wide-eyed zealotry’?
Besides, Stewart’s fans just might think that “trusted” means “I can count on him to make me laugh”
Go back and check out the Daily Show’s coverage during the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. They were making (obvious at the time, even) jokes about Saddam needing to “make WMDs and then destroy them in the next 48 hours.” How’d the ultra-liberal Washington Post, NY Times, NBC fare during the same time period? How’d Fox “News” do? I know whom I trust.
They were making jokes about WMD’s?
Boy, sorry I missed those, Indeed. Especially back in 2002. I coulda used a good laugh about WMD’s back then. Musta been a real hoot. Why on earth didn’t Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton laugh along with Jon Stewart then, too?
They were making jokes about WMD’s?
About how obvious it was that Saddam had none (you know, because the inspectors never found any, repeatedly). I believe Teh Kidz like to call it “black humor.” But I suppose you knew that already (kind of like the unctuous, disingenuous William Kristol). I forget, how’d that ultimately turn out?
I wonder who was more prescient during the run-up to the Iraq Invasion, the Daily Show or Fox News? The Onion or Britney Dennis? I wonder who’s more trustworthy. Hmm…
Boy, sorry I missed those, Indeed.
Every episode is archived and searchable. Go ahead and check ‘em out unless your delicate sensibilities will give you the vapors because you’ll be so offended.
What is Malkin’s ‘wide-eyed zealotry’?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoM90bAsr1M
Perhaps not wide yed here but certainly zealous:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907290007
She actually believes the Gates question at the press conference was planted by Obama to “prove his racial authenticity”? Really?
Dennis, do you believe that the question was planted by Obama with Lynn Sweet in full compliance so that Obama could end his health care discussion by proving his “racial authenticity”?
Too many neutered and lipsticked pitbulls for one thread.
I think that on some level, you dehumanize a person when you call them a name , because you attack their individuality. If I call you a “Papist”, you are now in a derogatory category of Roman Catholics. You may not feel like you belong there, but you have been placed there, so to speak.
The other day, someone told me that my religion had assigned me to the fires of Hell, and that I hated myself because of it.
Assuming he was right about what religion I belonged to, he was assuming that I believed everything about that religion that he knew about it. I had been transformed by his vision of my psyche. When you call someone a name , you are “transforming” them into your vision of them.
Funny, I was watching an episode of “Bones” yesterday, and she made the point that plastic surgery is like murder, because it takes away the you that you “are” and makes you into someone else.
Think of a concentration camp:
Were all the wearers of the yellow triangle equally devout?
Were all the wearers of the pink triangle equally adapted to their sexual identity and gender?
Did all the wearers of the yellow and black triangles have the same mental illness?
Of course not.
So far, no one has, Wilbur. Why don’t you be the first.
Here’s just one clip from the conservative blogger John Cole.
Now let’s save a bit of time here: I’m sure to this citation, and to the zillions of other citations that I might throw up here, you could come up with some reason for saying “but…but… that’s perfectly reasonable.” Let’s not go there, it would be tiresome.
But my original point remains: there is far more evidence that could be cited for the proposition “Michelle Stalkin is an unhinged loon.” Than for the proposition “Barack Obama is a pedophile.” Even your pal Frank admits up above “She actually is kinda giddy…”
Meanwhile, Dennis…
Still no argument or evidence for why we should take amanzon.com rankings of indicative of anything significance.
Still no argument for why comments on Malkin that have nothing to do with racial stereotypes are racist (if you were to call Barack Obama “skinny” or “wooden” would I be justified in calling you racist?)
Still no concern-troll tut-tutting directed at your political ally paleo pat (though you’re always quite generous with that sort of thing when it comes to your political adversaries).
You disappoint me.
See everyone? Posting unflattering pictures of Michelle Malkin on a website is just like the Holocaust.
I’ll pass along those regards to Eliot, John and Mel.
This is why I said “generally” Jay. Like racism, philandering and pedophilia is hardly exclusive to the right-wing, but that is where you will find the bulk of it in recent years.
Curious, Indeed, why Hillary Clinton, whose husband was the former POTUS, didn’t have the prescience of The Onion, or The Daily Show.
Perhaps every politician should want to have Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on their staff to consult before they vote on anything of importance.
Maybe Sarah Palin should’ve told Katie Couric she reads The Onion. Then no liberal would ever make fun of her, maybe.
