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 November 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm, John Ansell said:

   You can salk me any day Michelle.

2. #2
   On November 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm, right_on said:

   Typical…It’s not fair…waa…You’re a racist…waa…You want old people to die…waa…You’re against the children…waa…etc…etc…

   It’s really getting old.

3. #3
   On November 30th, 2007 at 12:55 pm, ajmontana said:

   POOR CNN WAH..
   and poor us we are all now AGENDA BREAKERS.

4. #4
   On November 30th, 2007 at 12:56 pm, madchef said:

   They are not used to having people call them out with the facts, the nerve of them. Didn’t even give them enough time to spin. HA HA

5. #5
   On November 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm, ThackerAgency said:

   They are just jealous that they can’t do as good of a job as bloggers like MM. They want to return to the time that they controlled all the information.

   This is just more example of why the MSM is becoming irrelevant. I have no doubt that YOUtube/Google could host the debate much better than CNN could.

6. #6
   On November 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm, okbayou said:

   I wonder if Al Gore has any regrets about “inventing” the internet. The bloggers I read,with Michelle as my favorite, have made a real difference.

7. #7
   On November 30th, 2007 at 12:58 pm, Eric_CharlotteNC said:

   and CNN thinks we should let them pick the leader of our nation.

8. #8
   On November 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm, Blind_Mule said:

   This is sort of fun to watch. Wingnuts’ heads are exploding over the political affiliations of some of the questioners at last night’s debate.

   Why did’nt somebody tell me my head exploded?

9. #9
   On November 30th, 2007 at 1:00 pm, Boomer said:

   I admit I only have an engineering degree, but wouldn’t you think that Journalism 101 might have a section about “fact checking” included in the course material? They really pull out the Whambulance every time they get caught doing something unethical. Liberal rule number 1 when caught doing something wrong blame the person that observed and/or reported your poor behavior.

   You are obviously doing something right Michelle as you appear to be their number one target. Continue to stay aware of your surroundings as you travel on your daily errands you never know how the unhinged will act out their anger at your arrogance of uncovering the truth. Thank you for again for all you do in keeping us informed of this insidious behavior. The new media is my number 1 source for reliable news.

10. #10
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:03 pm, Blind_Mule said:

    video

    LMAO

11. #11
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm, ACHefty said:

    Easiest way to get rid of CNN….turn it off. It’s working for the NY Slimes, it should work for CNN.

12. #12
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm, EHeavenlyGads said:

    This is a screaming-loud indication that your tireless work is paying off, Michelle. You keep catching these idiots with their pants down, ironically by using what used to be the pre-eminent teaching in journalism classes: Verify, Verify, VERIFY!

    Beyond ridiculous and even malicious errors, you have exposed their personal and corporate motivations, as well as their lackadaisical methods of crafting “news stories”. And obviously, at least this time, they are all catching flack.

    You threaten them. Good job! Eat lots of fruits and vegetables, wash your hands often…and KEEP IT UP!

13. #13
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm, John Ansell said:

    Next up….Bloggers caused global warming.

14. #14
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pm, davenp35 said:

    I have a serious question. Couldn’t a FEC complaint be filed for them to look into whether CNN (or some of it’s employees) is intentionally trying to boost Dem candidates and degrade Republican ones? It’s pretty obvious that some of their execs have a biased political agenda and in light of the recent alegations of illegality here… Just a thought.

15. #15
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pm, Tipper said:

    This is sort of fun to watch. Wingnuts’ heads are exploding over the political affiliations of some of the questioners at last night’s debate.

    Heh and Heh

    Liberals are hypocrites and frauds.

16. #16
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pm, thirteen28 said:

    Google has a translate function to translate between different languages. I bet if you translate “Conservative bloggers are stalking” from liberal-speak into English it comes out as “crap, we got caught.”

17. #17
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:10 pm, PBoilermaker said:

    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm, ACHefty said:
    Easiest way to get rid of CNN….turn it off. It’s working for the NY Slimes, it should work for CNN.

    I agree…except when Glenn Beck is on.

18. #18
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    All they have to do to put this talk of journalistic un-integrity to bed is tell the truth or do what is right. I know novel idea…

    However, they should try it some time.

