Geraldo Exploits Zina Linnik’s Uncle to Make a Political Point with Which the Uncle Disagrees
The tragic [Zina Linnik] story was twisted to aggravate the immigration debate. A little girl snatched and brutally murdered. Tonight her family speaks out on why his immigrant label should be replaced by monster.
I thought this was bad enough when it turned out that the family member on Geraldo’s show — Zina Linnik’s uncle Anatoly Kalchik — said nothing about immigration whatsoever on Geraldo’s program.
But that was before I found out that her uncle actually does see this as an immigration issue:
Zina’s uncle was angry that the suspect had not been deported after being convicted in a sex crime.
. . . .
“If someone is a sex offender, or any kind of offender, he has no business being in America,” he said.
Can you imagine the rage Mr. Kalchik must have felt watching Geraldo’s segment? Watching Geraldo claim that he was going to speak out against treating this as an immigration issue, when he thought it was?
Words fail. Geraldo has no shame.
And the next time Geraldo and Michelle are on O’Reilly together, she is going to mop the floor with him. She’ll make him nostalgic for the days when people were throwing chairs at his head.
Shouldn’t the station force Geraldo to make a retraction?
sam (b42669) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:03 amZina Linnik was an immigrant. Terapon Adhahn is an immigrant and a monster. Geraldo Rivera is an idiot. Michelle Malkin is guaranteed to be enormously entertaining when she gets her hands on him. Bill O’Reilly is salivating.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:15 amGeraldo in this case is disgusting.
He used to do brave, if self-aggrandizing reporter-things.
Now he just does the latter.
And he doesn’t care who he lies about or hurts. To do this to the family of someone who just had their 12-year old daughter snatched, raped, and murdered.
I have no knowledge that she was “tortured”. Probably wasn’t, technically.
But to her little body and mind, do you think this whole experience was painful, fear-inducing, and torturous?
You know it was. Picture it.
And Geraldo exploits this man’s family — no, LIES about what this man’s family says — to make a point he believes in that the family doesn’t?
What a despicable man. Geraldo should do a 180 and quickly. He deserves whatever condemnation he receives.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:17 amGeraldo has sunk to a new low. Obviously he will exploit anyone and anything in a desperately despicable move for nothing more than attention – forget credibility, forget integrity. He’s lost any significance he may have once had (can’t remember when…) and is nothing more than a media maggot.
Dana (5b81c5) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:53 amjust the sound of his voice reminds me for some reason of an interior decorator undergoing a colonoscopy.
assistant devil's advocate (8c38a3) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:05 amMichelle speaks.Michelle Malkin rips Geraldo a new one – unfortunately, only metaphorically
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:15 amDamn, your “link” button doesn’t work in Firefox. That was supposed to be the description (the “a title”) not the visible text.
But whatever. I like it. Go read it.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:16 am“Geraldo Rivera is an idiot. Michelle Malkin is guaranteed to be enormously entertaining when she gets her hands on him. Bill O’Reilly is salivating.”
– Pablo
Geraldo Rivera is an idiot, Michelle Malkin is a pushover, and Bill O’Reilly isn’t “salivating” – he’s drooling, because he’s too fucking stupid to breathe through his nose.
Some might say that Michelle Malkin using the “Memory of Zina Linnik” to attack Geraldo Rivera, and to consequently (totally unforeseeably) draw the limelight to herself is just as disgusting as Geraldo Rivera’s original misuse of Zinnik’s uncle’s testimony to make his own personal point about immigration.
A pox on all of them.
Leviticus (a33534) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:46 amThat’s totally disingenuous and discreditable of you, Leviticus.
No reasonable person would say a person whose profession is political author, blogger, commentator, and pundit, whose views on immigration are well known and indeed largely define her, criticizing someone she routinely debates in her career anyway, is in any sense as disgusting as a person intentionally lying about a recent 12-year old rape/murder victim’s uncle’s views about the alleged killer’s previous treatment by immigration and law enforcement authorities which provably lead to the murder of his niece. All in order to advance immigration policy in expressly the opposite way the uncle supports.
In short, up yours.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:21 am“But that was before I found out that her uncle actually does see this as an immigration issue:”
But you do.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:25 amDammit,
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:26 am3 in a month now!
At this point, the problem isn’t Geraldo Rivera. It’s Fox News, for willingly providing him a forum to mislead to satisfy his personal agenda.
DRJ (31d948) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:40 amLeviticus,
Michelle Malkin is no pushover, my friend.
And your suggestion that Michelle discussing this case is somehow equivalent to Geraldo lying about the views of the dead child’s uncle, and *using* him on his program in such a blatantly dishonest way — well, it’s clear your reasoning powers have been damaged by Malkin hatred, because that comparison is utterly irrational.
A pox on *you* for making such a silly and indeed offensive argument.
Patterico (336821) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:14 am“A pox on *you* for making such a silly and indeed offensive argument.”
-Patterico
What’s the difference between his behavior and hers? Both are using the death of a little girl to try to advance their own personal stance on immigration. Show some fucking tact…
And before you argue that Malkin isn’t using Zinnik’s death for her own ends, before you argue that Malkin is merely attacking Geraldo Rivera for being the lying bastard he most *certainly* is, remember “Invasion”. Malkin uses the horror stories of dozens of families to uniformly paint immigrants as rapists, murderers, and monsters.
Malkin’s done just as much to taint the immigration debate as people like Geraldo Rivera. His show furthered an outright lie, and her book furthered a lie of omission. Split hairs if you want, but don’t assume that “my reasoning powers have been damaged” just because I dared to call Malkin a hack to your face.
Leviticus (b8489f) — 7/16/2007 @ 12:03 pmMalkin uses the horror stories of dozens of families to uniformly paint immigrants as rapists, murderers, and monsters.
Even if I were to accept your assertion (which I don’t), you’re deliberately missing a very significant adjective.
Sorta reveals your “agenda”, doesn’t it?
Darleen (187edc) — 7/16/2007 @ 12:14 pmLeviticus, “lie of omission” by Malkin? You’ve not established such. Your equivalence appears to boil down to a lie on the side you approve of.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/16/2007 @ 12:22 pmLeviticus,
Sorry, your reasoning powers are muy damaged.
