See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On December 31st, 2009 at 3:21 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

   On December 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pm, Spacen said:

   While these emails are detestable, I have to wonder what possible good can come from posting their real names and email addresses. It could almost be seen as vindictive on your part regardless of your true intent.

   Spacen, could I borrow that hammer?

2. #102
   On December 31st, 2009 at 3:22 pm, redbug70 said:

   It is so easy for these people to spew their bile from behind the safety of their blackberries, etc. Like roaches and other vermin, they couldn’t stand up to the light of the day.

3. #103
   On December 31st, 2009 at 3:30 pm, shooter said:

   Michelle, for your ‘salt’-
   Sermon on the Mount
   Matthew 6
   10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
   for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
   11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
   12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
   13 “You are the salt of the earth.

4. #104
   On December 31st, 2009 at 3:39 pm, reshas1 said:

   WOW… Nice MEN.. Read this article, it explains the liberal/Dem men..

   http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_wilding_of_sarah_palin.html

5. #105
   On December 31st, 2009 at 3:41 pm, swede said:

   shooter said:

   Jesus and His disciples discovered that when you persistently speak the truth to power, persecution will result. Michelle speaks the truth.

   God bless you and your family Michelle. Here’s hoping this year will be even more productive and prosperous than the last. You are in our prayers.

6. #106
   On December 31st, 2009 at 3:49 pm, hadsil said:

   I want to thank Michelle Malkin for introducing me to the blogosphere. It was a couple of years ago that I bought her book “Liberals Unhinged” after liking her articles in the newspaper for a while. I checked out her website as mentioned at the end of the book, and I’ve been hooked ever since. I use her links to go to the other blogs I enjoy.

7. #107
   On December 31st, 2009 at 3:51 pm, Joy said:

   Let’s see, asian, black, dog-eating, Jap, ugly monkey married to a white man, yellow filipino, bigot, inbred, deformed, you hate yourself and wish you were white…. I’m sure I’ve missed a few… and what’s up with almost killing a teacher by appearing on FOX? I did not know that could happen…

   And we’re the bigots? And they’re the heroic defenders of women and minorities? These folks are certifiable. How do they not notice that you’re as hard on the Republicans? Anyone who is corrupt is called to task. Sheeesh.

   Sad world we’re living in. Sorry you get all this crap Michelle. You’re a strong person and fighting the good fight.

8. #108
   On December 31st, 2009 at 3:57 pm, cheapseat said:

   wow michelle. and these excerpts from those tolerant open liberals we keep hearing about. nearly as tolerant of dissent or differing views as muslims. but muslims kill anyone not the exact sect of muslims as them. these libs just attack anyone who disagrees with communist doctrine. and isn’t it great how these racist (_*_)s DEMAND racial tolerance of us? makes me want to break out the “f’ing n-word” but i know that you would be offended and can me. you’re better than me, michelle, so take care of yourself and your family.

9. #109
   On December 31st, 2009 at 4:05 pm, cicerokid said:

   On December 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pm, Spacen said:

   While these emails are detestable, I have to wonder what possible good can come from posting their real names and email addresses.

   Accountability?

10. #110
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:09 pm, reshas1 said:

    Someone should post their comments on their facebook, myspace, or whatever else they have.

11. #111
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:16 pm, wbwhaley68 said:

    These emails just show how people go off the deep end when they are presented with honest journalism based on the FACTS. If they can’t argue with the truth, then they have only one choice…let the trash talk come out. These folks get mad and say that you are trashing Obama, but the facts speak for themselves. I don’t care that he is black…I do care that he is very liberal and perhaps the most dangerous president we have ever had in office. It’s not his color that bothers conservatives, it is simply HIS POLICIES… Those same policies that are driving our country and currency down into the gutter so to speak. Some folks said, “Respect your president”… Respect is not something that is given. Respect is something that is earned. Show me something our president has done to deserve it and he will get it. Have a blessed New Year Michelle!

12. #112
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:17 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pm, Spacen said:

    While these emails are detestable, I have to wonder what possible good can come from posting their real names and email addresses.

    So their parents can email them to tell them how proud of them they are.

13. #113
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:17 pm, Spacen said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:09 pm, reshas1 said:

    Someone should post their comments on their facebook, myspace, or whatever else they have.

    And again I ask: What possible good can come from displaying their real names and email addresses?

14. #114
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:20 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Thank you Michelle for all you do. Have a Happy #$%^&*#$ New Year! Sorry, I had to get my last @#$%^&* in before the new year resolutions kick in. See you on the other side.

15. #115
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pm, spaceycakes said:

    And again I ask: What possible good can come from displaying their real names

    Is this question fer reals?

16. #116
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:28 pm, redc1c4 said:

    And again I ask: What possible good can come from displaying their real names and email addresses?

    as someone posted above, accountability. roaches hate sunlight…..

17. #117
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:30 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    Cream of the Liberal Crop right there.

    Despite the idiocy of the left….

    …Have a Happy New Year all!!!!!

18. #118
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:40 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    The other day while visiting your blog, I thought, Gee, she hasn’t posted anyone’s hate mail lately. I hoped that maybe the hate had tapered off some, but I know better than that (though Rush is the larger target of liberal hate for the moment). Those messages were disturbing in tone yet hilariously pathetic in execution. Thanks for making me laugh. I needed it.

    I’m certain that remarks of reassurance and appreciation from this longtime reader means little in the overall scheme of things. (Unhinged came out four years ago, so maybe it hasn’t been that long.) You don’t need someone like me to compliment you on your good looks, your intelligence, your hard work, or your courage, since others mention those things so often. Ah, I guess I just did. So sue me.

    I hope you have a good New Year’s holiday, Michelle. My best to you and yours. The same goes for the rest of my fellow miscreants — excuse me, comment writers — here and to others who give enough of a crap to read this.

    Love ya, Michelle!

19. #119
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:42 pm, sassy745 said:

    Really!?? I think your beautiful and very brave.
    Happy New Year and God bless you and yours.

20. #120
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:43 pm, spaceycakes said:

    Ah, I get it now. They’re all jealous ’cause all they get is Kwanzaa. That would make me mad too.