    They remind of a scene from Liar, Liar. Jim Carrey has just gotten of the elevator when the secretary (whose hair is spiked) asks Jim a question and he replies “whatever takes the focus of your hair.” That’s what the CNN apologists are doing – there’s nothing to see here. Move along.

19. #19
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm, PBoilermaker said:

    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pm, thirteen28 said:
    Google has a translate function to translate between different languages. I bet if you translate “Conservative bloggers are stalking” from liberal-speak into English it comes out as “crap, we got caught.”

    I tried the Liberal-English translator and it came out as “Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!”

20. #20
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm, Mister P said:

    Blame the messenger…. I mean stalker

21. #21
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:13 pm, tony the tiger said:

    wait a minute… we’re using “Google” again?
    Thought they were un-PC for search engine protocol or something…

22. #22
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:17 pm, zorro said:

    Heck Michelle, hundreds of us were watching you “stalk” those morons live at UstreamTV. Am I now a witness to a “crime”?

    It is now painfully clear that the Main Stream Media, MSM, is populated with hacks and lackeys of the left. Bed-wetters all.

23. #23
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:17 pm, madchef said:

    You gotta love the Google! One day just for fun I Googled “Clinton Crimes”, it linked me to a website called The William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library. The site lists about 75 people who have died mysteriously after crossing paths or doing business with the Clintons. I never realized so many people commit “suicide” by shooting themselves in the back of the head while driving.

24. #24
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    Next up….Bloggers caused global warming.

    No, it’s Bush’s fault. Everything is Bush’s fault.

25. #25
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:24 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    You think CNN will pull a Murtha and decide to tell the truth?

    NAAA

26. #26
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:28 pm, reppac122 said:

    Jeez Michelle…I mean c’mon….stop stalking the liberals! Stop exposing their plants! Stop making the MSM’s job more difficult in making Republican look evil. Stop showing their journalistic malpratice! How dare you show great journalistic standards! Etc. etc. (generic liberal complaint) etc.

27. #27
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm, John Ansell said:

    MadChef #23, and if I’m not mistaken one was Brit Hume’s son?

28. #28
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm, see-dubya said:

    I didn’t actually see quotes around what Feist said. Surely he didn’t actually call you a “stalking horse” for Fox News?

    He just gave us a whole stinky stable of stalking horses at the debate, and then he calls you out for a “hidden” agenda?

29. #29
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    stalker
    –noun an act or course of stalking quarry, prey

    journalist
    –noun 1. a person who practices the occupation or profession of journalism.
    2. a person who keeps a journal, diary, or other record of daily events

    I see their confusion!

30. #30
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm, itzWicks said:

    You’ve really rattled their collective cages, Michelle. I suspect that instead of investing in weed-whackers, they are going to try keeping you out of their self-made green houses.

    But they forgot one key thing: websites such as your own are only going to multiply and grow, doing the work that they won’t do or refuse to do.

    Thanks for being both tenacious and inspirational.

31. #31
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:32 pm, PBoilermaker said:

    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:24 pm, On-my-soap-box said:
    You think CNN will pull a Murtha and decide to tell the truth?

    NAAA

    With Murtha, there’s always an angle and there are ALWAYS strings attached.

32. #32
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm, WORK949 said:

    Michelle, you stalking savage, you. How dare you?

33. #33
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:42 pm, terrig said:

    You know this is laughable but if they had just came out and said we’re not going to use real Republicans for the most part, just dimocrap hacks then no one would have probably cared too much, been annoyed as they didn’t do this for the dim debate but probably not think this a big deal. When I was a kid I was always taught honesty is the best policy but guess CNN missed those talks.
    Keep up the great work Michelle!

34. #34
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:54 pm, Jarhead68 said:

    When liberals get caught cheating, lying, stealing, pounding congressional pages, etc., they always seem to be able to shift the blame onto others, especially if the others are conservative. What happened to admitting your guilt, apologizing, paying the piper and moving forward? Oh, sorry, that’s what conservatives do.

35. #35
    On November 30th, 2007 at 1:55 pm, conservativesRus said:

    Bloggers believe it’s OK to have what some readers might consider conflicts of interest as long as those conflicts are acknowledged. They weren’t in this case, and they should have been.