The flip side of Geraldo’s actions would be if the uncle believed in open borders and no deportations for criminals — yet Michelle had him on O’Reilly and said he was going to speak in favor of the concept of deporting criminals.
That would be cynical exploitation of the worst kind — i.e. exactly what Geraldo is doing.
And the flip side of what Michelle is doing would be Geraldo having the guy on to talk about his belief in open borders despite this tragedy. If the guy believed that, it would be powerful and honest television.
What Michelle is doing is nothing like what Geraldo is doing. He is misrepresenting a grieving relative’s position. She is not.
It’s a very simple distinction, for anyone thinking rationally. Unfortunately, you aren’t.
You’re ignoring the utter dishonesty of Geraldo’s approach, which is precisely what makes it so repugnant. Claiming that Michelle has engaged in some nebulous and unstated lie of omission (?) doesn’t cut it.
Patterico (8a2533) — 7/16/2007 @ 12:36 pm“Your equivalence appears to boil down to a lie on the side you approve of.”
-Robin Roberts
Which side would that be?
And no, Darleen: the word “illegal” is not at all significant in this context. Uniformly painting illegal immigrants as rapists, murderers, and monsters is just as abhorent as doing the same to legal immigrants.
Leviticus (6903e8) — 7/16/2007 @ 12:37 pmLeviticus, I’ve given up on this. Malkin, Patterico (sadly, since he’s normally more reasonable) and various other hot-button conservative pundits have latched on to the “immigrants are DANGEROUS” theme, and will never let go.
They will never let go of idea because rational arguments fail to express their irrational fear of illegal immigrants. They have to generalize specific instances of particular crimes onto the general population, because that’s the only way they can express what is essentially unexpressible in a rational dialog.
So they latch on to various falacies — “immigrants are TERRORISTS” . . . “immigrants have LEPROSY” . . . “immigrants are LAZY” . . . “immigrants are STEALING YOUR JOBS” . . . “immigrants are VIOLENT CRIMINALS.” What they’re really saying is always the same — “we are terrified of/full of hatred of illegal immigrants, and we want you to be, too.”
Phil (427875) — 7/16/2007 @ 12:48 pmPhil, “rebutting” the arguments of those who oppose illegal immigration by merely repeating over and over again that they are motivated by hatred is not a rebuttal.
Amusingly enough, that ad hominem is very successful at increasing backlash among the American public against the advocates for illegal immigrants.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/16/2007 @ 1:00 pmIt’s not an ad hominem, Robin, I’m simply noting to Leviticus that I’ve given up. I’ve had endless discussions on this board about the facts, to no avail.
Every single one of the “immigrants are xxx” is easy to find on Malkin’s page or elsewhere. I’m not making this stuff up at all. The fact is, there is a huge amount of hatred and fear of illegal immigrants, supposedly based on these exact generalizations.
Phil (427875) — 7/16/2007 @ 1:08 pmA couple of things, Patterico:
1. No, I’m not “ignoring the utter dishonesty of Geraldo’s approach”.
I’ve called him “an idiot”, a “lying bastard”, and said that he “taints the immigration debate”.
2. Have you read “Invasion”? It is a book entirely devoted to documenting crimes committed by immigrants, whether here in the US or in their respective countries of origin. The book is one great-big lie of omission: NOT ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE MONSTERS. It’s the equivalent of someone devoting an entire book to the abuses of the Catholic clergy and then asking a parent to make “the right choice” about sending their kids to Sunday School. It’s fear-mongering of the most despicable and misleading kind.
To be fair, I don’t know what Malkin’s been up to since writing that book (though Christoph’s comments make it sound as though the song remains the same)… but the story of the Linnik girl fits into the “Invasion” mold perfectly, and I think that Malkin is USING IT as such – to advance her own personal views on immigration.
I’m sorry if I was being nebulous… but Malkin’s done in the past what Geraldo is doing in the present. If you can’t see that (after you’ve leafed through Malkin’s book), then you’re the one being irrational.
Leviticus (6903e8) — 7/16/2007 @ 1:09 pmWhy on earth would anyone ever be surprised at anything Whorealdo would do,or say?
Edward Cropper (082de5) — 7/16/2007 @ 1:10 pmThis guy is a caricature of himself. He is a modern day Jerry Callona.
He sucked up to Bill Clinton during the Monica thing, then went on relief because he wasn’t marketable. FOX News pulled him out of the garbage bin and Bill O’Reilly & FOX News continues to give him mouth to mouth.
FOX can’t really think this clown adds anything to their programming.
I turn this incompetent creep off every time he comes on the air.
All conservatives worth their salt should do likewise.
O’Reilly who never lost his Inside Edition style likes Whorealdo’s scandal rag mentality and is titillated by his extreme low-brow presentations.
Leviticus, you’ve basically redefined “lie of omission”.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/16/2007 @ 1:12 pmWe should destroy all sex offenders in any case, illegal immigrant or not.
Peter Del Valle (437317) — 7/16/2007 @ 1:47 pm“Leviticus, you’ve basically redefined “lie of omission”.
-Robin Roberts
How do you figure?
“Lying by omission is when an important fact is omitted, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception”
-Wikipedia
A near-perfect description of Malkin’s book…
Leviticus (e92874) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:09 pmPhil,
It doesn’t sound like you’ve given up on this debate but I’m glad, because it’s more interesting to discuss important topics than to bemoan them in solitary.
Levi,
IMO, the objection Malkin and Patterico (and I and many others, for that matter) have raised is not with immigrants or even with illegal immigrants. Our issue is with illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes. The fact that these criminals are illegal lets us deport them but it’s their criminal record, not their illegal status, that makes it important to deport them.
I also have problems with citizens who have previously been convicted of serious crimes. They are citizens so we can’t legally deport them (nor do I want to), but I do think we should deal with them in the firmest manner possible under the law.
Thus, this issue is consistent and logical to me. We should do whatever the law allows to protect everyone (citizens, non-citizens, and illegals) from dangerous criminals, and that includes deporting them if and when we can.
DRJ (31d948) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:12 pmEvery single one of the “immigrants are xxx” is easy to find on Malkin’s page or elsewhere. I’m not making this stuff up at all. The fact is, there is a huge amount of hatred and fear of illegal immigrants, supposedly based on these exact generalizations.