Indeed: They got one thing right, and that makes him the most trusted newsman in America?
Besides, are you telling me that just because there might never have been WMD’s either extant or on the drawing board, that you STILL think the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea?
How many good things do you have to accomplish , before someone says, “That was a good thing”.
And do you really think that there were absolutely no reasons (good , better and best reasons) besides the presence of WMD’s to invade Iraq?
Did Japan or Germny have WMD’s ?
Korea?
Vietnam?
Grenada?
Kuwait?
When you tell a lie (if, indeed a lie was actually told) but have 10 good reasons to do something, you don’t say you did it for the lie .
Was our involvement in World War II wrong because Lend-Lease was a fraud?
Because you’re an asshole for lumping me in with him and generally I don’t respond to obvious baiting, Wilbur. That and I’ve answered a good deal of your questions, too, so you shouldn’t act like a WATB on the few of yours that I’ve ignored.
You’re becoming the new CSS, Wilbur. Just not as vulgar.
No, but that goes nowhere to explain just what in the f’ing world ‘wide-eyed zealotry’ is, fafaroo. I think Obama wanted to answer a question or address the Gates situation at that press conference, but I don’t think Lynn Sweet was prepped ahead of time.
—–
Agreed, it would be tiresome, but you said you and a lot of other people here could come up with many examples of ‘wide-eyed zealotry’, and I am saying I have no clue what is meant by that phrase, so that the wide-eyed did certainly carry an intended connotation absent any plausible explanation for what that phrase, used twice, meant.
They got one thing right, and that makes him the most trusted newsman in America?
And what did they get wrong? How does the Daily Show stack up against the Cheney Administration/Fox “News”/Britney Spears over the same time period (or any other)? Did the Daily Show only get one thing right?
Besides, are you telling me that just because there might never have been WMD’s either extant or on the drawing board, that you STILL think the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea?
Yes. I and thousands of good soldiers and their families and the millions of other people who’s lives were permanantly ruined because there MIGHT have been WMDs (and we were told, repeatedly, there WERE), STILL believe the invasion was a thoroughly shitty idea. Saddam MIGHT have had WMDs, and you MIGHT have been the Queen of England.
How many good things do you have to accomplish , before someone says, “That was a good thing”.
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
And do you really think that there were absolutely no reasons (good , better and best reasons) besides the presence of WMD’s to invade Iraq?
Well, none which outweighed the WMD Situation, the obvious and utter lack of a credible threat posed by Iraq, the obvious fact that the Cheney Administration was a bunch of incompetent boobs and Neocon shitheads, and the idea that invading was a wholly shitty idea in general (and other stuff).
Did Japan or Germny have WMD’s ?
Korea?
Vietnam?
Grenada?
Kuwait?
Yes, yes (effectively), not really, holy fucking shit no, no.
When you tell a lie (if, indeed a lie was actually told) but have 10 good reasons to do something, you don’t say you did it for the lie .
Uh-huh. That some kind of Eastern thing?
Was our involvement in World War II wrong because Lend-Lease was a fraud?
I’m pretty sure Japan bombed the living shit out of the U.S. Navy in Pearl Harbor, Hawai’i (part of the U.S.), but I MIGHT be wrong.
Because you’re an asshole for lumping me in with him and generally I don’t respond to obvious baiting, Wilbur.
Not enjoying the bed you made? Too bad, so sad: Sleep in it, Britney.
Indeed, how many servicemen and women do tell that what they were fighting for was for WMD’s and that that and the rest of the reasons they are over there were lies made up by Bush and Co.? And of those, how many agree with you? How many of them would you guess would prefer Jon Stewart to be in charge of the military and to be the main guy making decisions on our defense, as you seem to be suggesting?
Indeed, how many servicemen and women do tell that what they were fighting for was for WMD’s and that that and the rest of the reasons they are over there were lies made up by Bush and Co.? And of those, how many agree with you?
How the fuck would that matter? Would that make the WMD lies in the run up to the Iraq Invasion any more or less untrue? Are you fucking serious?
How many of them would you guess would prefer Jon Stewart to be in charge of the military and to be the main guy making decisions on our defense, as you seem to be suggesting?
