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. #1
   On October 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pm, Craig said:

   NYT on a 10 year low??

   SWEEEEEEEEEEEEET!! Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of loons.

2. #2
   On October 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm, see-dubya said:

   Yesterday some commenter here found the dark lining in this silver cloud: “Say hello to the Soros Times”.

   Murdoch! Regnery! Somebody swoop in!

3. #3
   On October 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm, Etan said:

   The lower the stock, the better deal it will be to those looking to buy in (id est, Murdoch).

   Question is, what can we do to Google to buy in?

4. #4
   On October 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

   Anyone taken a poll of their approval rating lately?

   Oh yeah, I forgot, stock prices ARE a poll of approval.

5. #5
   On October 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm, DesertLover said:

   you reap what you sow … hate, lies, discontent and traitorous actions have come back home to roost … wondered what all those vultures were circling over … now we know …

   of course, being the liberal lapdogs they are they will not change the very things that have led to their demise … that much I feel safe in assuring everyone … good-bye and good riddance …

6. #6
   On October 17th, 2007 at 2:37 pm, mojoe said:

   All The News That Fits

7. #7
   On October 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm, J S Ragman said:

   Based on the current stock price, someone could buy the whole company for about $2.7 billion. But I don’t think the Sulzbergers are selling.
   Warren Buffet has 20 times that much in his checking account over at Berkshire Hathaway. Warren, are you out there?

8. #8
   On October 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm, Jaded said:

   Well this is good news!! Thanks for brightening my day.

9. #9
   On October 17th, 2007 at 2:47 pm, Wade said:

   NYT is dropping faster the Bill Clinton’s drawers

10. #10
    On October 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2005/12/23/un-merry-christmas-ny-times/

    Happy.Halloween.NY.Times!

11. #11
    On October 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    That should be Un.Happy.Halloween.NY.Times

12. #12
    On October 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pm, ajmontana said:

    When it gets to $2.00 Buy!
    Then Pray for new management.

13. #13
    On October 17th, 2007 at 2:53 pm, James Felix said:

    I’m surprised more people haven’t sold out of this one. Shares in the NYT are structured so that even though they hold a minority of the shares the Sulzburgers have total control of the company. They can make whatever horrible business decisions they want in service of their far-left agenda, and the people whose money they’re playing with can’t do anything about it.

    Anything, that is, except sell their shares. Which an awful lot of them seem to be doing.

    This also means that as things are now the chances of someone like Murdoch coming in to buy out the shares is pretty unlikely, because they would have no power to make the changes needed to turn a profit from their investment.

    Not that any of this means anything to me. I read the Post.

14. #14
    On October 17th, 2007 at 2:53 pm, taylork said:

    I’m sure they’ll say this drop is that they’ve been too slow in adapting to news on the internet. All the while they’ll print more lies and damage national security even further. Then one day, all we’ll have is the New York Post.

15. #15
    On October 17th, 2007 at 2:55 pm, misfit138 said:

    Bwahahahahahahaha!

    (huff…puff…catching breath)

    Bwahahahahahahahah!!!

    Geez, if my hysterical laughter keeps up, I’ll be passed out like Randi Rhoades after playing quarters at Ted Kennedys house.

16. #16
    On October 17th, 2007 at 2:55 pm, James Felix said:

    The person declined to be identified because Morgan Stanley hasn’t made the sale public yet

    And just FYI, that’s a pretty serious violation of securities law. Martha Stewart got sent to prison for a lot less.

17. #17
    On October 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pm, Jim M. said:

    TODAY’s STOCK TIP:

    Look at buying futures in companies making bird cage liners.

18. #18
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:00 pm, ajmontana said:

    Martha Stewart in jail, O.J not guilty…. still shaking my head over that one. Maybe he makes a better souffle.

19. #19
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm, J S Ragman said:

    Don’t worry New York Times.
    Things always look darkest just before they go totally black.

20. #20
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On October 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pm, ajmontana said:
    When it gets to $2.00 Buy!

    I made a $2.00 bid for the whole company yesterday and nobody out bid me.

21. #21
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:03 pm, Etan said:

    Warren, are you out there?

    Hmm. Buffet, while immensely wealthy, is no friend to the GOP. I won’t be too hard on the socialist pig, because I own stock.

    I’d personally rather see it in the hands of Murdoch, because, like it or not, it (NYT) has a powerful demographic we are not a part of. Plus, we already know he would love to own it anyway. You don’t have to be a rocket science to see the business “elite” are leaving the GOP in droves.

22. #22
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pm, J S Ragman said:

    #21 – I don’t know. Doesn’t Murdoch already own a paper in New York? I think Buffet’s reputation would bring some luster back to the Times.
    And just out of curiosity, where are the business “elite” going?