Phil, you are a master of projection.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:12 pm“Lying by omission is when an important fact is omitted, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception”
-Wikipedia
A near-perfect description of Malkin’s book…
Leviticus, you asked Patrick if he read the book. Have you?
Paul (0544fc) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:14 pmLev (and Phil)
Sob stories are a dime a dozen about “hard working”
illegalundocumentedalienAmerican citizen (remember that Freudian slip?).But over and over and over again, as Michelle or Patterico point out… if criminal ILLEGALS hadn’t been here in the first place, than those particular victims wouldn’t have been raped/killed/murdered/etc.
You think Michelle is “unfair” because she documents inconvenient facts “without balance”…but what about the MSM who run the “I’m just trying to feed my family” stories? What about the “broad brush” of the MSM?
maybe I should put it in all caps for you to grasp
NOT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE ANGELS.
Darleen (187edc) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:16 pmDRJ,
I can understand and appreciate such a stance regarding criminal illegal immigrants. My point in all of this is that Malkin is no one to criticize anyone for dishonest tactics in the debate on immigration, and my initial objection was to Patterico parading Malkin like an avenging angel when she is just as guilty of perverting the whole discourse as Rivera is.
Paul,
Yes, I’ve read Malkin’s book (though I can’t find my copy of it, which is why I didn’t include the second half of the title – what was it, do you know?)
Leviticus (e92874) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:23 pmGeez, Paul…. a “Fairness Doctrine” for books?
Darleen (187edc) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:25 pmHere we go (I googled the rest of it):
Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores
Leviticus (e92874) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:26 pmby Michelle Malkin
“Invasion” written in 2002 and from a review
Seems Malkin’s book WAS the balance.
But heck, don’t let a few things like inconvenient facts (and dead bodies) upset Planet Left.
Darleen (187edc) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:32 pmI can’t find my copy of it, which is why I didn’t include the second half of the title – what was it, do you know?
Yes, Leviticus, I have my signed copy here in front of me. “Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores.”
I can understand and appreciate such a stance regarding criminal illegal immigrants.
Which is the point of Malkin’s book, which is why I asked if you read it.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:36 pmLevi,
One of the things I like best about the internet is its anonymity because it means ideas succeed or fail on their merit, and not because of the status of the person who offers them. In general, I agree it’s important to know that someone is biased or hypocritical. On the internet, however, I don’t really care what their mindset is. I care about their logic, and Geraldo is not logical if he has to use deception to make his point.
DRJ (31d948) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:39 pmThe claim that Malkin is attempting to show that every illegal immigrant is a murder, child molestor etc. is a false premise. That is not her argument, Leviticus, its your strawman.
It is over the top to claim that a book that describes criminal behavior among illegal immigrants is a “lie by omission” because it of its emphasis. That is simply not the definition of a lie of omission. Attempting to recast someone’s different emphasis and conclusions as such is just grotesque exaggeration on your part at best.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:45 pmGeez, Paul…. a “Fairness Doctrine” for books?
No Darleen, I forgot to italicize Leviticus’s quote.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:50 pmAh, Paul. Apologizes for reading it as your quote.
Darleen (187edc) — 7/16/2007 @ 2:53 pm“Malkin’s new book, Invasion, counters these anecdotes with compelling stories of the fallout from our failure to enforce the immigration law. She tells us not only about the individual terrorists, criminals, and other foreign menaces, but also about their victims”
-The National Review (Nice one, Darleen… how ironic that your next remark alludes to the importance of Balance)
You put forth this review like it actually has some relevance to the point at hand. All it means is that there are hacks on the left (Anthony Lewis) as well as the right (Michelle Malkin) who cherry-pick sob/horror stories to paint their respective one-sided pictures.
Even if Balance were the topic at hand, this review readily acknowledges that Malkin is anything but. By saying that she “counters these [liberal] anecdotes”, the National Review admits that Malkin has an axe to grind. Maybe her book brought around some sort of karmic balance, but it certainly isn’t Balanced in and of itself.
As for “don’t let a few things like inconvenient facts (and dead bodies) upset Planet Left”…
Please.
“I have my signed copy here in front of me”
-Paul
Ooooh, signed. What did she write? Was it something like “Dear Paul: I hope that my signature will one day convince your cringing leftist opponents that I am a genuinely good person bent on painting a fair picture of the immigrant population of this country. I am not a demagogue. Sincerely, Michelle Malkin”?
I hope her personal comments conveyed that point, because the rest of the book sure as hell didn’t. At least in my eyes, Malkin’s book goes far beyond advocating a hardline stance regarding the treatment of criminal aliens. I could understand that (even if I didn’t necessarily agree with it). Malkin paints a picture of a world where all immigrants are dangerous scum, shooting American cops in the face from point-blank range after fleeing war crimes tribunals in their own countries…and that’s wrong, and she knows it.
“Geraldo is not logical if he has to use deception to make his point”
-DRJ
No argument there. As I’ve already said, what Geraldo did was totally dishonest and Patterico was right to call him on it.
Robin Roberts,
You don’t see how a person could come away from “Invasion” with the MISCONCEPTION that violent criminals were the rule amongst immigrants rather than the exception? My grandma bought the book for my father because she thought it was “something he should know about” (paraphrasing).
Leviticus (c6d04d) — 7/16/2007 @ 3:27 pmWhat did she write? Was it something like “Dear Paul: I hope that my signature will one day convince your cringing leftist opponents that I am a genuinely good person bent on painting a fair picture of the immigrant population of this country. I am not a demagogue. Sincerely, Michelle Malkin”?No.
You, Leviticus, like Phil, are a master of projection.
At least in my eyes, Malkin’s book goes far beyond advocating a hardline stance regarding the treatment of criminal aliens.
Care to grace us with examples of this assertion? Oh that’s right, you can’t find your copy.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/16/2007 @ 3:36 pmWhat exactly do you think drool is composed of?
Yes, people who are unaware that the attack came from Rivera and not Malkin might say that. But they’d be wrong, of course.
Oh, and Rivera didn’t “misuse” the uncle’s testimony. He lied about it. Not a lie of omission, but a good old-fashioned bald faced untruth.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/16/2007 @ 3:44 pmI’m sure you’ll be happy to quote where she’s said “All immigrants are xxxx”. Given that the group of “all immigrants” includes her parents, I can’t wait to see what you come up with.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/16/2007 @ 3:47 pmThen it should be extraordinarily easy to to provide such quotes and the links to back them up, shouldn’t it, Phil.
