Friday, September 29, 2006
|
|
Michelle Malkin: Shamelessly Hypocritical Peddler of Two-Piece, Photoshopped Swim-Smut
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
6:24 PM
|
|
Here's the playbook.
Throw up a questionable/obviously Photoshopped picture of an allegedly bikini-clad female, conservative pundit.
Put the picture up the same week she writes a column mourning the lost modesty of a formerly admirable teen idol.
Rage about the hypocrisy of it all, thereby proving yourself more sexually repressed and prudish than the Republicans you're intent on bashing since you seem to have missed the recent cultural development that one can manage to don a bikini and smile without, in fact, being a whore.
Ignore clear evidence that the photo is a fake.
Do not correct the post or apologize. Just suggest that the pundit is lying!
In fact, if possible, mock the female, conservative pundit in an update to the fake photo post and imply that the whole thing was a big joke, so you can then imply that conservatives are humorless blowhards in addition to being shamelessly hypocritical peddlers of two-piece swim-smut.
Mischaracterize the female conservative's calm, well-reasoned arguments and obvious debunking of the photo as angry and b****y and "hopping mad." You know, since she's right, and there's not much you can do about it.
And, always, always, always make sure your commenters are ready to make distasteful and degrading jokes about the her looks and ethnicity.
Ta-daaa! Can I work for a left-leaning gossip blog, now? I could do this all day long.
Y'all screwed up and fell for a fake picture. Pull it and apologize, Reuters-style. Picture kill, baby.
Or, just get sued?
In other news, now that I know bikini-wearing is incompatible with conservative punditry, I will be turning in my resignation this evening. There are just too many yellow polka-dot skeletons in this gal's closet.
Update: Allah vows to bring the Photoshop jihad. This will not be pretty.
At IMAO, it has already been broughten.
I totally had shots with that chick at Spring Break, '97!
|
|
I'm a conservative male. I like conservatives in bikinis. In fact, if I don't have to talk to them, I even like well built liberals in bikinis.
Where did the whole "sexually repressed conservative" meme start, anyway? We're more likely to be married, so we're not out boffing with impunity, but we're also more likely to be married, which means we probably have A LOT more sex. (Which is probably why these three short people mob me when I come home from work.)
The obsessions with sex from the left is amazing. Not "boring" married missionary sex, but cigar, "Monkey Business", congressional page sex.
What's most offensive about this is not that they tried to slime Michelle, but that they tried to slime a mother. (For liberals reading this, that's a woman that exercises a choice involving sweating, grunting, pain, some blood, and usually some great drugs. You might consider it.)
This is going nowhere, though. Children playing children's games, is all.
Herr Morgenholz
|
|
|
|
*Can't even bear to click a link
Actual Professional Journalism vs. Actual Hot Babes.
Michelle Malkin, neither professional, nor hot, yet easy to laugh with or at. Key word-easy.
I can't believe our side is assigned to monitoring her. It's like monitoring a chimp in heat.*
Libspeak for "I have no clue how to debate, so I'll just lob some baseless insults."
|
|
Michelle got it right.
Clothes that emphasize the physical body -- especially of young, susceptible females --
is conspicuously putting the emphazize on too small an aspect of the person. And yet it's
putting the emphasis on that aspect of the youngster's person that the youngster is least likely to know how to manage.
This is from an old geezer given to remarking that "I'm too old to CHASE attractive young women, but not too old to NOTICE them.
Mary Catherice -- this time you got it all wrong.
|
|
|
Sorry, I didn't take time to check either the spelling or the line-ends. |
|
|
Did you ever notice how libs will stoop to the lowest level of humanity to destroy someone who is right and who is on the right? |
|
Expect to LOSE in November.
Expect to LOSE in '08.
Expect to keep losing.
Don't get the joke yet? Look in a mirror. |
|
All I got to say is I followed that first link to the blog that was slamming MM and I was truly astonished by how rude and insensitive those supposedly sensitive Liberals could be.
I suppose there is some truth to liberals being preoccupied with sex. :)
Of Course! its all clear now.
|
|
What was done to Michelle Malkin was wrong; it
definitely crossed the line. But!
Michelle has crossed the line herself, several
times. This isn't the first time she's been
targeted like this. She and MKH had a good ole'
time bashing and trashing Rosie O'Donnell. And
let's face it: Michelle trashed Ms. Church.
It's non of Michelle's business how Charlotte
lives her life.
Skankdom! was uncalled-for (even if(?) it's). |
|
|
Ed, you really don't see a distinction between Michelle and myself taking Rosie to task in an intellectual discussion about her demonstrably wrong statement about "radical Christianty" and calling Michelle a hypocrite using a faked photo as the basis for the argument? Seriously? Weak. |
|
To MKH. Yes, I see the distinction. It's pretty
obvious. But You're adding 2+2 and coming up
with 5.
I think Rosie O'Donnell was wrong, too. Dead
wrong! And You and Michelle have the right ( I
guess ) to point-out other people's errors.
It's one thing to point out someone's errors,
like You just did to me. I appreciate that.
But it's something else to bash and trash a
person. I just don't think that the bashing,
and trashing, and name-calling is necessary.
I also don't think it's necessary for all-that-
gloating over a trashed-victim. Maybe I'm wrong,
again. Isn't bashing and trashing what the
other-side does? It's not necessary to stoop
to those levels. Just let me say again, for the
record, that there is no comparison between the
Hot Air piece and the recent attack on Michelle
Malkin. She did not deserve that. No-one
deserves that. It's best to approach "the line"
with caution. If an apology is in order, let me
know......it won't be my first. |
|
|
You write "In spite of much evidence to the contrary, I don’t think either Kennedy or Clinton were sociopaths. I also think they knew right from wrong. They both frequently chose to do wrong because they decided to indulge their appetites rather than sacrifice and do the right thing." Perhaps it's just that these kinds of people, and many (most) in politics, are simply immoral. i.e. they have "__NO__" morals. |
|
|
|