23. #23
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:13 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    You think part of the reason Armeddinnerjacket was in New York was to look into purchasing the one paper in the USA who has helped terrorism the most?

    Just a thought.

24. #24
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pm, ajmontana said:

    soap said,
    I made a $2.00 bid for the whole company yesterday and nobody out bid me.

    Sorry soap, I missed it, I would have gone $2.25

25. #25
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:26 pm, Laree said:

    So whats the new times stratgey, Ebay?

26. #26
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:37 pm, zorro said:

    NYT: They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. Catering to the left has brought them into hostile take over country… See Dubya has it right, News Corp should make them an offer.

27. #27
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:40 pm, Etan said:

    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pm, J S Ragman said:
    

    Into Hilary’s campaign fund to begin with. The hard, embarrassing fact is we just came out of a summer where Dems raised TWICE as much as their Republican counterparts.

    Hint: Keep an eye on donor numbers as the we get closer to the election,the Dems will unfortunately continue to out-raise republicans. Wall street’s short-sided perspective (“we miss the 90s”) seems to be more attracted to stability right now over American principles which are at stake.

    In comes reality break: the 90s are over and we are at war. Sacrifices are going to have to be made from the top-down.

28. #28
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pm, jimwesty said:

    Well Pinch my ass…

29. #29
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pm, d1carter said:

    This is probably due to the removal pay for view of the columnists. Once the investors really began to see the spew coming from Krugman and others, they sold their holdings. Can’t say that I blame them. I just wondering who bought it?

30. #30
    On October 17th, 2007 at 3:50 pm, Boomer said:

    Sucks to be them!

31. #31
    On October 17th, 2007 at 4:02 pm, Lefty said:

    A five year low since January of 1997? Does anyone remember what was going on then? Bill Clinton’s second term begins for one.

32. #32
    On October 17th, 2007 at 4:04 pm, itzWicks said:

    Clearly the NYT has issues. Too bad they aren’t the kind that can be easily fixed overnight.

    The New Media should simply watch the Grey Lady go down with a careful eye – it just isn’t about the politics, but the bottom line.

33. #33
    On October 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    The NY Times, CNN, and a number of other organizations are going to sell their soul to get Hillary elected. They care not one wit about share price or probable bankruptcy as they are willing to commit economic suicide just to get the secular socialist agenda in place in the USA.

    The only hope here is that things get worse more quickly than they can manage.

34. #34
    On October 17th, 2007 at 4:09 pm, Cowboy said:

    dropping faster than china bill clinton’s underwear. Now that’s funny!

35. #35
    On October 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pm, WORK949 said:

    Hey, who’s this Hassan Elmasry? I don’t like that name. Doesn’t roll off my tongue too easily. Where’s he from and why was he trying to get a controlling interest in the NYT in the first place?

    As for the stock plunge, it couldn’t a happened to a more deserving bunch of Quislings.

36. #36
    On October 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pm, Etan said:

    33,

    They care not one wit about share price or probable bankruptcy as they are willing to commit economic suicide just to get the secular socialist agenda in place in the USA.

    Wrong. They are voting with their (and their shareholder’s) wallets on this one, and who they perceive top be the winner; there’s no socialist/communist agenda masked as altruism here…that’s for the socialized healthcare set.

    Gambling on perceived short-term economic stability is nice. Protecting ourselves just happens to be more important at the moment.

37. #37
    On October 17th, 2007 at 4:42 pm, ajmontana said:

    Boomer said:
    Sucks to be them!

    lol! yup.

38. #38
    On October 17th, 2007 at 5:11 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    Just went to the new NY Times blog. They picked an absolutely silly topic for their first foray into bloggery.

39. #39
    On October 17th, 2007 at 5:36 pm, 29Victor said:

    …then the priest said “Oh, I thought you said ‘the old GAY lady.’”

    But seriously folks, the NYT & the newspaper industry in general is increasingly irrelevant. And the NYT is accelerating it’s own decline with it’s obviously leftist slant.

    Now that Foxtrot is Sunday only the only reason I even look at a newspaper is to do the crosswords and the superquiz.

    Maybe she could change her nickname to “The Old Gray Mare” and go out to pasture with the other buggywhips. (please pardon the mixed metaphor)

    Anyone know where to get the superquiz online?

40. #40
    On October 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pm, granite said:

    Touche!

    Buggywhips also crossed my mind.

    Perhaps in the case of the NY Times, the pasture might also include wax tablets and styli?