I’ll wait.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/16/2007 @ 3:48 pmPhil, could you do me a favor and provide a specific example of my doing the above?
Or, alternatively, you could apologize for misrepresenting my position.
I would like quotes and links. Quotes and links.
In other words, not general hand-waving and arguments like “Well, you have this whole series on immigrants committing crimes — which doesn’t prove the false accusations you have made, because none of those posts generally argues that immigrants (or even illegal immigrants) are criminals generally (other than by entering illegally, in which sense they are generally criminals, but that’s not the point of the posts and you know it)..
Arguing by misstating the other guy’s position isn’t argument. It’s verbal diarrhea.
Patterico (3c7669) — 7/16/2007 @ 3:51 pmOh, come on, Patterico. You and Michelle just hate brown people and everyone knows it.
Who needs quotes and supporting links when they’ve got all this common knowledge? Everyone knows it.
And all they need to convince themselves of this is repetition. Supporting evidence is unnecessary.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:00 pmPablo: Do you remember when you challenged me to come up with evidence to support my claim that the US had hired mercenaries in Iraq and I linked you to that story regarding Aegis (a British security company). Did that convince you, or did you just mumble something half-assed along the lines of “patrolling an area and shooting at people isn’t real combat…”?
“What exactly do you think drool is composed of?”
-Pablo
Um, saliva? You know, from a slack jaw with an open mouth? Didn’t plan on having to spell that one out…
“Oh, and Rivera didn’t “misuse” the uncle’s testimony. He lied about it. Not a lie of omission, but a good old-fashioned bald faced untruth”
-Pablo
So one’s better than the other, if both are deliberate? A lie of omission is still a lie, Pablo, whether you like it or not.
Leviticus (6ad648) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:13 pmBetter trolls please!
daleyrocks (906622) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:32 pmBetter trolls please!
You’re setting the bar too high, daleyrocks.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:38 pmA lie of omission is still a lie, Pablo, whether you like it or not.
Perhaps you should broach this topic with the likes of the Dog Trainer. Or Michael Moore. Or The High Lord Master Prince of Darkness of Lying By Telling the Truth himself, Noam Chomsky.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:42 pmNo, not offhand. If you’ve got a link to refresh my memory, that would be helpful. Aside from that, a mercenary, by definition, cannot be a national of a nation involved in the conflict, so barring further argument, I’ll rest on that.
And I didn’t plan on having to spell out that O’Reilly would be salivating. Which is what I said.
You haven’t shown a lie of omission, other than by vague inference. If you’ve got quotes, and especially links to support them, now would be the time to offer them.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:46 pmIf you’ve got quotes, and especially links to support them, now would be the time to offer them.
He’s not going to Pablo, unless he goes to the library or borrows someone else’s copy of Invasion, Pablo. You see, Leviticus can’t find his.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:49 pmSorry, that should have read:
He’s not going to, unless he goes to the library or borrows someone else’s copy of Invasion, Pablo.
You see, Leviticus can’t find his own copy.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:51 pmA lie of omission is when the witness is asked if someone was in a room at 5pm and truthfully answers “I saw him enter at 3 pm.” but omits saying ” … and I saw him leave at 4 pm.”
What Leviticus wants us to accept is that if Michelle Malkin argues that illegal immigrants who commit crimes are nonetheless not being deported then what Leviticus is claiming is that the argument: “Some illegal immigrants are criminals” is equivalent to saying “most illegal immigrants are criminals” and finally “all illegal immigrants are criminals”.
This is a dishonest argument by Leviticus.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:54 pmNo kidding, Robin, Leviticus is out to lunch on this and Patterico put it well when he called his argument “offensive”.
Leviticus should feel disgusted with himself and apologize.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 4:59 pmThe open borders crowd who lay at the feet of Geraldo will always see anyone who finds illegals getting amnesty as racist or bigoted and the beauty of it is who cares what you think of me or Michelle or anyone else who finds it offensive for people to get a pass on laws when you damn well know that if an American was using a false SS# or driving a vechicle that is not insured would be spending some time in jail. This argument is simple we non-illegals otherwise known as Americans would be doing hard time in jail for what 12-20 million illegals would get a pass for.
Jaded (c8d596) — 7/16/2007 @ 6:25 pmIt got awfully quiet around here, didn’t it?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/16/2007 @ 6:30 pmInterestingly I was listening to Prager this morning as he interviewed Drew Weston, the new Dem guru. Pleasant enough man but what struck me how absolutely convinced he was that conservatives are just plain old meanies “of course they care about the poor less than liberals. its demonstratable fact”
Lev and Phil are the nastier versions of Leftist assumptions … their policy opponents aren’t just mistaken … “Rethugs/wingers/neo-cons/zionists” are “hacks” “haters” “malevolent”.
We also just witnessed this mindset with RFK jr’s revealing meltdown that anyone that doesn’t believe the AGW religion and fall in line with Enviro-Sharia are “traitors, who should be dealt with…”
See, it doesn’t matter that Malkin’s book was researched and factual, it didn’t fit the Left cult Truthiness…so she couldn’t be offering it as a counter to other writings and she couldn’t be offering it in good faith.
“Submit, convert or die” is the moto of Islamists…
shared by Leftist fundamentalism, too.
Darleen (187edc) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:02 pmThe guy who keeps referring to illegal immigrants as “immigrants” sez:
How does Wikipedia define “irony?”
Xrlq (246745) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:07 pmOk… let’s start with a question:
What do you think of VDARE, Pablo? Do you consider them a racist/xenophobic organization?
If you do, then Malkin is in trouble. She has a whole slew of anti-immigrant articles posted on their site. If they are a racist/xenophobic organization, and their beliefs reflect hers (or vice versa), then that makes her… what?
If you instead consider VDARE a legitimate, politically concerned group (whose beliefs may or may not coincide with your own), then consider a quote from this article : “Anti-cop bias comes from the national mainstream media’s sins of omission — the stories never told”.