    Please explain to me who doesn’t have a conflict of interest. (Well ‘cept Hill and Edwards, who only serve themselves). The rest of us sometimes “have to serve” family, friends, coworkers, etc. instead of ourselves. The ultimate conflict of interest. Conservatives believe these “conflicts” are a necessary and/or inevitable part of life and believe disclosure is the moral course of action. There is no way to practically eliminate all of the “conflicts” so instead you disclose it/them. Then the listener can make their own value judgments. Liberals believe you hide them, pretend they don’t exist. Then it’s only “wrong” when you get caught.

36. #36
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:10 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    Hillary’s great left-wing slime machine arises from the primordial ooze to call out “Foul!” Liberal hypocrites.

37. #37
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:14 pm, Wade said:

    Bloggers doing the work CNN will not do.

38. #38
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm, bit_boy said:

    Being fair and balanced, Fox/Hannity and Dingleburs, hosted a couple of ‘analyst’ to justify CNN’s culpa. Both talked down to the audience. They need but speak and reality is automatically reconfigured unto their own image. They argued it matters not who ask the question but what the question is. People actually get paid for spewing this type of nonsense. One of the analyst was former Congressman Ford and the other was recently released from a local toy factory (very high lead content…my ad hominems for both).

    Oreilly featured the gay general, once again behind the Malkin information curve, but Hannity acknowledged several of the plants were discovered by Michelle, and proportions the scope of this “oversight” (very much like the Titanic not seeing the iceberg that sunk it) .

39. #39
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm, bipartisancomplainer said:

    Hope you are able to take all this negative bashing for what it is – a positive indication of how far-reaching your influence is becoming!

40. #40
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pm, PowWow said:

    Has Joyless weighed in yet? I can’t decide until I hear from her.

41. #41
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pm, conservativesRus said:

    #40 PowWow – ROFL

42. #42
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm, weeha said:

    Got caught with bias all over your face?
    Who ya gonna call?

    http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/waaaambulance-23284.jpg

43. #43
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm, Dave from Flint said:

    As Chester A. Riley used to say: “My head’s made up. Don’t confuse me with facts”.

44. #44
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pm, max said:

    They think they’re just being stalked, until they find out they’ve been ….MaglaGONGED!
    

45. #45
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pm, Bilby said:

    It amuses me that some think using Google is stalking. It’s as if people believe if they put something on the web, where it’s visible to over a billion people worldwide, and expect over a billion people won’t be able to see it or shouldn’t look. I’m reminded of a case a while back in which a woman (can’t remember who she was) put some risque pictures of herself online then claimed her privacy was violated because people looked at them.

46. #46
    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    This is so laughable. Stalking? Please. I guess it’s in the same realm of being called a racist if you oppose illegal immigration.

    They really do need to get over themselves. Unpopular speech is just as relevant as popular speech, just not in their minds.

    Here’s some help to those of you who can’t stand to hear the truth:

    If you don’t like what you see or hear, I would recommend closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and sing “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA” as loud as possible. And when the worst part is over, someone will give you some cookies and milk.

47. #47
    On November 30th, 2007 at 3:04 pm, DocattheAutopsy said:

    I’m too busy blogging to stalk these people!

48. #48
    On November 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm, jfish said:

    From Mara Liasson of National Public Radio on the Republican and Democratic presidential debates sponsored by CNN and Google’s YouTube affiliate:

    “I think CNN does itself a great disservice when it doesn’t apply the exact same kind of criteria to both debates. I covered both of them. In the Democratic debate, I don’t think there were any questions that were clearly coming from, you know, a Republican point of view. They were generally sympathetic. They were about global warming and health care and education, all kind of Democratic issues. They weren’t challenging them. There was one kind anti-tax question, I think, but they weren’t challenging the basic principles of the Democratic Party. There were lots of questions last night [at the GOP debate] that were. I think the question about the Bible was mocking. I think one of the abortion questions was clearly not from someone who was pro-life”.

    Dang, does this mean I have to have a bit of respect for National Public Radio again? or does it mean that Mara Liasson is about to be out of a job??

