Skip to comments.
Pete Stark: Raving lunatic/Michelle Malkin rips into foul-mouthed leftist congressman
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| Wednesday, July 23, 2003
| Michelle Malkin
Posted on 07/23/2003 12:20:29 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
To: JohnHuang2
"No word on what liberally construed definition Stark cites for "c--ks----r."That does it, no Democrat refers to a Republican as an intern and gets away with it!
To: onyx
Anybody got a picture of him?
Sounds to me like this vicious little punk needs to threaten somebody on the Hill who will actually take him up on his challenge.
This guy is the same type of "all talk but no action", boorish, loud-mouthed, vulgar, punk-a@@, little b!tch that is your average liberal male. Same type that made up the "Anti-War" rallies with their "masks" and hoods - any show of force and the rat-like, cowardly vermin flee.
To: Im Your Huckleberry; MeeknMing
RE: your request as per post #22.
I don't, but I'm pinging MnM --- he's the best!
23
posted on
07/23/2003 10:05:36 AM PDT
by
onyx
(Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
To: TheAngryClam
24
posted on
07/23/2003 10:08:16 AM PDT
by
Bob
To: HenryLeeII
The Constitution was not ratified -by- the states. It was ratified in special conventions called -in- the states. The framers knew that the sovereignty of the new government had to rest on the whole people, and so it does.?!?!?!?! WTF?!?!?!?!
I guess happy hour has started at the Walt household. The Constitution was not ratified by the states? Then why does Article VII of the document state that nine states are needed to ratify? Why were states kept in the first place, instead of removing the boundaries and making us all one people, instead of Virginians, New Yorkers, Georgians, etc.? You've had some whoppers on these threads, but this is indefensible!
To: Im Your Huckleberry
26
posted on
07/23/2003 10:09:03 AM PDT
by
Cincinatus
(Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
To: Cincinatus
THAT'S HIM?!?!Oh, excuse me while I go into the other room and laugh myself silly!
THAT's Fortney?!?!
OH! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Sorry, I'm wiping the tears from my eyes!
Oh, how I would love to have been a Congressman who was in that meeting and have this smarmy, wimpy looking old, leftist punk challenge me!
OH MAN! I'm still laughing to the point of tears....
To: Im Your Huckleberry
Don't let the wimpish demeanor mislead you. He's a hectoring, snotty, abusive clown.
What he really needs is for somebody to beat the living snot out of him -- it's the only way to communicate with his kind.
28
posted on
07/23/2003 10:15:00 AM PDT
by
Cincinatus
(Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
To: Cincinatus
Like I said, let me be a Congressman on the Hill in a committee meeting and have this loud-mouthed punk challenge me or threaten me.
I'd be happy to step outside with him and see if he was man enough to follow through on his big talk.
All it would take would be for him to take one swing at me, just one...
To: Im Your Huckleberry
See, then you would have fallen into his trap. "Look at the mean Republican beating up on a weak old man."
30
posted on
07/23/2003 10:29:09 AM PDT
by
Lee'sGhost
(Crom!)
To: Lee'sGhost
Oh no...he would take the first swing....and I'd make sure there were plenty of "R" witnesses present. Maybe a Fox News Channel reporter or two, too.
Still, I'd not hesitate to get right into this smarmy, loud-mouthed punks face right back at him, and goad him into taking a swing.
I hate his type, and I'd stand up to him immediately. The Republicans are fools for allowing this moron into any committee, any meeting, or even having any further dealigns with him. They should tell the DemoNAZIS that if they want to particpate, if they want to "deal" then Starky boy goes. No committee positions.
The Republicans need to put this abusive bullying punk in his place.
To: Im Your Huckleberry
"The Republicans need to put this abusive bullying punk in his place."
I'll buy that.
32
posted on
07/23/2003 11:01:00 AM PDT
by
Lee'sGhost
(Crom!)
To: onyx; Im Your Huckleberry; yall
Hey, thanks Onyx !! I see someone posted a pic of Pete Stark already, but here's another one anyway:
Found on THIS Google Image Search .
33
posted on
07/23/2003 11:08:42 AM PDT
by
MeekOneGOP
(Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
To: Im Your Huckleberry
Unless he was born with that honker, it looks like he's been punched in the nose more than once!
34
posted on
07/23/2003 11:19:35 AM PDT
by
onyx
(Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
To: MeeknMing
Thanks Meek, you ARE thee best!
35
posted on
07/23/2003 11:20:22 AM PDT
by
onyx
(Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
To: onyx
My pleasure. You're so kind, thanks !!
36
posted on
07/23/2003 11:31:02 AM PDT
by
MeekOneGOP
(Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
To: Judith Anne
I hope you're right. But to put things in perspective, the cumulative audience of the big 3 news networks garners 28 Million viewers a day. FR has about 100,000 members. The largest Internet news websites are all liberal- MSNBC (which syndicates Newsweek and WashingtonPost- both of which are awfully biased) then CNN at the top. It seems that we've got our foot in the door, but have our work cut out for us to pry the door open.
To: David Isaac
The notion of a monolithic "big business" lobby has been debunked eons ago- it's a mystery why it keeps rearing its head. A simple review of Common Cause documents from 2000 reveals that Democrats and Republicans earned roughly an equivalent amount of soft money dollars- so to extrapolate that there exists a "big business" monolith with a set agenda that favors one party or another is simply a myth. Look at Daschle's push for big ethanol subsidies to understand why agribusiness might want to fund Dems at the same level if not more so than Republicans- it just depends on industry, but by and large they want to grease the wheels of BOTH parties.
The answer to your question is a complicated one but at the base of it, people who want to become wealthy (most Republians) don't become journalists, teachers, or take the rare shot of making it big in Hollywood. There is a self-selection of people in that go into these industries and they favor those with liberal biases and inclinations. There is no conspiracy about it, it's simply a phenomenon that can be explained by human nature.
To: lelio
I was thinking 'casksoaker.' You know, they people who soaked new barrels so the wood staves would swell up and make a watertight seal. Stark must have meant McInnis was retaining water.
39
posted on
07/23/2003 3:00:02 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
To: JohnHuang2
My God, I would love to go one on one with this old fart.
40
posted on
07/23/2003 3:15:48 PM PDT
by
Dead Dog
(There are no minority rights in a democracy. 51% get's 49%'s stuff.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson