It has been some time since we produced an edition of our semi-regular feature That’s Our Katie!, wherein we chronicle the idiocy of Townhall bobblehead Katie Pavlich.
Thank heavens for Wonket. I saw her stupid headline out there on the intarweb, and almost clicked, then saw KATIE PAVLICH and knew that there was no way ever that I would click on it. Because I am misogynist, of course, not because it would give clicks to some wackjob's interpretive fact-molesting session.
Kind of like saying that a 500 lb. pile of fresh cow poop isn't as objectionable as a 500 lb. pile of fresh elephant dung. Yes, following a technical analysis one might be able to report that there are certain differences between the two in certain measures of content and consistency. But would it be less bothersome to have a truckload of one dumped off at your front door versus the other? Either one will do a quite thorough job of stinking the place up.
"Attempts journalism" - fails to meet even high-school level standards. Next she'll cite her various "awards."
Kate’s “interpretation” of the Planned Parenthood article must have went through a logic blender followed by a rational black hole and a few English to Stupidese to Gibberish to English dictionaries. What a twat. I can say twat here can’t I?
Yeah, damn libs, trying so hard to turn the good old U S of A into a socialist hellhole! Or perhaps, another case of a dimwitted sell-out repeating a hackneyed RWNJ fear-based talking-point long enough that the idiot base believes the thing without even understanding what it is.
Wait, now, if <i>you&#039;re</i> a man, and you&#039;re mansplaining this .... *ominous Inception sound*
That&#039;s just your misogynous misogyny speaking, because .
Thank heavens for Wonket. I saw her stupid headline out there on the intarweb, and almost clicked, then saw KATIE PAVLICH and knew that there was no way ever that I would click on it. Because I am misogynist, of course, not because it would give clicks to some wackjob&#039;s interpretive fact-molesting session.
But it makes me sad, not proud, to have race and sex in common with Ben.
I guess a dolt who&#039;s incapable of even mimicking reasoned thought can&#039;t be mocked because she happens to have a hoo-hah.
Anyone else would have a vested interest...
the two are not mutually exclusive
ALL OF THEM, KATIE
That&#039;s how many women see through your bullshit
see Palin, Sarah....
Kind of like saying that a 500 lb. pile of fresh cow poop isn&#039;t as objectionable as a 500 lb. pile of fresh elephant dung. Yes, following a technical analysis one might be able to report that there are certain differences between the two in certain measures of content and consistency. But would it be less bothersome to have a truckload of one dumped off at your front door versus the other? Either one will do a quite thorough job of stinking the place up.
&quot;Attempts journalism&quot; - fails to meet even high-school level standards. Next she&#039;ll cite her various &quot;awards.&quot;
So even a request to back up a ludicrous claim with some sort of actual evidence is sexist and proof that you are just trying to oppress women?
Since when did conservatives pre-emptivly declare themselves victims?
Kate&rsquo;s &ldquo;interpretation&rdquo; of the Planned Parenthood article must have went through a logic blender followed by a rational black hole and a few English to Stupidese to Gibberish to English dictionaries. What a twat. I can say twat here can&rsquo;t I?
She makes a good argument. For censoring the internet.
Yeah, damn libs, trying so hard to turn the good old U S of A into a socialist hellhole! Or perhaps, another case of a dimwitted sell-out repeating a hackneyed RWNJ fear-based talking-point long enough that the idiot base believes the thing without even understanding what it is.
Of course you can! This is a vile little snark mob after all.
I hate myself for typing this, but Ben is more coherent and fact-based.