49. #49
    On November 30th, 2007 at 3:16 pm, Larraby said:

    CNN never changes. It just goes on the attack against anyone who outsmarts the CNN mediocre staff. I think it might be interesting to find out whether General Kerr had given campaign contributions to Democratic candidates in the past. But if I looked at any of the many web sites that will tell me this, CNN will say that I am a stalker.
    My favorite response to CNN came from Ehud Barak back in 2000. Christine Amanpour, the left wing antiIsrael activist who covers the MiddleEast for CNN was interviewing Prime Minister Barak. Her interview was nothing more than an antiIsrael diatribe in which she parroted the propaganda that Yasser Arafat had given her: Barak said: “this is bull _ _ _ t” and terminated the interview.
    CNN can’t debate Michelle Malkin on her factfinding so they have to resort to calling names. The whole group of them, Cooper, Blitzer, King and Amanpour should just move into Clinton campaign headquarters and fess up.

50. #50
    On November 30th, 2007 at 3:33 pm, josetheguerilla said:

    CNN is participating in Hugo Chavez like malfeasance. Why can’t they be sued for this BS? Criminal.

    Quote from sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane “cuff”em and stuff’em!!!!!!

51. #51
    On November 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pm, TXRose said:

    When I think about the MSM and CNN, my brain hurts.

52. #52
    On November 30th, 2007 at 4:00 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    And we were hoodwinked again by those stoopid right-wing people…

53. #53
    On November 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm, puhiawa said:

    CNN, when moonbats query.

54. #54
    On November 30th, 2007 at 6:37 pm, uhangtight said:

    I liked the video and song.. very funny..

    I agree with commentors. The lamestream media or the driveby media has been operating freely with this malfeasence for years. As a matter of fact as long as I have been watching the news, since the 60′s. Technology is good and the proper use is wonderful, now we can refute in seconds before they are even off the air with their phoney-baloney. This scares them, yes, but what really frightens them is that they see their ‘power’ slipping away. Nothing worse than losing your ‘power’ to influence the masses to your agenda.

    I am sure that had we had the tools supplied to us via the internet and Perot not screwed things up (which is probably the basis behind the question to Ron Paul about running on an Independent ticket), these two Clintons would have packed it back to Arkansas back in 93. What a wonderful world this would be!! Well, at least we would be spared the Billary run for the presidency in 08.

    Michelle, keep up this great work. It is refreshing to see these scumbags be put in a state of fear and running for cover! Love your work!

55. #55
    On November 30th, 2007 at 6:40 pm, steveegg said:

    That sounds familiar. I’ve been dealing with the semi-sane to completely-unhinged all day on one of my plant posts (language warning in the comments), with them drawn in from Salon.

    Not that I’m really complaining because the semi-sane have been worth the back-and-forth, but it’s been draining.

56. #56
    On November 30th, 2007 at 7:12 pm, Ken M. said:

    It’s been said here, and in other comment threads several times; but I experienced it first-hand.

    I made mention of the plants to a liberal friend, and cited Michelle’s first post (“Digging Out…”). Here’s his response:

    “… the real problem is that their seen as plants, instead of citizens, at either debate, who simply have questions to ask. This is the old game of blame the messenger. If someone is running for president, what difference does it make who asks the questions, its the answer that counts.”

    I didn’t respond … could have made several, e.g., CNN’s characterization of the questioners, lack of disclosure, etc.; but it would have just escalated into a flame war.

    Again, FWIW to others here, first-hand experience…
    –Ken

57. #57
    On November 30th, 2007 at 7:22 pm, docflash said:

    I have visions of peas flying,extended neck veins and stomping feet.MM,I bet your ears have been burning all day.There is no telling what you have been called today besides STALKER.Great work,some of your best.

58. #58
    On November 30th, 2007 at 8:23 pm, brooklyn red said:

    I am confused… I thought it was a vast right wing conspiracy?? lol

    I think that we all are witnessing a major historical event. I just have the feeling that this is only the start of something very big.

    Thank you Madam hostess, Goliath seems to be a bit distressed.

59. #59
    On November 30th, 2007 at 8:24 pm, almeehan said:

    I would recommend Michelle get a job with US Intelligence since they can never seem to find anything of strategic value.

    I’m not sure, as some have said above, I would want her to stalk me!

60. #60
    On November 30th, 2007 at 8:27 pm, Karen444 said:

    CNN didn’t even have to Google these folks. They had email addresses and phone numbers and of course they talked to each of them before putting their videos on the air. Just ask: “Are you supporting a candidate for President?” Earlier this year the NY Times Caucus blog asked commenters to disclose if they are supporting a candidate so readers would know where slams of other candidates are coming from. CNN should have seen the need to screen for video questioners with an agenda to damage any or even all of the Republican candidates.