I’ll be durned. Well, we may be using that definition to make totally divergent points, but at least we can agree on the definition itself. The American Enterprise claims that the media paints a biased picture by focusing on stories of police violence against immigrants without counterbalancing said stories with tales of immigrant violence against police. I claim that Michelle Malkin paints a biased picture by focusing on stories of violent immigrants without counterbalancing said stories with tales of peaceful immigrants…
Which leads us back to you guys. Since Paul has his signed copy of “Invasion” on hand, why doesn’t he find us an example of Malkin telling the story of a peaceful, happy immigrant worker who never harmed anyone? I’d wager that stories of this type are “the stories never told” in Malkin’s book (except maybe in the introduction, where she explains that she is *ever* so tolerant, and that this book is just about a few bad apples).
Now, for more childish diversions…
“And I didn’t plan on having to spell out that O’Reilly would be salivating. Which is what I said.”
-Pablo
Technically, “salivate” only means “to produce saliva”… so what you were saying is “Bill O’Reilly is performing a totally run of the mill bodily function”. “Drool”, on the other hand, means “saliva running down from one’s mouth” (or “to talk foolishly”…hmmm).
“Salivating”, in the sense I assume you had in mind, implies a kind of controlled hunger and eagerness. “Drooling”, in the sense I knowI had in mind, implies stupidity to the point of retardation.
Am I splitting hairs? I most certainly am. But, as everyone’s favorite president says, “Words mean things”, and some words mean (or at least imply) slightly different things than others.
That statement actually has a lot more merit to it than Bush ever gets credit for.
“It got awfully quiet around here, didn’t it?”
-Pablo
If you think that having a pissing contest on an obscure blog is more important than eating dinner with ones family, than by all means say so.
And, finally…
“Leviticus should feel disgusted with himself and apologize.”
-Christoph
*pttttthpt*
Jog on.
I’m not going to apologize for calling a spade a spade just because the rest of you insist on calling a spade a type of digging tool…
I thought I saw that somewhere recently…
Where was that??
Leviticus (95f89a) — 7/16/2007 @ 8:58 pmI see that Leviticus has backed off the “lie of omission” falsehood for the new “I claim that Michelle Malkin paints a biased picture by focusing on stories of violent immigrants without counterbalancing said stories with tales of peaceful immigrants…”
Which means that Ms. Malkin now goes from a liar to someone who does not tell Leviticus’ version of the story.
Pathetic. Guess what Christoph, Leviticus just tried to save face.
Leviticus, you didn’t call a spade a spade. Instead, you just made yourself into an example.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:04 pmWhat do you think of VDARE, Pablo? Do you consider them a racist/xenophobic organization?
If you do, then Malkin is in trouble. She has a whole slew of anti-immigrant articles posted on their site. If they are a racist/xenophobic organization, and their beliefs reflect hers (or vice versa), then that makes her… what?
You are such a dishonest person, Leviticus.
Talk about a categorical syllogism.
You claim VDARE is racist and xenophobic. They agree with Malkin about restricting illegal immigration and deporting immigrants who commit crimes. Therefore, Malkin is racist and xenophobic.
Likewise, Hitler liked dogs. John likes dogs. Therefore, John wants to kill all the Jews.
Mike believed in universal health care. Che Guevara believed in universal health care. Therefore, Mike was Cuban and a murderer.
You’re an intellectually disingenuous ass, Leviticus.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:10 pmI love the fact that these comments are all here. It allows us to go back and see how Leviticus changed his argument from the disgusting slur he advanced in comment 8, to a more general attack on Malkin in comment 14.
Let’s roll the tape on comment #8 and — free of all the desperate distractions Levi has thrown up to try to muddy the issue — remind ourselves of the original, silly, irrational, indefensible argument he made:
Yes, Michelle commenting on Zina Linnik, and referring to her tragedy as part of an argument for deporting criminals — that’s just like Geraldo lying about the dead girl’s uncle’s views.
“Some might say.”
Well, Leviticus, that was your argument, and I take personal offense. I’ll tell you why: I have referrd to Zina Linnik’s death in exactly the same way Michelle has. She and I are standing shoulder to shoulder on this argument of deporting illegal alien criminals (not, as the misstater Phil has claimed, to portray all illegals as TERRORISTS).
I believe this tragedy is a watershed moment. I believe it may spur legislation that could save the lives of several future Zina Linniks.
I am not distorting a Goddamned thing in making this argument, and neither is Michelle. And referring to this tragedy as an argument for legislation to prevent reoccurrences is not, my logic-challenged friend, any-Goddamned-where-NEAR like Geraldo exploiting her relatives in a dishonest politically motivated stunt.
Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:12 pmGuys,
For a short while comment #63 appeared under DRJ’s name, although it’s clearly mine. I have been editing a post of hers that will appear tomorrow, and so I logged in under her name. I forgot I had done so and posted the angry, expletive-laden comment that is at #63.
The same problem caused a post recently to appear under her name that was mine. I’ll try to be more careful.
Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:38 pmI apologize especially to DRJ for temporarily causing her to look like the unhinged potty-mouth that I actually am.
Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:39 pmAh, it’s okay.
I just knew the comment made sense so figured it was hers.
Good to know DRJ is a her. A lady with brains, and great initials.
Gotta like that.
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 9:41 pmThey are all criminals Pat, under federal law. It does not matter if they are working below the radar and bettering themselves (at the expense of the American paxpayer) and sending the money home.
“Deport the Criminals First” means they all should be deported. You agree or disagree? Or are you being selective on which laws need to be enforced?
Petty Bourgeois (d5b6de) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:02 pmIf anyone is the “unhinged potty mouth,” it’s me!
Don’t you dare attempt to take away my rightful title to the throne of inappropriate invective-hurler. I been at this for six years since the creation of Al Gore’s internets, and you are not about to tread upon my turf of inappropriate commenting, newbie.
Petty Bourgeois (d5b6de) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:07 pmNo apology necessary, Patterico. I think multiple DRJs would be pretty cool. It reminds me of George Foreman.
DRJ (31d948) — 7/16/2007 @ 10:29 pmOkay, fair’s fair. From now on, every single time people like Lev or Phil criticize Republicans they should immediately sing the praises of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and… um… Everett Dirksen, how’s that?
Because to do otherwise, by their definition, would be a lie of omission.