21. #121
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:46 pm, tbear44 said:

    The combined IQ’s of the morons who sent these emails wouldn’t crack 50.

22. #122
    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:53 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Spacen said:
    And again I ask: What possible good can come from displaying their real names and email addresses?

    So gentle souls such as I could e-mail them and thank them for their concern. Will that work? Is this National Be a Dork Day or is it just the Blue Moon tonight? I would repeat “Accountability” but I won’t-somebody might call me Poncho

    Where is that damn hammer?

23. #123
    On December 31st, 2009 at 5:00 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:17 pm, Spacen said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:09 pm, reshas1 said:

    Someone should post their comments on their facebook, myspace, or whatever else they have.

    And again I ask: What possible good can come from displaying their real names and email addresses?

    So their mommies can be ever so proud of them.

    ECS

24. #124
    On December 31st, 2009 at 5:03 pm, rocketman said:

    ***
    What a bunch of classless losers! No respect for women–who give us life. No respect for those with other (aka normal!) viewpoints. No respect for those of other races or ethnic groups. Unwilling to see others as deserving of the same respect all all real Americans give each other.
    ***
    The KKK, Nazis, and communists are proud of these creeps.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

25. #125
    On December 31st, 2009 at 5:09 pm, tbear44 said:

    I used to respond to these classless libs, but I rarely waste my time anymore.
    http://forums.seattletimes.nwsource.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=53

26. #126
    On December 31st, 2009 at 5:22 pm, walterc said:

    Is this really the kind of liberal educated thinkers we have coming out of our universities now days? Could these morons at least use a spell checker?

    God Bless you and your family Michelle. Your beauty, grace, grit and determination is an inspiration to many many people in this troubled nation.

    You are the 21st Century Joan D’Arc.

27. #127
    On December 31st, 2009 at 5:30 pm, Surveyor said:

    Michelle, your great. Have a Happy New Year.

    Oderint Dum Metuant
    

28. #128
    On December 31st, 2009 at 5:39 pm, Major O said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 4:43 pm, spaceycakes said:
    Ah, I get it now. They’re all jealous ’cause all they get is Kwanzaa. That would make me mad too

    Were the mails from black folks?

    At any rate, Michelle, I can’t begin to imagine what a test of your patience these mails must be. I try desperately by the grace of God not to lose my temper (hence, I rarely engage the regular lefties on this blog), but some of these make me want to punch them (the guys at least) dead in their foul mouths.

    The Internet really exposes the true nature of people at times.

29. #129
    On December 31st, 2009 at 5:40 pm, docflash said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 12:49 pm, Patronedheart said:
    Wow. These libtards take the term “projecting” to a whole new level, don’t they?

    Just like they use the worn out 60′s jargon(F) word every other sentence as if it impresses the reader as to their hipness and makes them better writers and speakers.

30. #130
    On December 31st, 2009 at 5:44 pm, Major O said:

    One weird thing is the constant slam on Michelle as “ugly” when I would wager that 99.9% of the non-blind of both genders that lay eyes on her would consistently place her on the attractive list.

    It is so patently childish that it is truly discouraging to me. To think we have grown folks who can behave no better than a 4 yr old when confronted with opinions they disagree with.

31. #131
    On December 31st, 2009 at 6:11 pm, TanyaB said:

    These people can’t hold an intelligent conversation. No intelligent words to use, so they just use vile words of every sort that they can think of in their itty bitty brains.
    See their little wheels turn? “What were those words George Carlin used? Oh yeah, I remember!” So they toss them in to sound important, and they all sound alike. Like all little followers. Repeating all the nasty middle school words that made them feel big.
    They will never find their way out of the muck and mire of ignorant liberalism,because they never try and learn, or have actual discourse with people with real knowledge.They just keep following their comedy writers, as leaders.
    Feel sorry for the poor little people.

32. #132
    On December 31st, 2009 at 6:48 pm, backwoods conservative said:

    If only these people could see how they make themselves look.

33. #133
    On December 31st, 2009 at 7:01 pm, aero said:

    Michelle, you may be in front, but you are not alone. Thank you, for what you do.

34. #134
    On December 31st, 2009 at 7:03 pm, CrazyFool said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 6:48 pm, backwoods conservative said:

    If only these people could see how they make themselves look.

    That, I think, is why Michelle publishes them every once in a while – to show the true tolerance of the left.

    Just think of when someone googles (or bings) their name or email address and this vileness comes up…

35. #135
    On December 31st, 2009 at 7:06 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 2:08 pm, emjem24 said: #73

    4. Questioning Obummer means you hate him (or you’re suffering from ODS according to Chaps or Zyzzyg).

    Emjem you are contemptible.

    YOU LIE!

    I have always said that Pres Obama should be taken to task, however it should be done with substance and facts. Yes, I have said that people suffer from ODS because some of the criticism of him is just plain silly.

    And, I have never . . . never, said anyone hated Pres Obama.

    Emjem, you cannot continue to make assertions without backing them up with substance and facts. It is plain wrong.

    Until you cut and paste my words proving your assertions you are and remain a scurvy liar.

36. #136
    On December 31st, 2009 at 7:22 pm, BrianG1979 said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 1:01 pm, Patronedheart said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pm, BrianG1979 said:
    Well, that was…like playing on XBOX Live or something…anyone who has knows what I am talking about.

    I’m a Call of Duty fanatic, Brian, so I know EXACTLY what you’re talking about.

    Yeah?..I am also..love to hear those little whiney voices calling every name in the book.

37. #137
    On December 31st, 2009 at 7:40 pm, chapoutier said:

    Emjem you are contemptible.

    You are just now realizing that?

38. #138
    On December 31st, 2009 at 7:42 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 2:08 pm, emjem24 said: #73

    My proof that your assertion is wrong – read post #68 from the link. Curiously, we were engaged in discussion on that thread.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/09/the-fall-of-the-berlin-wall/

    Interestingly everything comes together there, ODS and that Pres Obama should be taken to task. Moreover, in that post I also provided you another link so that you would understand what ridicule is.