    In all seriousness, most if not all of us likely feel that the primary reason for the plight of newspapers is the extreme leftward slant of such a significant number of them, and of the most well-known ones to boot.

41. #41
    On October 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pm, granite said:

    Forgot to add:

    The new, alternative information sources greatly contributed to the newspapers’ woes.
    However, their woes were self-initiated.

42. #42
    On October 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm, puhiawa said:

    The shares have been re-deployed.

43. #43
    On October 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pm, granite said:

    The dserves a rimshot!

    Ba-doom ching!

44. #44
    On October 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pm, granite said:

    That deserves, rather.

45. #45
    On October 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pm, Dr. Mercury said:

    Michelle, I thought the headline yesterday was one of the cleverest and delightful headlines I’d seen in a long time. It was topical, timely, and deliciously underhanded.

    We might even see it enter the common lexicon at this point. Some Western novelist gropes for an analogy…

    “Why, you gol’dang varmint! You’re lower than a… a… a New York Times stock market share!”

    “How DARE ye!”

    (gunfight ensues)

    You can only push a man so far before he snaps.

    And today’s article just made yesterday’s headline all the more special. It’s a small thing, yes, but truly a moment that shines.

46. #46
    On October 17th, 2007 at 6:27 pm, mnmike said:

    Cheap purchase for a new buyer. Hope it’s a conservative buyer.

47. #47
    On October 17th, 2007 at 7:14 pm, philtac said:

    I don’t know if I should line the bottom of my bird cage with the news paper or the news paper’s stock.
    Maybe if I wait a few days I can get buy one get one free….or buy one news paper and get one share of stock free.
    Hopefully at that they still won’t sell papers.
    Notice how I left NEWS out… thats cause theres no NEWS in it.

48. #48
    On October 17th, 2007 at 8:25 pm, brooklyn red said:

    If it drops past 16 I say buy!

    Either they change their treasonous ways to accommodate the wishes of the stock holders, or they crash and burn.

    Win, win!!

49. #49
    On October 17th, 2007 at 9:20 pm, John Ansell said:

    Where will we get our classified information from now? I can just see the stock holders now saying “Ny Times, will you betray us?”

50. #50
    On October 17th, 2007 at 10:09 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

    OSB-
    I bid $3 with a max of $9 (in honor of my Sig 9mm)

    At which point after taking ownership, will seek to hire every conservative columist and teacher to write. At this point, the board of directors will make a major cash office for msnbc and give MM her own show for three hours a day (hey if Sean Hannity can do it-MM can do it too!)

    gsp

51. #51
    On October 18th, 2007 at 5:44 am, T J Green said:

    Ann Coulter, who wished for a demolished Gray Lady in lieu of the World Trade Center, gets the last laugh here. The Treason Times managed to implode at the very time the Hillary express went to full steam against all things GOP, including Coulter.

    Want to help create a real “controlled demolition” event for the troofers to gnaw on? This is the right time to cancel your local newspaper… due to the unquestioned use and publication of propaganda prepared by the Treason Times.

52. #52
    On October 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am, pressto said:

    I know a reporter in Texas who would fit right in at the NY Times.

    I wonder if Dubai or some other middle east country has started to buy up the NY Times stock yet.

53. #53
    On October 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pm, Etan said:

    On October 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am, pressto said:

    I wonder if Dubai or some other middle east country has started to buy up the NY Times stock yet.

    pressto, sadly, you must be thinking of News Corp.

54. #54
    On October 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pm, iowavette said:

    Ragman, you do NOT want Buffett buying the NYT. It would continue to be just as left wing and ethics-impaired as it is today. Buffett has held, I believe, TWO fundraisers for Mrs. Clinton. You heard me. He believes in wealth redistribution and worse yet, he doesn’t support the local economy. His Lincoln has to be 15 years old. I like the car but he should be buying new ones much more frequently.

55. #55
    On October 18th, 2007 at 3:05 pm, J S Ragman said:

    #54 – iowavette. Don’t take away my conservative card!

    I’m not saying that I support his politics, and I think he has held fundraisers for both Hildebeast and Hussein Obama, but I think he is enough of a businessman to stay in Omaha, and not let his politics get in the way of a more reasonable editorial approach.
    He may also believe in wealth distribution, but at least he is willing to donate about $30 billion of his own money to the Gates Foundation so the government doesn’t have to pull it out of my pocket.
    I also read somewhere that he finally bought a new Cadillac.
    Not that he is a good solution, but probably better than what is there now.

56. #56
    On October 18th, 2007 at 3:14 pm, 29Victor said:

    This kind of puts things in perspective.

    It’s a an article at The Cable Game that compares how the NYT is doing against News Corp.