DubiousD (1c483b) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:17 pmChristoph, #62: Now hold on, Leviticus actually has half a logical point here. If VDARE is a racist and xenophobic site that ought to be shunned by all right-thinking people then Malkin ought not to allow her articles to appear there. The fact that she does allow the site to carry her work shows that she does not consider it beyond the pale of civilised discussion. Thus far, Levi is entirely correct.
However, he seems to further conclude that by allowing her work to appear there, Malkin is actually endorsing the site and its program. And that doesn’t follow at all. She may well disagree with VDARE’s position on immigration, in whole or part, and yet consider it “a legitimate, politically concerned group (whose beliefs may or may not coincide with [her] own)”. That is how I view VDARE – a legitimate group whose views do not coincide with my own – and if it wanted to carry any of my work I would certainly allow it (especially if there was any money on offer).
Milhouse (ef8775) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:20 pmYou make a good point. I accept that. Listening, Leviticus?
Now can you be man enough to admit in comment #8 the two things are not equivalent and retract it?
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/16/2007 @ 11:27 pmWhich leads us back to you guys. Since Paul has his signed copy of “Invasion” on hand, why doesn’t he find us an example of Malkin telling the story of a peaceful, happy immigrant worker who never harmed anyone?
Malkin personally knows two peaceful, happy (and legal) immigrant workers that followed the rules to the letter, Leviticus. They’re called her parents.
I named an example, as you requested, Leviticus.
Now go beg or borrow a copy of Invasion and address this: Care to grace us with examples of this assertion that “Malkin’s book goes far beyond advocating a hardline stance regarding the treatment of criminal aliens?”
This is the second time I’ve asked you. Between askings, Patrick and several other commenters have gutted you like a fish. I suggest you answer this question before you look anymore like a tap-dancing fool, or admit you are a f**kwit and made an undocumented assertion that would go unchallenged in leftist circles.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/17/2007 @ 1:38 amThat decision is up to the copyright holder, not the author. Take it up with Creators Syndicate. I can just imagine the laughter when they’re asked to refuse business because Leviticus doesn’t like their customer.
I don’t read the site, and I’m guessing that Leviticus doesn’t either. So I can’t help but wonder if his cries of racism don’t fall into exactly the same category he’s been demonstrating throughout the entire thread.
As always, quotes and links which would prove his point are lacking.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/17/2007 @ 3:10 amAnother good point.
More good points!
Christoph (8741c8) — 7/17/2007 @ 3:23 amAnd while we’re flogging Leviticus, and because it’s such entertaining sport:
…
How does one drool without salivating, Levi? Are you doing that right now? Is that what’s left of your character that’s dribbling down your chin?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/17/2007 @ 3:36 amFollowing Levi’s logic, and adding a touch of reality to it, if VDARE is racist/xenophobic then Creators Syndicate must also be racist/xenophobic by virtue of licensing their content to VDARE.
Now, let’s watch that fart filled balloon burst with this piece from the current Creators Syndicate front page.
No Such Thing as a Pure Race
Pablo (99243e) — 7/17/2007 @ 4:29 am“I see that Leviticus has backed off the “lie of omission” falsehood for the new “I claim that Michelle Malkin paints a biased picture by focusing on stories of violent immigrants without counterbalancing said stories with tales of peaceful immigrants…”
-Robin Roberts
Not remotely. By her own definition, “Invasion” is a lie of omission.
This is the story Malkin tells in that article: The MSM cherry-picks storys of police brutality against illegal immigrants, yet refuses to tell the stories of cops murdered by illegal immigrants. In her eyes (it’s right there, read the link) these “stories not told” constitute a “sin of omission”.
This is what I’ve been arguing all along: Malkin cherry-picks storys of illegal immigrants committing horrendous crimes, yet refuses to tell the stories of immigrants doing good things, living normal lives. In my eyes (and hers), these “stories not told” constitute a “sin of omission”.
“You claim VDARE is racist and xenophobic. They agree with Malkin about restricting illegal immigration and deporting immigrants who commit crimes. Therefore, Malkin is racist and xenophobic.”
-Christoph
No, I don’t. If you keep reading, you’ll see where I offer the alternative – that VDARE is a “legitimate, politically concerned group (whose beliefs may or may not coincide with your own)”. That’s the one I run with, Christoph.
“Malkin personally knows two peaceful, happy (and legal) immigrant workers that followed the rules to the letter, Leviticus. They’re called her parents.
I named an example, as you requested, Leviticus”
-Paul
Like hell you did. The fact that Malkin knows law-abiding immigrants means nothing if she doesn’t acknowledge it in her book. Find an example from the book, and then we’ll talk.
“Now can you be man enough to admit in comment #8 the two things are not equivalent and retract it?”
-Christoph
Yes. Yes I can. Are you listening, Patterico? What I said in comment #8 was out of order. What Malkin’s done in the past may have been dishonest, but it was wrong of me to attack her (and you, by proxy) for trying to defend a little girl’s memory against someone who sought to taint it.
Now, we’ll see if any of you can be man (or woman) enough to admit that, by her own definition, Malkin has committed a “sin of omission” with “Invasion”.
I doubt it.
Leviticus (fa7484) — 7/17/2007 @ 7:30 amNow, Leviticus, once again you are being completely dishonest. There is no definition of “lie of omission” in that piece. The line used in the piece by Malkin you link is “sin of omission” not “lie of omission” and she is quoting Golub.
You really are quite disgusting in your dishonesty.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/17/2007 @ 7:38 amReally, Leviticus? What’s her take on Zina Linnik? It’s not as though she hasn’t been mentioned here.
If you’re writing a book about people with cancer, there’s no need to balance it with stories about people without cancer. You’re talking about a book written about a topic, where Malkin was talking about the whole of the legacy media and their utterly ignoring the other side of a story.
And if your argument is that she never speaks well of immigrants, what is this? And this? And this?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/17/2007 @ 8:06 am“The line used in the piece by Malkin you link is “sin of omission” not “lie of omission” and she is quoting Golub.
You really are quite disgusting in your dishonesty.”
-Robin Roberts
She’s quoting Golub for a reason, Robin, and you’re reallllly splitting hairs. The words she uses (through Golub) are “sin of omission — the stories not told”… which pretty much means the exact same thing.
The same to you.
“If you’re writing a book about people with cancer, there’s no need to balance it with stories about people without cancer.”