    I have shown you my proof, now show me yours.

    I am willing to accept your apology.

39. #139
    On December 31st, 2009 at 7:59 pm, blogagog said:

    “What make you think that white people like your dog eating ass.”

    Hey, if anyone actually has a dog eating ass, be it their rump or a donkey, I’d pay to see it.

40. #140
    On December 31st, 2009 at 8:19 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    For me after reading a few of them I, and this could be a sad statement regarding my own mental health, started laughing.

41. #141
    On December 31st, 2009 at 8:39 pm, BOB said:

    A comment on Michelle’s looks. A friend went to Little Rock a couple of weeks ago to hear Michelle speak. I had to help my daughter move and didn’t get to go. I asked my friend how the event with Michelle went and what they talked about. He said, Oh, she talked about all the stuff that’s going on…..and wow is she beautiful. I said again, what was the meeing all about, and he said, “have you seen Michelle Malkin, she is one good looking woman….and her legs are really gorgeous”…

    Anyway, I said “you enjoyed yourself right”…and, of course, he said “YES”.

42. #142
    On December 31st, 2009 at 8:41 pm, BOB said:

    Proof reading failed again….make what was the meeing…the MEETING.

43. #143
    On December 31st, 2009 at 8:54 pm, FruNobulux said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pm, Spacen said:

    While these emails are detestable, I have to wonder what possible good can come from posting their real names and email addresses. It could almost be seen as vindictive on your part regardless of your true intent.

    On the other hand, if people don’t want to be held accountable for what they say, they shouldn’t say it.

44. #144
    On December 31st, 2009 at 8:57 pm, Arnold said:

    OK – it’s past midnight in this conservative outpost in Scotland. A happy, prosperous and successful new year to Michelle; her family and all who read her blog (even the trolls).

    When the new year comes for America I will be in my bed snoring away (it will be 5 am). I wish I could stay up and be there with you but I have to drive to Glasgow tomorrow morning!

    As they say in Glasgow “aw’ra best fer 2010″ (English translation: All the best for 2010!)

    Michelle – thanks for getting the numbering fixed!

45. #145
    On December 31st, 2009 at 9:15 pm, DougT said:

    emjem24 (#73) said:

    1. They can’t spell. At all.

    Then emjem24 used the following words:

    Zenophobia, idolotry, anthing, animous, and baring

    Then emjem24 said:

    Delicious irony at its best.

    You got that one right.

    Anyway, taking these idiotic emails and painting liberals, democrats, or progressives with the broad brush of incivility is a lot of nonsense.

    There are idiots of all political persuasions who are nasty, bigoted, illiterate fools.

    From what I can tell not one of these emailers self-identified with a specific political party or ideology. Michelle labeled them so.

    Do we assume that everyone who disagrees with her is a liberal?

    Do we assume that everyone who writes a bigoted profane email is a liberal?

    Nonsense. Michelle knows better. Not that all of this isn’t disgusting, but this post is just a bloody chunk of agitprop for her readers.

46. #146
    On December 31st, 2009 at 9:53 pm, BrianG1979 said:

    Who is this retard who keeps asking why their names should be posted?…

47. #147
    On December 31st, 2009 at 9:59 pm, love2rumba said:

    And again I ask: What possible good can come from displaying their real names and email addresses?

    If one decides flip sh@t, why should he/she be let off the hook from the resultant consequences? They are not worthy of such respect..and it is perfectly ok to “‘hang’ them from their own petard” as the saying goes. It also reveals what idiots they are…that is the ‘good’ of it.

48. #148
    On December 31st, 2009 at 10:05 pm, DougT said:

    I agree with sentiments about posting their email addresses. If they are stupid enough to write these emails from their personal email accounts, well, they get whatever the angry masses give them.

    Does that mean we should all write vile missives to them? Absolutely not. Two wrongs and all that…

    Should they receive something from us? You bet. But I would be wary of using my own email address to do so.

49. #149
    On December 31st, 2009 at 10:21 pm, Speakup said:

    They’re all infected, liberal+zombie=Zombiberal.

50. #150
    On December 31st, 2009 at 11:08 pm, jangar said:

    Oh, those precious little darlings. Can’t spell, punctuate, articulate a logical thought, etc. Products of public indoctrination camps. Where would we be without them?

51. #151
    On January 1st, 2010 at 1:15 am, Peddler said:

    Absolutely amazing! Liberals always accuse conservatives of being insensitive and saying and doing hurtful things. I guess all of the gutter language aimed at you are nothing more than expressions of repressed emotions and slandering you is therapy.

    Well, everyone knows you are the best when it comes to revealing the truth and getting to the heart of the matter.

    We love you Michelle!! Keep up the good work.

52. #152
    On January 1st, 2010 at 1:16 am, Member-VRWC said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 12:58 pm, itzWicks said:
    In the cold light of day, most of the vile commenters would be thoroughly embarassed by the full disclosure of their own words.

    Uh, no, they wouldn’t.

    Being a leftist means never having to be embarrassed. What we perceive as embarrassment is to a leftist a permanent state of being.

53. #153
    On January 1st, 2010 at 3:51 am, powerpro said:

    Good gravy these people are sick.

    And isn’t it interesting that most of these “tolerant” leftists make a point of condemning and mocking Michelle’s ethnicity as well as spouting off racial slurs against her?

    I hope I’m never, EVER that “tolerant.”

54. #154
    On January 1st, 2010 at 7:58 am, misterbee241 said:

    I notice every attack on MM is personal, not one takes issue with her views. Ah, liberalism at its best.

55. #155
    On January 1st, 2010 at 8:29 am, Patronedheart said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 7:22 pm, BrianG1979 said:
    On December 31st, 2009 at 1:01 pm, Patronedheart said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pm, BrianG1979 said:
    Well, that was…like playing on XBOX Live or something…anyone who has knows what I am talking about.

    I’m a Call of Duty fanatic, Brian, so I know EXACTLY what you’re talking about.
    Yeah?..I am also..love to hear those little whiney voices calling every name in the book.

    Future libtards.