Huh? When did I suggest that, Britney? All I said was that Jon Stewart got a lot of shit right (and funny) in the run up to the Iraq Invasion. And you and Britney Spears and Fox “News” and the Cheney Administration got a lot of important shit wrong (and in many cases outright lied about shit which later fucked up a lot of innocent lives). But I would say that if the decision on whether or not to invade Iraq had been left up to J-Stew instead of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and Karl Rove and Lee Atwater’s Ghost, then yes, the world would be a better place.
And Britney, did you laugh when Pretend President George Bush, Jr. made jokes about not finding WMDs via a lame-o slide show at at a White House Correspondents Reach-Around Fest? Or were you offended? How do you thing The Troops felt? How about people who’s lives were permanently ruined by the Iraq Invasion? Do you understand the difference between Junior’s “jokes” and J-Stew’s? Why one might be funnier and less offensive than another? Think real hard.
GOP = Paleo Pat.
We all knew it before, but now it’s clear.
America is better off without the GOP.
Punk-ass bitch Dennis,
Still trying to get your contact info. E-mail me through the bookmark you have on my blog. Will happily take your money at Dulles on December 27th. Realize you are a punk ass bitch and won’t follow through since you suck at life, being a husband, and being a father, but not going to let you get off the hook here.
Because you’re an asshole for lumping me in with him and generally I don’t respond to obvious baiting, Wilbur.
Frank was able to step up to the plate, and I doubt that he felt like he had to give up too much of his testicular tissue to do so. If you can’t even rise to that standard, Dennis, fine. But be assured, next time you come around with your wearisome hypocritical concern-troll tongue clucking about how unfair and extreme and inconsistent we are, we’ll all know exactly where that’s coming from, and what file to put it in.
Who called you a terrorist, Jaim? What did you say back to them? Did they say it to your face?
#
Gabriel McKee
July 29, 2009 at 12:22 am
”Gabriel, why do you hate America?”
Wait…I’m a Republican. If I hated America and the Constitution I’d be a liberal. Just kidding. Well…kind of.
Asked and answered. Thanks, Uncle Gabby.
Oh, and Dennis, if you think about it you’ll see that what you call “obvious baiting” is me asking you to provide evidence and argumentation to support any of the major claims you have made on this thread. If you could manage to do that it would at least be a contribution of substance, which would be a nice break from your usual chorus of bleating and moaning.
or have you changed your mind believe that any comment about any aspect of the physical appearance of a member of a minority group is ipso fatso racist?
Ipso fatso? Is that a racist slur against Oliver? How dare you, sir!
You guys that are trying to pretend this was racist:
Are the same people who thought David Letterman was talking about Piper.
What do you have against marriage and families, Jaim? Was that what you were running away from when bailed on America?
Dennis, you really should just admit that you are wrong. You are looking really silly.
That’s never stopped him before.
Wow. Way to keep it classy, Paleo Pat. Have fun at your next Klan rally.
Did I miss something?
Seriously, hacking on an asian woman’s eyes?
Sadly, no. Eying an asian woman’s hack.
I think Obama wanted to answer a question or address the Gates situation at that press conference, but I don’t think Lynn Sweet was prepped ahead of time.
But Malkin does, Dennis. She chooses to push a conspiracy theory that she has no evidence to support and which flies in the face of common sense and rational thought.
That’s a symptom of zealotry, my friend.
And just to add, Dennis, where do you get the idea that Obama wanted to answer a question about Gates at the press conference?
You just “feel” that to be true?
And re: paleo pat as a left wing troublemaker: if you visit his blog (not recommended) you can see that it would a pretty elaborate charade
You can tell because he begs for money down at the bottom.
Wow. Way to keep it classy, Paleo Pat. Have fun at your next Klan rally.
Did I miss something?
One of Britney’s (“Dennis’s”) buddies chimed in.
I seem to remember the left going apoplectic when Drudge posted the image of Obama seemingly scoping out some woman’s ass.
On the other hand, Sarkozy TOTALLY was.
Indeed going to the well, his favorite watering hole, his comfort zone. It’s how you know he’s lost.
Full out capitulation.
Again, what is ‘wide-eyed zealotry’, fafaroo? OW used the term twice. I’m not familiar with it. Apparently, no one else is here. Every one defends it, but no one can seem to say what the heck it even is.
Every one defends it, but no one can seem to say what the heck it even is.
Seriously, Britney, your disingenuousness rivals William “The Bloody” Kristol’s.
