But captivated-dem is right, this is a fight for another thread, so I’ll tear ya all apart another time!

The Sinner on July 31, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Just remember not to bring a knife to a… well, you know.

Professor Blather on July 31, 2007 at 9:38 AM

and

Professor Blather on July 31, 2007 at 1:43 PM

If I were a woman, Professor, I’d want to have your baby.

Not quite in high school yet…

I would go one step further – there should be a basic civics exam. Questions like, who is the current President, vice president, etc. Today’s “yoots” don’t know squat about how our gov’t works. For that matter, neither do most adults.

My collie says:

Why don’t you ask her if she hates her father?

THIS qualifies as “Political News?”
Well, maybe the “Girl” part is correct, since the generally accepted term for an adult would be “Woman” wouldn’t it?

I won’t try to defend all the comments here on this thread. Like AllahPundit says, some of us are just “mean” I guess. Even so, at least the mean people here didn’t misrepresent themselves or hide their agenda. You, however, (MelissaJenna — or whatever your name is) are a fraud and a deceiver. You misrepresented 1) who you are, 2) your motivation for asking questions, and 3) what you intended to use people’s responses for.

So, go ahead, keep it up. I predict that you’ll make a SPLENDID MSM journalist or maybe even a politician some day.

Your obsession with sex and the Catholic Church is also troubling.

Might I suggest you slither on back over to the fever swamps of Kos or HuffPo.

Troll.

jdawg on July 31, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Yes, because I single-handedly started the Catholic Church child abuse crisis, yes, I can see how that is troubling to you. Like I said, I am through discussing that for now. Feel free to go back to demeaning and ogling this young girl’s goodies and doing whatever it is you are doing to yourself under your desk, “dawg”. Sorry to interrupt.

Your obsession with sex, especially homosexual sex, and youngsters, is somewhat troubling. Please, go find another place to drool, er, post.

You mean the homosexual priest scandle.

Harpoon on July 31, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Riiiiiight, because no HETEROSEXUAL has ever committed a sex crime, ever! Must be them pesky gays!

I agree that radical Islam is our biggest threat today, because unlike Christianity, it never evolved past 700 A.D. So yes, Christianity is better than Islam, but it’s still nothing to crow about, as many many molested altar boys and disowned gay teens would be glad to tell ya. But captivated-dem is right, this is a fight for another thread, so I’ll tear ya all apart another time!

The Sinner on July 31, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Yours is truly a dizzying intellect.

Professor Blather on July 31, 2007 at 9:38 AM

I don’t even know where to start with this jerk-off. He sounds like someone trying waaaaay too hard to convince himself he is right, when deep down he knows he’s not. And for the record when did I ever defend that pre-medieval, barbaric religion called Islam? I agree that radical Islam is our biggest threat today, because unlike Christianity, it never evolved past 700 A.D. So yes, Christianity is better than Islam, but it’s still nothing to crow about, as many many molested altar boys and disowned gay teens would be glad to tell ya. But captivated-dem is right, this is a fight for another thread, so I’ll tear ya all apart another time!

The problem with demonizing any opinion that’s not congruent with your own, even when, as here, there is obviously room for disagreement, is that you risk getting stuck in an echo chamber where you never hear opinions other than your own and finally come to believe your own fantasies.

student on July 31, 2007 at 9:03 AM

Keep digging that hole.

Wow. Giving blather a more positive connotation.

“In semiotics, connotation arises when the denotative relationship between a signifier and its signified is inadequate to serve the needs of the community…..”

I don’t know what that means.

Professor Blather on July 31, 2007 at 1:43 PM

That was beautiful. (sniff)

The “Blank Slate” responds.

Did y’all know you were bigoted against white girls?

CourtZero on July 31, 2007 at 12:19 PM

I’m strangely hurt that she didn’t even mention my comments. That’s not very nice. Like, totally.

Jenna, hon, I actually went to your site. But irony of ironies, just as you have to register at YouTube (for free, by the way, you seem a little confused on that point …), you also have to register to comment on your blithering blather.

And I’m lazy. Sorry. I desperately wanted to engage in some meaningful rhetorical interaction with you. Like, fer shure.

A couple news flashes for you, hon. First, if you actually looked around this site, you’ll find that the one thing few people here were doing at 23 was spouting off on subjects they know exactly nothing about, while frothing fluffily on a bed of fluff toys and wearing a boob tube. (Yes, we know it’s not a boob tube. But it’s fun to say. Try it out. You’ll giggle and toss your hair, I promise). Personally, I was flying on reconnaissance crew over war torn Bosnia on my 23rd birthday. Not a teddy bear in sight! (And I’d just voted for Bill Clinton … which proves my point that youth equals ignorance).