56. #156
    On January 1st, 2010 at 8:29 am, DougT said:

    These idiots don’t represent the left. They represent profane bigoted fools. Equating the two is just wrong.

    Every email she has shared is a personal attack because those are the emails she has chosen to share.

    Surely, Michelle receives thoughtful emails that challenge her positions, perhaps even from the hated liberals.

    One can hope 2010 brings some rational thought from both of the extreme ends of our current political spectrum, but that isn’t likely to happen. Luckily, neither view represents a majority.

    A progressive paradise would be an awful place to live, especially if you are a net producer. Your back would be broken supporting the “equality” and dreams of the rest of world. Just leave me and my wallet alone.

    A conservative heaven would be just as terrible, especially if aren’t one of the flock. Should you be a heretic, a so-called deviant, or a hedonist of any stripe, well, you would be no good for society and must suffer the consequences. Give me freedom to make my own decisions about my body and my soul.

57. #157
    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:15 am, Flyoverman said:

    A conservative heaven would be just as terrible, especially if aren’t one of the flock.

    Since conservatism is based on the principle of individual liberty and freedom of choice for the individual I would be so interested to know how you can reach this conclusion.

    You wrote, “Give me freedom to make my own decisions about my body and my soul.”

    The only area of contention that you may find with someone like me is that if by YOUR CHOICE you now have another living soul in your body, we do not believe you morally have the right to kill it.

    The only other area of contention I can think of is marriage. Since marriage’s origins in various religious faiths the government should have NO JURISDICTIONS over marriage. If you look carefully, you will se that the factors that interest the government in a union of two people are mutually exclusive from the factors that are important to the religious vows made.

    Contrast this philosophy with the Left that wants to control what you indivisually can buy, wear, eat,drive, consume, or criticize.

    All one needs to do is look at the fines and penalties contained in the proposed Healthcare Bill to understand the mindset of the Left in terms of individual choice. THEY KNOW BETTER THAN YOU.

    That is the anti-thesis of conservatism.

58. #158
    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:24 am, locomotivebreath1901 said:

    Typical leftist tactic: viciously attack the person, not the idea.

    Alinsky must be so proud.

    And remember, these are the same nanny state myrmidons that want the gub’mint to provide everyone with health care.

    Or is that everyone, except undesirables?

    Truly scary.
    .

59. #159
    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:33 am, happyscrapper said:

    A little New Year’s Day gift to all of you…
    http://www.animatronics.org/strangers/strangers.htm

    On January 1st, 2010 at 8:29 am, DougT said:
    These idiots don’t represent the left. They represent profane bigoted fools. Equating the two is just wrong.

    Every email she has shared is a personal attack because those are the emails she has chosen to share.

    Surely, Michelle receives thoughtful emails that challenge her positions, perhaps even from the hated liberals.

    Now, Doug…You can’t possibly believe that those hateful, vile e-mails came from conservatives, can you? If you look at the history of their rhetoric vs the conservative rhetoric, you will find your proof that these came from liberals. That is one of the biggest problems with liberals like you, however. You ignore history. Also, you say all the e-mails she published on this thread are personal attacks because that is what she chose to publish. Well, duh! That is what the whole thread is about. She even stated that in her title of this thread. So why would she go on and publish nice letters? I guess I just don’t see your point here at all. What is it?

60. #160
    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:35 am, happyscrapper said:

    Give me freedom to make my own decisions about my body and my soul.

    And another thing…you want those freedoms? Good luck with that once the health”care” bill is passed.

61. #161
    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:39 am, granite said:

    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:15 am, Flyoverman said:

    You beat me to it.

    Thank you.

    So many squishy, 60s-college-administrator types predictably and immediately default to the lame “both sides are equally bad/to blame” trope.
    As if the only difference between fascists/socialists/collectivists/statists and traditionalists/conservatives were simply something like disagreement about whether a restaurant should serve 3 or 5 pancakes as part of its standard “hungry man’s breakfast”.
    And then the brilliant squish enters and dazzles everyone else by recommending that the two disagreeing parties craft a bipartisan compromise, reach across to each other, and settle on 4 pancakes!

    The fascists/statists/etc. have an irreconcilably different, 180-degree-opposite worldview from conservatives/traditionalists.
    There can be no compromise, there is no middle ground, between the two views on so many issues, two of which are discussed so well by Flyoverman in the post above.
    As I’ve posted before, one could sooner expect middle ground between a dog and a table; than between traditionalists and America-haters, destroyers, and “reshapers”.

62. #162
    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:44 am, chapoutier said:

    The only other area of contention I can think of is marriage. Since marriage’s origins in various religious faiths the government should have NO JURISDICTIONS over marriage

    This is simply untrue. The concept of marriage predates any modern religion and one of the oldest written marriage laws is found in Hammurabi’s Code, which is civil, not religious law. No…marriage, and the power to define it, is simply yet another thing that religion in general and Christianity in specific, appropriated and falsely claimed as its own.

63. #163
    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:55 am, Flyoverman said:

    Chap,

    “modern religion?” Scientology maybe….

    Since Hinduism, Judaism, Chistianity go back to the beginning of recorded history and Islam appears in 600 A.D. I find your definition “intersting.”

    We are not talking ceremony here. We are discussing vows made to a Diety.

    Again, show me where the MODERN civil code and the religious vows overlap.

    They don’t. The state can declare what I have as a civil union. I don’t care what they call it.

64. #164
    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:55 am, happyscrapper said:

    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:44 am, chapoutier said:
    The only other area of contention I can think of is marriage. Since marriage’s origins in various religious faiths the government should have NO JURISDICTIONS over marriage
    This is simply untrue. The concept of marriage predates any modern religion and one of the oldest written marriage laws is found in Hammurabi’s Code, which is civil, not religious law. No…marriage, and the power to define it, is simply yet another thing that religion in general and Christianity in specific, appropriated and falsely claimed as its own.