What areyou getting at, pray tell? I said ‘I think’. Do you want a complete list of everything I’ve read and watched on tv from people who have voiced that opinion that contributed to my thoughts on the question you asked me my opinion on? This is about as bizarre as you’ve ever been on here, fafaroo. Something is eating at you. This conversation has gone like this:
You: Dennis, what do you think about Obama’s answering that question?
Me: Fafaroo, I think….
You: Oh Dennis, where did you get that notion. Did you just ‘feel’ it?
No, dummkopf, you asked me what I thought and I told you what I thought. WTF is wrong with that? Is that a protocol violation on liberal blog commenting or something?
What is wrong with you?
Yup, capitulation, Mister ed. Give me your email address or set one up that you can just delete and I’ll send over the surrender papers.
Or is there an emoticon of a white flag waving you can post here? That would suffice.
No, dummkopf, you asked me what I thought and I told you what I thought. WTF is wrong with that?
You think that Obama was looking for an opporunity to inject himself into the Gates issue based on what? Absolutely nothing. Thank you for sharing.
As to this: “…what is ‘wide-eyed zealotry’…”
Do you know what “wide-eyed” means?
Do you know what “zealotry” means?
Let me help you out here, one is an adjective and the other is noun. You do know what those are and how they’re used together in a sentence, right?
A couple of examples:
“pathetic obscurant”
“complete moron”
Do you think you can take it from here?
What ever happened to the good ol’ days of stalking a brain stem injured 12 year olds house to see if his family is truly worthy of state health insurance benefits?
If you wanted to know that, why didn’t you just ask?
Based on his past history of studying and legislating against racial profiling. Based on his prior relationship with Skip Gates. Based on his desire to be a post-racial leader of this country and his arrogance that he alone can effect that change.
Indeed: Did Jon Stewart predict that we would make all the smaller nations around Iraq safer, because Hussein had designs on planning an empire going back to his youth?
Did Stewart predict that we would have thousands of troops and sailors, and an OP and LP in the Middle East for decades?
Did Stewart predict that Iran might be defanged by a government change?
Jon Stewart is a comedian, who makes funny faces at newsclips.
i just can’t believe how many of us get caught up in libs vs conseritives, repubs vs dems, who’s more right, who’s more legitimate and the best one…..
WHO CAN OUT SHOUT WHO.
look, there is only ONE issue for the American people as a whole; can you keep living the life that YOU yourself chose and want to live for yourself, or are we slowly losing that to an over zealous new leader and out of touch congress made up of grandfathers and grandmothers in congress for decades, who and are SO OUT OF TOUCH, they can’t decide anything for themselves let alone anything for Americans.
they only spend more money to look good at home, which is a bribe for these votes, through the spending bills and social programs.
they are like someone who has just gotten their first credit card and spent like crazy and then at the end of the month freakout!! and then go spend somemore. meanwhile when the parent opens the bill,we the American people, we just can’t believe someone we raised could do something so dumb, the congress and the president.
including your passions like eco, clean air, hunting, and driving somewhere on a trip, and ALL the rest of choices we make for oursleves to ENJOY life, is fine when deciding who to vote for and what to support or not support. that’s democracy.
but we’ll keep doing the D.C. shuffle until we have nothing left. because who will have something left are the very people passing laws and bills telling you you don’t deserve what you have but they do.
everyday all i see is the slipping away, like the ocean eroding the shoreline, of our liberties, choices , and beginning this year,2009, our inherant basic freedoms.
I know what the terms mean, but I’m not aware of how the two terms used together apply to Michelle Malkin. You seem to be dancing on this, and not dancing well. Maybe a 1 or a 2 from the judges, but no better than that.
Again, can you give me any examples of how Malkin exhibits ‘wide-eyed zealotry’, because no one else has.
Shouldn’t be so hard, should it, what with all the defending of the phrase.
opnions are like assholes, everybody’s got one (of course only a select few actually are one).
Jon Stewart is a comedian, who makes funny faces at newsclips.
And yet he’s also able to get really important shit, shit which would be obvious to anyone who wasn’t some ovine follower of Dick Cheney, correct. How about that! What a Renaissance dude!
How’s your track record? Still think it was “pretty well confirmed” that Saddam’s agents met with Mohammed Atta in Prague? You do? How about that!
Jon Stewart is a comedian, who makes funny faces at newsclips.
Same could be said about most talking haircuts on MSM.
