Allowing amnesty for those lawbreakers denigrates the efforts of lawful immigrants, plain and simple. It seems that by the electoral analysis of the proponents of shamnesty, the most important issue is the votes of people who are currently illegal, rather than the betterment of our country. Michelle was right on the money with that point.

Ellis Pemmican is just a liberal twit.

Piffle.

On the issue of the U.S. border fence (I know!) that protrudes “1 to 6 feet” into the sovereign state of Mexico, and will cost “an estimated $2.5 to $3.5 million to remove and replace”, I am thinking (or am I feeling?):

let’s just split the difference and reduce our foreign aid to Mexico by $3 million this year in order to pay for it.

Or, we could determine the value of the land in question — my guess, about $238 — and buy it from them. Aw, hell, give ‘em $1,000 and tell ‘em to keep the change.

You think I’d steer ya’ll wrong? I don’t care about his opinions as long as I can hear that voice.

askheaves on June 30, 2007 at 3:19 AM

Oh, I already knew you were right–I’ve known that was Ellis for a couple of years. The “Yep” was in answer to PBoilermakers’ “Is he really?”, plus it gave me some text to tie the IMDb link to.

From her Hot Air segments, it appeared that Michelle Malking was trying to move in a different direction. So I’m assuming that she had absolutely no say whatsoever into choosing the guests on the show.

My theory is that Michelle is being ‘conditioned’ for her own show. They’re pushing her to the limit to see if she’ll break. So far, they haven’t even come close. I also get the impression that she’s committed to the ‘New Media’ thing. After all, she practically invented it with Hot Air. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some sort of hybrid involving Fox News, Michelle Malkin and Hot Air. If this isn’t in the works, it should be.

[Turning off monitors is] the quickest way for a host to lose credibility. I’m sure Michelle knows that.

OK then, let’s back up a bit. The (I guess) zeroth step in having an intelligent conversation would have been to pick guests who weren’t imbiciles in the first place.

I don’t usually watch O’Reily, but I assume that he and his producers consider this sort of infantile haranguing to be entertainment of some sort. (Although I doubt that he often sets up the shouting matches as two-to-one against himself.)

From her Hot Air segments, it appeared that Michelle Malking was trying to move in a different direction. So I’m assuming that she had absolutely no say whatsoever into choosing the guests on the show.

Don’t get me wrong; thirty years ago, I would have thanked God for a news program that only wasted two-thirds of my time. But no amount of cuteness is going to make that worth watching in this century.

The FIRST STEP in that process would have been to turn off the monitors of the two maniacs. Michelle Malking was not able to accomplish that.

That’s the quickest way for a host to lose credibility. I’m sure Michelle knows that.

On the immigration segment, Michelle had two liberal lunatics screaming at her. What was the point of that?

Baptism by fire.

Um, this isn’t the first time Michelle has been harrassed.

I don’t think anyone was amazed that MM didn’t break down in tears and flee the set. What I want to see (and call me the crazy one if you want) is an INTELLIGENT conversation on a television news program.

The FIRST STEP in that process would have been to turn off the monitors of the two maniacs. Michelle Malking was not able to accomplish that.

What I want to know is whether that was her decision, or was it imposed upn her by the producers of the show?

On the immigration segment, Michelle had two liberal lunatics screaming at her. What was the point of that?

Baptism by fire.

I wonder whether she had any input into selecting her guests, or did the show foist all that crap on her?