    I am starting to see the gay’s viewpoint on the marriage issue. Now, don’t all of you yell at me at once!! It just seems to me a matter of semantics, pure and simple. If you want to be married in the church and receive the religious sacrament of marriage, then you can do so. If you want to be married in a secular ceremony, ie civil ceremony…I don’t see why you can’t. I think the main reason gays want to marry is to get the same benefits of marriage as hetrosexuals…right? So let them. You know what kind of marriage you have. Let them have their kind of marriage. Now, if they insist on being blessed with a religious marriage sacrament…that I would have a problem with. As long as they don’t call it a marriage blessed by God, I am fine with it. The Bible doesn’t sanctify gay marriage, but the court system recognizes them in civil ceremonies. Marriage=man/woman Civil marriage=man/woman, man/man or woman/woman. If gays want to call it marriage, why not let them? We know the difference. Where am I going wrong here?

65. #165
    On January 1st, 2010 at 10:59 am, happyscrapper said:

    We are not talking ceremony here. We are discussing vows made to a Diety.

    Flyover…I posted my comment before I saw yours. I believe we are on the same page here.

66. #166
    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:02 am, mytake said:

    And these are your Democrat voters. We have to find enough people with half a grain of sense to vote them into insignificance.

67. #167
    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:19 am, DougT said:

    happyscrapper (#159) said:

    Now, Doug…You can’t possibly believe that those hateful, vile e-mails came from conservatives, can you? If you look at the history of their rhetoric vs the conservative rhetoric, you will find your proof that these came from liberals. That is one of the biggest problems with liberals like you, however. You ignore history. Also, you say all the e-mails she published on this thread are personal attacks because that is what she chose to publish. Well, duh! That is what the whole thread is about. She even stated that in her title of this thread. So why would she go on and publish nice letters? I guess I just don’t see your point here at all. What is it?

    Emphasis added.

    Of course I don’t believe they are from conservatives. But if you aren’t conservative that doesn’t make you a liberal.

    These people are spouting any ideology. They’re spouting vitriol, plain and simple. Linking that to a political party or stance was done by Michelle, not by the authors of the emails. If anything these people portray bigotry; they are racists and misogynistic pigs.

    Dude, or dudette, you don’t know me well enough to label me. Michelle knows me. I’m no liberal.

    As far as my comment about the selection of emails, that was intended to address misterbee241′s (#154) comment, which I failed to quote. Sorry for the confusion. My point is that of course every one of these emails is a personal attack, because that was Michelle’s criterion for selection.

    I would wager a paycheck that Michelle does receive thoughtful emails from her ideological opponents. But you would never guess from her posts and the comments that that was even possible.

    As I said earlier, this post was just so much agitprop for her fans.

    Happy New Year.

    And I thought your response (#164) to chapoutier is spot on. I think people will attack it in two ways: 1) some sort of moral argument about married couples being allowed to adopt, and that a same sex couple would not be a good way to raise a child; and, 2) the absolutely irrational slippery slope argument about allowing marriages to animals and inanimate objects. There is a third possibility about the notion of opening things up to line marriages and other forms of polygamy, but that argument is outside the boundaries of the question at hand.

68. #168
    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:23 am, DougT said:

    One other thing. Do you all honestly believe that liberal, left, progressive, Democrat bloggers and writers don’t receive vile, nasty, xenophobic, racist, sexist, disgusting emails from people? Really?

69. #169
    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:24 am, DougT said:

    I said:

    These people are spouting any ideology.

    I meant “are not”. Grammatical error, that must make me a liberal, eh?

70. #170
    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:31 am, happyscrapper said:

    Of course I don’t believe they are from conservatives. But if you aren’t conservative that doesn’t make you a liberal.

    These people are spouting any ideology. They’re spouting vitriol, plain and simple. Linking that to a political party or stance was done by Michelle, not by the authors of the emails. If anything these people portray bigotry; they are racists and misogynistic pigs.

    Dude, or dudette, you don’t know me well enough to label me. Michelle knows me. I’m no liberal.

    Doug, I don’t mean to lable you as liberal if you are not. It just seems to me that many of your comments come from the left. And most of the lefties I know have gone pretty liberal these days. If you are not a liberal, what are you? Do you have a “lable”? For instance, I am a radical right-wing extremist Libertarian, amongst other things. The people writing those letters are certainly not right-leaning people. How do I know? Because they are so upset with Michelle and her views. If she was a liberal blogger, I would bet the farm they would not write those kinds of letters. These types of thoughts are typically from the far-lefties. Just check my facts and you will see I have come to a pretty logical conclusion on that.

    Michelle was posting some interesting items for the end of the year…the best and worst of stuff. So she posted some of the worst e-mails. So what? She posts a lot of thoughtful letters too at other times.

    By the way, I am a seasoned “dudette”. I have lived a long time, and I am usually right about stuff. And I wear purple a lot. Glad to meet you, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

71. #171
    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:33 am, katablog said:

    One of the things that strikes me about all these emails is that they are simply hateful. If someone disagrees with what you do or say, shouldn’t they have enough courage to at least address the issue they are so angry about? There are no issues discussed in these emails; each and everyone is simply a personal attack with racist, degrading and bathroom language.

    The other surprising thing to me is that many attacked Michelle’s looks. Here is a obvious beautiful woman and the only thing the morons can think to do is deny the obvious and attack her looks!

72. #172
    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:38 am, happyscrapper said:

    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:23 am, DougT said:
    One other thing. Do you all honestly believe that liberal, left, progressive, Democrat bloggers and writers don’t receive vile, nasty, xenophobic, racist, sexist, disgusting emails from people? Really?

    There are twisted people from all ideologies. But I would wager that the vast majority are left-wingers. Just read the left-wing blogs compared to the right-wing ones. I also notice the debates between lefties and righties…the lefties are generally more sarcastic and rude. I see that in my own family too. I am only going by what I have observed. Are there some right-wing nut cases? Of course.

73. #173
    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:40 am, happyscrapper said:

    Doug…I also have noticed that the liberals take offense at truth-telling, and call it hate. The truth does hurt them sometimes and they can’t handle truth.