Again, what is ‘wide-eyed zealotry’, fafaroo? OW used the term twice. I’m not familiar with it.
Oliver was kind enough to provide you with pictures and you still pretend you don’t get it.
Jon Stewart is a comedian, who makes funny faces at newsclips.
Same could be said about most talking haircuts on MSM.
The difference is Stewart KNOWS it and admits it.
Wilbur, you said you and lots of people here could come up with lots of examples of Malkin’s wide-eyed zealotry.
This is the crux of the blog post and the pictures, yet no one can name anything.
What gives?
I know what the terms mean, but I’m not aware of how the two terms used together apply to Michelle Malkin.
Dennis, she’s a wide-eyed zealot. That’s how the two terms used together apply to Michelle Malkin.
You want examples?
I posted two links.
You disagreed that they constituted “wide-eyed zealotry.” You’re wrong.
Seems to me you’re having this same discussion in reverse on another thread:
OMG! One example! And then another!
Both of which are patently absurd evidence of Media Matters “doctoring” quotes.
Based on his past history of studying and legislating against racial profiling. Based on his prior relationship with Skip Gates. Based on his desire to be a post-racial leader of this country and his arrogance that he alone can effect that change.
Oh, so based on your own highly slanted opinion of Obama you assumed he was just chomping at the bit to insert himself into the Gates incident on a national stage.
Dennis, Malkin believes what you believe and based on that, constructed a conspiracy theory of a planted question at the press conference.
That’s a good example of wide-eyed zealotry. You deny it but tell us then why you don’t believe the question was planted. Could it have anything to do with the notion that such a belief is patently crazy?
It has been decided, Dennis, that you have been given plenty of examples, and that you’re just being deliberately obtuse.
C’mon guys, we’ve almost made it to 200 posts on this thread. We can do it!!!
This is the crux of the blog post and the pictures, yet no one can name anything.
So stalking sick children isn’t considered crazy by your standards? Gotcha.
Indeed: You do realize that the US assumed an aggressor role against Iraq in the first Bush administration?
And that Iraq violated the “No-Fly” zone we set up, multiple times, during the Clinton administration?
The war was not begun over a meeting in Prague. You can say it over and over, but in the end, adding together the casualties, civilian and military, and the property damage, and the purported damage to our reputation in the Middle East (which, I personally think, was enhanced) we have taken the queen off the chess board known as the Middle East. Next, Iran and check mate ?
History is written by the victors.
Just woke up
Just woke up
I assume you mean you woke up after you posted that heaping pile of excrement at 8:14?
Okay. Frank.
Did you really just talk happily about having been partially responsible for the deaths of scores of thousands – probably hundreds of thousands, and possibly even over a million – of innocent people, because you *think* it’s a good strategic move, after talking about how *name calling* dehumanizes people?
By the way: since you missed the point of my gentle mockery, it is not *name calling* but the type of name called and the intent behind it.
You can say it over and over, but in the end, adding together the casualties, civilian and military, and the property damage, and the purported damage to our reputation in the Middle East (which, I personally think, was enhanced) we have taken the queen off the chess board known as the Middle East.
I’m sorry, but I have to comment on how this is a horrible analogy. Focusing on taking out the queen is the strategy of an amateur chess player. It means nothing if you can’t checkmate the king. Worse, it’s pointless if you let a pawn through to your ranks to become a queen themselves.
On second thought, this is a pretty accurate analogy for Bush Co.(TM) foreign policy.
Wilbur: As usual, a well thought out response … You should write op – eds for People Magazine.
LongHairedWeirdo: There was no “happily” about it. But sometime soon we, as a people, are going to have to get over this “If someone dies in a war, we have to pack up and go home.” Why should your ideology (whatever it is) be our epitaph? Don’t we, as a people, have a right to assert our ideology? And, by extension, help other people find theirs, when it is in our interest to do so? Shall we continue to bring a knife to a gun fight?
Zython: I know your game – oriented mind nearly exploded, but I was only referring to Iraq as an extremely power – laden piece in the game, which we have now taken off the board. Perhaps if you had suggested which pawn might come “through to your ranks to become a queen themselves”, or why is it not possible to “checkmate the King”, your objection might be useful.
With some help from the former President — see Oliver’s post on how stupid it would be to appoint Pres Bush a special envoy to the Middle East (apparently, Oliver is worse at chess than I am) — Pres Obama could manage “check and mate” in a few moves.