61. #61
    On November 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pm, brooklyn red said:

    Karen444, the point is they (CNN) have the agenda… they didn’t fail to screen, they perpetrated this fraud.

62. #62
    On November 30th, 2007 at 10:10 pm, WarTip said:

    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm, bipartisancomplainer said:

    Hope you are able to take all this negative bashing for what it is – a positive indication of how far-reaching your influence is becoming!

    Woot Woot! Score one for the good “guys”

    On November 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pm, max said:

    They think they’re just being stalked, until they find out they’ve been ….MaglaGONGED!
    

    Sorry Michelle but this is TOO FUNNY! CNN Pwned!

    The truth will set you free CNN but first it will make you miserable!

63. #63
    On November 30th, 2007 at 11:34 pm, Grey Fox said:

    Hey Michelle,
    A quibble on language – A stalking horse is something used for cover while stalking. The phrase originally comes from the practice of hiding behind a horse while it grazed in a field and slowly moved towards those partridges – partridges don’t notice if a horse has six legs. A stalking horse provides a screen for the stalker, but doesn’t itself stalk.
    Ergo, a stalking horse is something that looks innocent, but hides danger. For example, “The Children” is a stalking horse for increased government control.

    You, yourself, are the hunter, and seem to have struck home, judging by the reaction!

64. #64
    On December 1st, 2007 at 12:55 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

    Michelle, you’re a national treasure… of responsible values, among other things. Noo ne need tell you to wear their contempt like badge of honor.

    You were quoted by Hannity the other night who credited you with being the first to post the info.

    If you were this good but on the left, you’d be as revered to the mainstream press as Will Rogers or Murrow.

    You keep fighting the good fight and we’ll enrage the left further by supporting you and getting your words out. Deal?

65. #65
    On December 1st, 2007 at 1:59 am, hadsil said:

    “Google it” – Rosie O’donnell

66. #66
    On December 1st, 2007 at 6:27 am, Prime Director said:

    MSM journalists and their protectionists don’t like Internet researchers, bloggers, and talk radio hosts

    MM is no ordinary blogger. She’s an accomplished journalist in her own right. That’s why she’s so damn good at what she does.

    Postmoderns say “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”. The MSM only wishes this was true.

    MM’s hobby is using their tools to bring their house down around their ears.

67. #67
    On December 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm, guspapa said:

    Not a problem for CNN, now they have a Lewinsky moment to savor and Presidential Hylary saving the world from whacko’s with flares duct taped to their bellies.

    Didn’t even have to call in an air strike on Baghdad to get everyone’s focus off this issue

68. #68
    On December 1st, 2007 at 8:55 pm, sherlock said:

    #48 When did you hear Mara Liasson say that? I listened to her report on NPR the morning after and there was no mention of the “plants” issue, or of any of the questions they asked, including the gay “General”.

    When did she decide to come clean?

69. #69
    On December 3rd, 2007 at 2:23 pm, ScottyDog said:

    davenp35 said:

    I have a serious question. Couldn’t a FEC complaint be filed for them to look into whether CNN (or some of it’s employees) is intentionally trying to boost Dem candidates and degrade Republican ones? It’s pretty obvious that some of their execs have a biased political agenda and in light of the recent alegations of illegality here… Just a thought.

    Dave I was hoping somebody would respond to your question. I too think what CNN and the rest of the MSM is doing is in fact Illegal or a violation of campaign finance laws.

    People keep saying we should just change the channel or call them out on their misrepresentations.

    For the first time in History, the MSM is actively trying to rig a election. They no longer are even trying to hide the fact that they are trying to elect Hillary Clinton and are rigging Presidential Debates to that end.

    If CNN and MSNBC are going to campaign for their candidate, they should have to register with the FEC and the campaigning should have a dollar value ascribed to their efforts. That way every thing can be out in the open instead of hiding behind the first amendment.

    This is no longer just a left right bias issue, it has become interference in the election of the President of the United States.

    IMHO-They have already exceeded any financial limits that would apply to rigging the debates.

    I am stunned that people do not see this as a violation of campaign laws and do not see this as criminal act.

    Attorneys, What say you?