74. #174
    On January 1st, 2010 at 12:09 pm, Spacen said:

    On December 31st, 2009 at 9:53 pm, BrianG1979 said:

    Who is this retard who keeps asking why their names should be posted?…

    I’ve attempted to politely ask the question and let others contemplate on the true value this brings but the quoted comment above more than proves my point. We are no better than they are as I am sure each one of them have now received equally profane and harassing emails. Does it hold them accountable? Perhaps. Does holding them accountable in this manner do us or them any good? I obviously have my doubts. Why should we even justify their actions with a response? How does doing so advance our conservative ideas? It doesn’t. It only reduces us to their childish level when we are already arguing from a point of strength. Public shaming, especially when these emails were sent in a somewhat private manner, will win absolutely no one. I am disappointed to see that conservatives are just as susceptible to the same kind of mob mentality that led to these emails in the first place. We ought to be above that.

75. #175
    On January 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    I’ve attempted to politely ask the question and let others contemplate on the true value this brings

    Well you asked the question, we answered it but you continue to ask. Are you any relation to a house fly? No these emails were NOT sent in a somewhat private manner: they were sent to a Blogmaster as an attack. Are you familiar with the concept:

    If you do not want to lose a fight do not start a fight? Well lad/laddess these klowns started a fight.

    Where IS that damn hammer?

76. #176
    On January 1st, 2010 at 12:39 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On January 1st, 2010 at 11:40 am, happyscrapper said:

    Doug…I also have noticed that the liberals take offense at truth-telling, and call it hate. The truth does hurt them sometimes and they can’t handle truth.

    Happy, I guess someone can call it the “truth.” My frustration is trying to have an objective debate using published facts and having the response be a personal attack.

    For example, in a Global Warming debate you ask a believer to explain how certain NASA data that totally contradicts the theory and the response is to in effect to call me a knuckle dragging moron.

    My intial mental response is “you have logical basis for your opinion.”

    To his credit, one of the exceptions is Chap. Hit tip to him for that.

    I have always been amused that on the Left so often people who seem to hate religon, depend on “beleif” not facts as the basis for their secular opinions.

77. #177
    On January 1st, 2010 at 12:49 pm, Spacen said:

    On January 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
    Well you asked the question, we answered it but you continue to ask. Are you any relation to a house fly?

    You may have provided an answer but I still fail to see how that answer satisfies my question especially considering my previous post raises doubt about the good that can come from your answer of accountability.

    Furthermore, you respond with another personal attack proving my point yet again that we really aren’t any better even though we should be.

78. #178
    On January 1st, 2010 at 12:53 pm, chapoutier said:

    Since Hinduism, Judaism, Chistianity go back to the beginning of recorded history and Islam appears in 600 A.D. I find your definition “intersting.”

    Modern, as in “still existing in modern times.” Sorry that wasn’t more clear. But Judaism goes back to about 18th or 19th century BCE, when Abraham was supposed to have lived, correct? Cuneiform, which is the oldest written language goes back nearly twice that long, to 34th century BCE.

    We are not talking ceremony here. We are discussing vows made to a Diety.

    Marriage existed in many ancient cultures without religious ceremony.

    The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval.

    And in fact even early Christians considered it a civil affair, until the Church began to take a greater role:

    The first Christian emperors were more or less content with the traditional Roman law. However, under varying political and religious pressures, they alternately broadened and restricted the divorce regulations. They also repealed older laws which had penalized the unmarried and childless, since the new Christian asceticism favored virginity and sexual abstinence over marriage. In most other respects they resisted change. Marriage and divorce continued to be civil and private matters.

79. #179
    On January 1st, 2010 at 12:57 pm, chapoutier said:

    I also notice the debates between lefties and righties…the lefties are generally more sarcastic and rude

    Yeah sure. Like this is true.

    Jerk.

80. #180
    On January 1st, 2010 at 1:27 pm, Dennis D said:

    For the record. This white man thinks Michelle is simply gorgeous and sexy and smart.

81. #181
    On January 1st, 2010 at 1:28 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Modern, as in “still existing in modern times.”

    That’s okay Chap. I understand. My parents were Druids.

82. #182
    On January 1st, 2010 at 1:31 pm, happyscrapper said:

    Happy, I guess someone can call it the “truth.” My frustration is trying to have an objective debate using published facts and having the response be a personal attack.

    Flyover…I was referring to the liberals hearing truth being told (by Rush, or Beck, etc.) and referring to it as hate speech. Or accusing us of racism for disagreeing with Obama. I just don’t see many liberals being “truthful”. I see them distorting issues and spinning them to fit in with their ideology, even to the point of looking absolutely ridiculous (case in point: Alan Colmes).

83. #183
    On January 1st, 2010 at 1:47 pm, greasywrench said:

    Michelle – here’s a technique I use when I get hate mail and flames on my blog. I take the return addy of the sender and sign them up for as many offers as I can on the “free stuff sites”. In days they’ll be getting offers for everything from Condoms to Coffee.

    The laws and actions of spammers guarantees that within a month they will be burried by offers from other sites to the point of rendering their email accounts unusable. It’s not much of a response but I promise you they will be hammered into closing their email accounts. What else can one do with garbage such as these people? Oh the myth of the sensitive and caring liberal – the great lie.

    BTW, you’re an extremely attractive lady. I don’t think you need me or anyone else to tell you that though. Olbermann showed just what an immature jerk and fool he is with that childish comment.

    Keep the faith Michelle.

84. #184
    On January 1st, 2010 at 2:22 pm, DougT said:

    happyscrapper (#172) said:

    There are twisted people from all ideologies. But I would wager that the vast majority are left-wingers. Just read the left-wing blogs compared to the right-wing ones. I also notice the debates between lefties and righties…the lefties are generally more sarcastic and rude. I see that in my own family too. I am only going by what I have observed. Are there some right-wing nut cases? Of course.

    I have difficulty reading ridiculous left-wing blogs, just like I have a problem reading ridiculous right-wing blogs. Honestly, I haven’t taken a census of how many there are, though if the ratio is consistent with voting patterns (and I have no reason to believe so, I’m just supposing) then it would seem that there would be more left-leaning blogs because there are more left-leaning people in the US right now. However, it wouldn’t be a “vast majority”.

    But bloggers aren’t the issue here. The issue here are the creeps who feel the need to spew their acrimony. I take issue with the notion that this is somehow a province of a particular space on the political spectrum. (For examples just review the thousands available in the comments section of this blog. They are reduced only because the blog owner doesn’t allow it to get too over the top…usually, because she can’t police all of it.)

    When I read the emails she posted, I see people who are enamored with this president, likely because of his race, based upon the tenor of their writing. They are equating love of country with love of Obama or of the government. (Now, I know everyone will say that this is the definition of a liberal…sure, whatever.) They lash out at Michelle, believing they can hurt her with childish expressions of hate. They believe, I am nearly certain, that they are defending their country.

    We see the same sort of crap around here (only cleaned up). How many people have said that celebrities who speak out against the Iraq War or President Bush or the Patriot Act should just leave the country? “Get out if you don’t like it here!” Only propriety or the fear of banishment keeps the swearing and the epithets away. (Though there are plenty of epithets used around these parts. Part of the camaraderie of the group, no?)

    Anyway, today is a holiday. I don’t want to fight.

    Many comment on here seeking to be accepted or understood. For some of us, this is an unavailing task, but it’s fun to try.

    Labels: male, not yet AARP aged (and will not be joining when I am)

85. #185
    On January 1st, 2010 at 2:28 pm, happyscrapper said:

    more left-leaning blogs because there are more left-leaning people in the US right now.

    I disagree. I do believe the right-leaning majority is starting to come out of their slumber. We will see if there are more left-leaning people in the U.S. I doubt it. The old fashioned conservative values are still pretty ingrained in this country…handed down from our founders and supported by our Constitution.

86. #186
    On January 1st, 2010 at 2:59 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Flyover…I was referring to the liberals hearing truth being told (by Rush, or Beck, etc.) and referring to it as hate speech.

    I C Happy…. Dittos.

87. #187
    On January 1st, 2010 at 3:22 pm, happy2behere said:

    Hi happy, happy2 here. I’m in agreement with you on the marrige post. The only thing about that which concerns me is if churches cannot have the religious freedom to keep their biblical manadate. In other words, if gay marrige is codified then what is to keep GLBTs from suing a church for discrimination?

    (Note to the lawyer: The Babylonian king Hamurabi stated in the preamble that he felt “called by god” to give the law to the people. And in that code, its clear marriage was between a man and a woman. )

    And now, back to the topic of the thread. It was good that Michelle posted the names and eaddresses of the haters. They should be proud of what they say. And for fun, I went to google and looked up happy2behere. It was interesting – there’s some junk by some guy named Judakis and lots of other people, but not me. The only place I’m aka happy2behere is here. Thanks, I learned something new today.

88. #188
    On January 1st, 2010 at 3:46 pm, emjem24 said:

    zyzzyg said:

    Emjem you are contemptible.

    YOU LIE!

    Sigh… wow, I hit a nerve (I guess). Given, you don’t know me at all and your propensity to get out of shape over some of the more humorous, non-relevant things that MM mentions about Obummer, I’ll take your criticism with a grain of salt.

    /shrug

    I have always said that Pres Obama should be taken to task, however it should be done with substance and facts. Yes, I have said that people suffer from ODS because some of the criticism of him is just plain silly.

    I think you’ve also appointed yourself the arbiter of what is and isn’t relevant Obummer criticism. I think much of what you say can be over-the-top. You seem invested in being devil’s advocate. Again…. you tend to project what you want on the rest of us who don’t bend to your expectations.

    /shrug

    And, I have never . . . never, said anyone hated Pres Obama.

    Emjem, you cannot continue to make assertions without backing them up with substance and facts. It is plain wrong.

    Until you cut and paste my words proving your assertions you are and remain a scurvy liar.

    Actually, you “implied” ODS on several people who post on this blog. You also make assertions you cannot always back up (especially concerning the motivations and decisions of the current administration).

    I’m a scurvy liar? In what way? You’ve accused certain threads and certain posts of meeting ODS criteria so perhaps, you shouldn’t be too hasty in calling me or others you disagree with “scurvy liars.”

    There are a LOT of us who don’t like this president with good reasons. Dial down your emotional hysteria for a moment to realize that you’re accusing me of the same things that you often do.

    Then again, I’m accused of being a “scurvey liar” by someone who has some trouble with the truth himself.

    /shrug

89. #189
    On January 1st, 2010 at 3:51 pm, emjem24 said:

    chapoutier said:

    Emjem you are contemptible.

    You are just now realizing that?

    Hmmmm… perhaps, you and Zyzzyg can get a room or a drink and commiserate about how “contemptible” I am. Then again, I’m probably not the only one on this blog who would be considered such by the likes of you.

    Oh, and Chaps…. I wouldn’t be too hasty agreeing with the likes of Zyzzyg. I know you’re a lawyer and all and have your lips permanently attached to Dems but c’mon you don’t see the hypocrisy in your own words and deeds?

    Yeah, that’s okay… better to be “unpopular” than a cheerleader.

90. #190
    On January 1st, 2010 at 4:08 pm, happy2behere said:

    I miss lgm…

91. #191
    On January 1st, 2010 at 4:20 pm, emjem24 said:

    DougT said:

    emjem24 (#73) said:

    1. They can’t spell. At all.

    Then emjem24 used the following words:

    Zenophobia, idolotry, anthing, animous, and baring

    I forgot to edit my comment. At least I try to sound coherent, with some kind of knowledge of appropriate vocabulary. It doesn’t mean I always succeed.

    Many posters already know I am a perfectionist when it comes to spelling. I often correct my own work.

    My apologies. You must be new.

    Then emjem24 said:

    Delicious irony at its best.

    You got that one right.

    Ummm… what is your freakin’ problem? My critique doesn’t align with your opinion? You don’t have to respond. At least I don’t use the kind of language that these rock dwellers use. Then again that wasn’t your point.

    Anyway, taking these
    idiotic emails and painting liberals, democrats, or progressives with the broad brush of incivility is a lot of nonsense.