-Pablo
That’s a blatant oversimplification. There’s no implied cause and effect in your example. It would be as though someone wrote a book about a bunch of people on the same medication getting cancer, while failing to mention that there were a myriad of other people on the same medication who didn’t get cancer, that in fact flourished because of it. That’s misleading: many people will (wrongly) come to the conclusion that said medication causes cancer, because the author did nothing to disavow that notion.
Leviticus (f07d14) — 7/17/2007 @ 8:24 amNonsense. It’s a book about criminality and the failure of law enforcement and immigration enforcement. What you’re saying is that if I write a book on bank robbers and don’t specifically mention that there are people who aren’t bank robbers, then I am making the case that everyone is a bank robber.
If you draw that conclusion because I haven’t told you not to do it, you’re an idiot, and as an author, that is neither my fault nor my problem. The obvious fact that not everyone robs banks is as commonly known as is the fact that not all immigrants are criminals.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/17/2007 @ 8:46 am… You’re right. There’s no way I can argue with your bank robber analogy. It is common sense that not all immigrants are criminals, and that not all illegal immigrants are violent. I have been basing my arguments on a falatious premise: that it is necessarily an author’s job to provide balance, rather than a reader’s job to find it.
If Malkin’s supporters read “Invasion” and immediately assume that all illegal immigrants are monsters, they are, as you say, idiots. It is not her job to give them stories of peace-loving illegals – that’s not the focus of her book; instead, it is their job to find stories of peace-loving illegalson their own, to way pros and cons, and to draw what conclusions they may from there.
Humbled once again…
Leviticus (555b80) — 7/17/2007 @ 9:38 am“weigh” the pros and cons… as you can imagine, my mind was elsewhere in this comment.
Leviticus (1d5fef) — 7/17/2007 @ 10:00 amAnd it’s “fallacious”, not “falatious”… geez
Leviticus (99879d) — 7/17/2007 @ 11:09 am“sin of omission” does not mean the same as “lie of omission”, Leviticus. That’s the bottom line. Humbled? More like hoist upon your own petard.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/17/2007 @ 11:41 amRight. And if you’d like to quote any of them making that idiotic assumption and declaring it to be a fact, do feel free.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/17/2007 @ 11:54 amPablo,
Since I’m sure most of Malkin’s supporters aren’t idiots, such comments would probably be fairly difficult to come by.
Leviticus (3e40ff) — 7/17/2007 @ 12:21 pmLeviticus, you continue to violate the first rule of holes. When in one, stop digging.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/17/2007 @ 12:56 pmI’m sure a lot of people do find VDare racist, Levi; some people find racism behind every bush and tree. I myself have not found it so.
While we’re at it, let’s take ownership of our positions, shall we? The fact that “some” say this or that is a tired old rhetorical dodge to allow the use of indefensible support for an argument. Either make an argument yourself or attribute the source.
Eric (605286) — 7/17/2007 @ 2:07 pmLeviticus, do you buy your goalposts with wheels?
Like hell you did. The fact that Malkin knows law-abiding immigrants means nothing if she doesn’t acknowledge it in her book. Find an example from the book, and then we’ll talk.
From the Introduction in my signed copy of her book, page xiv:
Malkin’s parents became naturalized citizens in 1989, taking the oath of citizenship in English.
That’s an example from the book, black on white.
Now answer my question, which I am asking for the third time, the original asking predates your request for an example: Care to grace us with examples of this assertion that “Malkin’s book goes far beyond advocating a hardline stance regarding the treatment of criminal aliens?”
I will bet $50 bucks you never read the book, which is why you keep asking me to disprove you while never offering any proof of your own. Now put up or shut up: either post an example with proper page citation, admit you are a f**kwit, or give it up and stop tap dancing.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/17/2007 @ 2:21 pmB-b-but, conservatives are evil and hate brown people. Leviticus just knows it.
Eric (605286) — 7/17/2007 @ 3:11 pmEric, I don’t know that it makes sense to describe the entire VDARE web site as racist, but it certainly does have those elements. That doesn’t mean it’s fair to brand Malkin as a racist for allowing her own columns to be run there, but it does call into question her judgment in doing so.
IOW, just because Leviticus made a mountain out of this proverbial molehill, that doesn’t mean we should deny that the molehill was there to begin with.
Xrlq (aa20a5) — 7/17/2007 @ 6:44 pmXrlq, look at a Malkin column over there, and check the copyright. She’s not writing for VDARE, she’s writing for Creators Syndicate, who then apparently licenses her columns to anyone who wants to pay for them.
Sure, it’s evil capitalism, but placement decisions are made by the syndicator, not the author.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/17/2007 @ 7:53 pmI seriously doubt that. Malkin can publish or not publish her column anywhere she wants. If she told Creators Syndicate to stop selling to VDARE, they would.
Xrlq (aa20a5) — 7/17/2007 @ 9:00 pmPhil?
Oh, Phil!
An example, please!
If you think I’m going to let you off the book, then you don’t know me well.
Phil.
Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/17/2007 @ 9:47 pmYou don’t suppose she’s exclusively contracted to Creators for her columns? And frankly, why would any writer want not to be published? The point of writing would seem to be to get your work in front of as many eyeballs as possible. The point of writing for a syndicator would seem to be to further that goal.
That assumes facts not in evidence. It also makes no business sense.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/18/2007 @ 4:46 amI’m not sure what facts you think I’m assuming. My only point is that I seriously that Creators Syndicate does, or would, publish her column at VDARE over her objections. If you think it’s a smart business move to publish one’s column on StormFront, Aryan Nation, or any other web site that will carry it, that’s another discussion; in that case the whole side discussion about CS is irrelevant.
Xrlq (aa20a5) — 7/18/2007 @ 8:05 amThat’s exactly what I think you’re assuming. And you’re also assuming that she has some sort of duty to police who her column is or is not sold to. You contract with a syndicate precisely to avoid having to deal with micromanaging your distribution.
Those would discredit the product in that they exist to promote racism and hate. As I look around it, VDARE seems to have a wide range of opinions and publishes a wide variety of writers. I don’t imagine VDARE damages the product any more than any number of papers/outlets that she’s published in, such as Yahoo News. God only knows what you might turn up there.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/18/2007 @ 8:32 amAnyone who diagrees with XLRQ is a “racist.” Ask Steve Sailer if you don’t believe it.