I do apologize for my curtness, Frank. I spent an unusual amount of time yesterday throwing my spitballs of evidence at the stone ramparts of wingnut prejudice, and was a bit worn out.
You’re not a clear thinker, but I doubt your writing is so bad that you sounded gleeful while being sad at the hideous human cost of a pointless war.
No. We, as a people, do not have a right to kill large numbers of other people over ideology.
It violates the most fundamental founding principle of the United States: that every single individual person matters, that there are no special people (like kings, or Americans) who have special rights to kick other people around.
We certainly have a right to protect ourselves from a real threat (rather than one that might materialize someday). We even have the right to protect other people (but should realize that sometimes “protecting” other people through mass killings – oops, I’m sorry, I mean “warfare” – ends up doing more harm than good).
Iraq did not meet either of those standards, despite the pathetic rationalization of the cowards or belligerents.
Perhaps if you had suggested which pawn might come “through to your ranks to become a queen themselves”, or why is it not possible to “checkmate the King”, your objection might be useful.
Fair enough.
“The pawn who became queen”
“The uncheckmated king”
Better?
I know your game – oriented mind nearly exploded,
Yes, because having passing knowledge of how chess works makes me “game – oriented”.
Pres Obama could manage “check and mate” in a few moves.
I commented on this in the other thread. I sincerely doubt using another country’s civilians as a mass human shield is going to work a second time.
No, Zython, you are named after an anime character.
Second, there is absolutely no way that al – Qaeda can take over Iraq, unless we walk out and never return, as we did in Viet Nam.
Finally, Iran is in the process of being taken out of the game … Even you admitted that it was possible that Iran could end up where it was before – no nukes and a shot at Democracy .
You used the term “precious cannon fodder”. You don’t know the meaning of the word. “Collateral damage” is the name for people killed and property destroyed in actively engaging the enemy. Troops tossed at the enemy to get them to use up valuable resources are called “cannon fodder”.
It was the Republican Guard and al-Qaeda that hid behind civilians; we didn’t kill civilians to get at the enemy. False equivalence is false equivalence, even when you don’t recognize it.
We know that thousands of terrorists came into Iraq from Syria and Iran. They were not home grown, angered by our “occupation”. They came to die for Allah, and we sent them on their way. They came to kill us; we killed them.
I suppose, taking the liberal path, ending a war is more important than winning it, and, turning back the pages of history to the point where the war began is better than reading through to the end.
Where do you suppose the world would be right now, if we had said to the Japanese on December 8, 1941: “If you take all your troops and arms and ships out of the entire Pacific area, we will forget this whole thing?’
No, Zython, you are named after an anime character.
Which anime, might I ask, since you have such a rich knowledge of the subject?
You used the term “precious cannon fodder”. You don’t know the meaning of the word. “Collateral damage” is the name for people killed and property destroyed in actively engaging the enemy. Troops tossed at the enemy to get them to use up valuable resources are called “cannon fodder”.
So when I point out that you support using foreign civilians as live bait, your counter-argument is that I didn’t use the correct term for it? Gotcha.
It was the Republican Guard and al-Qaeda that hid behind civilians; we didn’t kill civilians to get at the enemy. False equivalence is false equivalence, even when you don’t recognize it.
No, I remember your post, using their civilians was OUR strategy.
Where do you suppose the world would be right now, if we had said to the Japanese on December 8, 1941: “If you take all your troops and arms and ships out of the entire Pacific area, we will forget this whole thing?’
Frank, if the Neocons had power in 1941, the liberals would’ve been protesting their war in Peru.
I suppose, taking the liberal path, ending a war is more important than winning it, and, turning back the pages of history to the point where the war began is better than reading through to the end.
…
You have a gambling problem, don’t you?
Frank, I know it makes foreign policy seem easy when you assume everyone born in the Middle East is mentally ill, but the world just isn’t that simple.
Before totally calling someone crazy and a liar, check the facts. Her book clearly backs up her facts. She has even gotten her facts from such news sources from The New York Times, and we all know how objective that paper is.
You know what, it’s like the game we used to play with the vcr, pausing people and giggling at their frozen faces… not terribly sophisticated.
Don’t know much about the woman but she is obviously very passionate about what she’s saying, and I think that’s a good thing.