    You’re kidding me right? You know, liberals/progressives/statists/socialists/communists, whatever they’re calling themselves these days, are making themselves look not too hot in the realm of civic discourse. It isn’t a load of hooey (correct me if that’s the wrong spelling, will you?).

    There are idiots of all political persuasions who are nasty, bigoted, illiterate fools.

    Really, there are? You’re sure you’re not being too general, right?

    From what I can tell not one of these emailers self-identified with a specific political party or ideology. Michelle labeled them so.

    Oh, come on. Are you kidding me? These people are out and out Obama cultists. Nothing else takes precedence (you might want to check spelling on this word too). Perhaps, they don’t identify with any party and they’re simply anarchists with a overly abundant supply of hate toward Michelle Malkin. Perhaps, you should email these folks and find out.

    /shrug

    Do we assume that everyone who disagrees with her is a liberal?

    I’ve also disagreed with Michelle on certain issues. I’m not suggesting this. You’re either new or you’re painting this forum with a broad brush like you’re doing with MM’s original post.

    /shrug

    Do we assume that everyone who writes a bigoted profane email is a liberal?

    If they can’t even express themselves in a civil manner, don’t want to bother backing up their viewpoint with actual evidence, and instead use emotional hyperbole then yes…. the odds may indicate that that is their political preference.

    Then again, you might want to consult Zyzzyg about such things. I’m sure he can use a new apprentice to point out all the ODS and hypocrisy of conservatives and those who aren’t liberals.

    Nonsense. Michelle knows better. Not that all of this isn’t disgusting, but this post is just a bloody chunk of agitprop for her readers.

    What is your issue exactly? If you don’t like the topic, don’t respond to it. It happens. Michelle has haters, she exposes their idiocy and lack of sanity, sense, and reason, and the whole exercise can be quite funny when you look at it.

    If you’re not a regular reader (which it seems you aren’t), then, yes, it won’t appeal to you. However, such a topic would appeal to anyone who sees it for what it is: hypocritical haters hating on someone who they feel should be in their ignorant, rabid, hate-fest camp by virture of her ethnicity.

    No, no… I can’t see anything wrong with such emails.

    *** Since you like to check my spelling, you might also check my punctuation and grammar just in case I missed something.

    Thanks for looking out for me.

    /sarcasm off

92. #192
    On January 1st, 2010 at 4:22 pm, emjem24 said:

    happy2behere said:
    I miss lgm…

    I hate to say it, but I kinda do too. I miss the little guy. At least you got a sense of where he’s coming from. So many liberals and people in the Obama camp just hide it.

    He was a character. Wooh! Somebody check my temperature.

93. #193
    On January 1st, 2010 at 4:41 pm, emjem24 said:

    DougT said:

    I said:

    These people are spouting any ideology.

    I meant “are not”. Grammatical error, that must make me a liberal, eh?

    Is it too soon to point out the irony in this statement?

94. #194
    On January 1st, 2010 at 4:44 pm, DougT said:

    emjem24,

    I was doing nothing more than chuckling at your misspellings. Nothing personal.

    I’ve been reading Michelle’s work, including this blog since its inception, since 1995 or so. I’m pretty familiar with things around here.

    Though I didn’t use the term “Obama cultist”, I do agree with that assessment of these email writers, which I said in a later comment.

    The irony of saying that I might be painting this post or the readers of this blog with a broad brush while you assume that because someone worships the president or spews hate at a conservative then they must be a liberal is bit much.

    I have my doubts that many of the authors of the emails in this post even think with any political sophistication. Equating Obama love with liberalism simply isn’t correct. That brush stroke is a little broad. We can all agree that they aren’t conservatives.

    Just to repeat, I’m not a spelling nazi (or grammar or punctuation). Just thought it was funny that you pointed out their terrible spelling in your comment and left it unedited. No big deal for me. Shouldn’t be for you.

95. #195
    On January 1st, 2010 at 4:46 pm, DougT said:

    You point out what you have to, emjem.

96. #196
    On January 1st, 2010 at 5:05 pm, BrianG1979 said:

    Why not have their names posted? I mean they aren’t ashamed of their comments are they?…I do not see the problem with everyone basking in the light of their wisdom./

97. #197
    On January 1st, 2010 at 5:33 pm, duff65 said:

    On January 1st, 2010 at 5:05 pm, BrianG1979 said:

    Why not have their names posted? I mean they aren’t ashamed of their comments are they?…I do not see the problem with everyone basking in the light of their wisdom./

    I totally agree. To shine a little light on some of the “nutcases” might calm them down in the future.

98. #198
    On January 1st, 2010 at 5:39 pm, chapoutier said:

    Then again, I’m probably not the only one on this blog who would be considered such by the likes of you.

    This is true.

    Oh, and Chaps…. I wouldn’t be too hasty agreeing with the likes of Zyzzyg.

    There was, unlike your misspelling-riddled typing apparently, nothing hasty about my agreeing with zyzzgy.

    I know you’re a lawyer and all and have your lips permanently attached to Dems

    I’ll bet you your next paycheck against mine that I have voted for more Republicans in my time than you have Democrats, and more recently too.

    The irony of saying that I might be painting this post or the readers of this blog with a broad brush while you assume that because someone worships the president or spews hate at a conservative then they must be a liberal is bit much.

    Bingo.

99. #199
    On January 1st, 2010 at 5:44 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    spacen, your passivity about naming and shaming people who openly spew hatred and imply violence reminds me of Obama’s stance toward the Iranians: still think we have a chance to “win them over”?

    And since when has SHAME not been an effective way to change individual behavior, if only by stopping it by making it too emotionally painful to continue?

100. #200
     On January 1st, 2010 at 5:46 pm, katablog said:

     Public shaming, especially when these emails were sent in a somewhat private manner, will win absolutely no one.

     I have no problem with publishing the names and addresses of people who write vile email. Everyone deserves to see how filthy they respond to an issue by attacking the person.

     And yes, I imagine both sides indeed to name calling (I’m not above it myself, though I try very hard to stay with issues and lay off personalities). But I have also noted that liberal are more apt to attack persons and avoid issues.