And thanks for responding to my question, Pat. You’re a real gentleman.
Funny thing is, pointing out heinous illegal immigrant criminals was first done on VDARE by Brenda Walker. Nice to see you unoriginal copycats stealing someone else’s format without giving credit.
Petty Bourgeois (d5b6de) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:25 pmAnyone who disagrees with XLRQ (no relation) isn’t a web designer – or is one of their competitors. Anyone who disagrees with XRLQ is wrong. Anyone who writes that Japanese people don’t loot “because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren’t blacks” is a racist. Anyone who posts that drivel and then whines about others calling him a racist is a cupid stunt.
Xrlq (96acc3) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:37 pmFunny thing is, pointing out heinous illegal immigrant criminals was first done on VDARE by Brenda Walker. Nice to see you unoriginal copycats stealing someone else’s format without giving credit.
My contractor was installing my kitchen counters the other day and he wanted to be sure they were entirely square. So he measured three feet on one, four feet on the other and then from the one point to the other to see whether that was five feet. He did not give a single word of credit to the architects and engineers who have been doing the same thing for the last five thousand years or so. Shame on him!
nk (37689a) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:58 pmXLRQ (the dumbest alias I have ever seen) wants amnesty for people who mow his lawn since he is too lazy to do it himself. And for the record, I welcome any idiot who calls me a racist, you fraud. That includes yourself, “racist” screamer.
How many illegals do you employ on your farm in Virginia, X? Why did you leave CalifAztlan? Was it too mexican for you? Did you want to become a plantation master or something?
I’m ignoring nk, since he values political opportunism for web hits and money over integrity and core beliefs.
Petty Bourgeois (d5b6de) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:24 pmOK. I’m calling for a vote on whether to ban Senor Dickless — the “man” who calls himself “Petty Bourgeois.”
Aye or nay?
Patterico (5ce5ae) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:45 pmPetit Bourgeois,
When you say that, smile!
nk (37689a) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:46 pmPatterico #104,
No, from my prospective. How you run your blog is your business and how he has offended you is a privilege of your sensibilities. He’s all over the place, possibly nuts, but is he obscene or vicious against people not here to defend themselves or put him down? (I confess to a thick skin, possibly a mental block, against rudeness and negativity.)
nk (37689a) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:53 pmP.S. And I do know the difference between “perspective” and “prospective”. It’s just that it takes me a while to see how to write it.
nk (37689a) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:57 pmSmells like Jim Robinson in here. Censorship has that evil smell. Beyond putrid.
Teppy Bourgeois (formerly Petty Bourgeois, now Teppy Bourgeois by order of Supreme Censoring Overlord Patterico) (d5b6de) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:03 pmCount my vote however XRLQ votes since he’s borne the brunt of it here. However, if he stays, I think he should have to post as Teppy Bourgeois in perpetuity or at least until he learns to spell XRLQ.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:03 pm#73
voiceofreason63 (aa9504) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:25 pmThere is some question about how Malkin’s parents came to settle here in 1970. The visa they came on was some kind of study or work sponsored one, but not a permanent, you waited in line like everyone visa. Once Michelle was born later that year, she of course was an instant US citizen and they never left.
http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1705
has the transcript from her interview with CNN in which she punted when asked about this.
I’m changing my vote. Ban him. Because,
Smells like Jim Robinson in here. Censorship has that evil smell. Beyond putrid.
Comment by Teppy Bourgeois (formerly Petty Bourgeois, now Teppy Bourgeois by order of Supreme Censoring Overlord Patterico) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:03 pm
He thinks he’s entitled to a soap-box on your paid-for bandwidth, to the readers and commenters you have worked hard to attract, and still entitled to insult you. Don’t think twice. Kick an agressive hobo off your front porch.
nk (37689a) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:58 pmI don’t have to ban him. He has banned himself. He won’t be back.
Good riddance. He’s a liar. From his post:
Not true, Petty Bourgeois, you liar. She threatened to ban someone for saying I should be beaten.
Plenty of other people in that thread called me on the carpet. Only one was threatened with banning, and not for the reasons that the liar Petty Bourgeois says.
P.S. I am a county prosecutor, not a city one. The difference is that we prosecute felonies, moron.
Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/21/2007 @ 2:57 pm#110
You call that a punt?
Paul (0544fc) — 7/21/2007 @ 3:34 pm#113
voiceofreason63 (6e1b18) — 7/23/2007 @ 3:08 amYes. The focus she makes about anchor babies is the issue in regards to this. One would think that she would go out of her way to make it clear that her parents didn’t “game the system” by having a child here while on a student visa, effectively bypassing many others who had been in line long before her.
Have you ever known of an issue where Malkin DID NOT speak out forcefully? She didn’t on this one because it damages her credibility and “moral authority” about all she has said re anchor babies.
I lost track of this thread and missed the vote on Petty’s fate, but am relieved to see it reached the right result without me. I think I’ll start sitting out real elections, too. I mean, c’mon, if my vote couldn’t even save George Allen, it’s unlikely to determine anything else, either. Here’s my favorite part of his “you can’t fire me, I quit” blabber:
Trolling moron, I blogged alongside the Angry Clam. I knew the Angry Clam. The Angry Clam was a friend of mine. Trolling moron, you’re no Angry Clam.
Xrlq (44e5d0) — 7/25/2007 @ 8:55 amAnd returning to the original topic, don’t miss Jerry Riviera’s blogospheric minions.
Xrlq (44e5d0) — 7/25/2007 @ 8:58 amits a shame that threre are people in this world
someone that really cares (fa5cd0) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:49 pmthat do things like this to innoccent children. Zina linnik seemed like a sweet girl.
even though i never knew her i can tell that she is one of God’s blessings.
it still brings a tear to my eye to hear the tragic story. i had a sister that died once.
she drowned in the ocean and was 12 just like Lina.
i feel so sorry for her family.
i dont see how people in this world could be so cruel. i want her family to know that
they are in my prayers. if anything like this happens to me…ill be strong and think of lina.
she is a miracle like know other.
i heard a poem once…
when we are born we cry but people around us smile.when we die people around us cry. But we smile because we are going into our Fathers arms.
i hope that this will bring a little strength to Lina’s family because she was smiling when she entered heaven.