But here’s the second news flash and I hope you’ll give it a whirl. Here’s the deal: make sure you save a copy of your little, like, performance, like, okay?

Save it for 20 years.

And then, when you’ve experienced a little of life and gained a bit of maturity … watch yourself at 23.

You’ll laugh your empty little head off. I promise. When you see that in 20 years, you’ll understand exactly why we thought it was so funny. I’ll even pinky promise on it and we can be BFF’s, mmm-kay?

A final thought: if you’re going to spout off on the ‘net, you’ll need a thicker skin (and some decent clothes). I noted in your rant that you only picked out the negative comments – and you only picked out the easy ones to attack. (You’ll have to forgive “Blake.” He’s probably 23. You know how they are.)

Obviously, you did that because you are lying about being non-partisan. Like, totally. You just want to score partisan points. Fair enough. As for the comments on your appearance (though you missed most were obviously tongue-in-cheek) … what exactly did you think would happen when you chose that particular mode of dress? C’mon, woman: Hillary Clinton showed a little cleavage and got the whole world atwitter over it. Stupid? Yes. But it’s time to join us here on planet Earth in the 21st century if you were really surprised that your breasts became part of the focus.

But setting aside that particularly perky bit of your perkiness, you also entirely avoided any substantive debate. Many of us argued – for and against – the points you made. Instead of take the easy road and attack folks like Blake … why not address those discussions? Those supporting you, and those in disagreement?

The truth is – we gave you the biggest audience you’ll ever have. And if you actually read this thread, you’ll see that you sparked a wide-ranging substantive debate.

The fact that you took the low road and extracted only what you wanted to ironically proves the very point that you’re contesting: its a sign of your age and lacking maturity.

In fact, Allahpundit himself unequivocally noted that you made some good points. No, not those points, girl. Get your mind out the gutter.

Actually, I thought Ms. Perky raised some valid points…not that I believe for a minute that she was a “blank slate”.

Agreed.

Allahpundit on July 30, 2007 at 8:32 AM

So, Barbie-doll, instead of running off predictably to your partisan echo chamber and try to score the usual he said/she said brownie points … why didn’t you just hop in here and argue right along with us?

It could have been fun. You could have contributed. You could have even persuaded those of us who disagree with you.

The bottom line is that we laugh because we know that was never your intention: your intention was to do exactly what you ended up doing.

Too bad.

If you decide to, like, drop the faux outrage and the wounded little girl bit and actually join the discussion, this post might be a good place to start. This fellow seemed to take you seriously and agree with most of your comments.

Like, totally. And remember our pinky promise, mmm-kay?

The candidates are going to have to deal with unorthodox questions on the campaign trail. I thought it was very revealing when Biden got the gun question and he, with the rest of the Democrat debaters chuckling in agreement in the background, started making fun of the questioner.

I agree that the debate is going to be unseemly and believe it will be chock-full of liberal bias. CNN will probably use the debate to undermine the Republican candidates by asking vicious, unfair questions. I would not at all be surprised to see Truther questions asked of Republican candidates; CNN would never allow their anchors to ask the questions (because that would just be too obvious), but here they can hide behind the YouTube mask — “oh, we didn’t ask the question, the guy in the snowman suit did!”

But if Republicans are going to maintain the high ground, we absolutely have to do this debate. Two reasons. (1) The old maxim “he who lives in a glass house should not thrown stones” — we can’t be hypocritical. (2) If we decline the debate, everyone will draw comparisons between the YouTube debate and the FoxNews debate that the Democrats ditched. I’m sorry, but there is NOT a valid comparison between Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and that third FNC questioner from the GOP debate and the leftist crazy YouTubers. However, liberals will be all too happy to compare a serious FoxNews debate to the guy in the snowman suit, because it’s a long term strategy of the liberals and Democrats to undermine the legitimacy of FoxNews.

Outlander on July 30, 2007 at 8:52 AM

P.S. HEY! I forgot to ask: how were those pony rides?

So Chickenhawks over at Hot Air, what were you
doing at twenty-three?

At 23, I had spent 5 years in the USMC, spent a year in Okinawa, 6 months in Norway, and was raising a young daughter.

This chick is such a pathetic loser. Gets caught, then whines about it.

The Sinner on July 30, 2007 at 8:10 PM

You mean the homosexual priest scandle.