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.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #249490
   On February 20th, 2008 at 8:46 am, ACHefty said:

   The National Fish Wrap of Record strikes again. When will the NY Slimes get some integrity? Of course, it can’t be bought…only earned.

2. #249498
   On February 20th, 2008 at 8:57 am, evilned said:

   If Ms. Malkin needs a sound effect in regards to Nutroots admitting they might have been in error about something:

   Chirping Crickets

   I promiser that these are “True Blue American Crickets”, not RINO crickits.

3. #249499
   On February 20th, 2008 at 8:58 am, DesertLover said:

   ACHefty

   The closest the Al-Qaeda Times will ever get to integrity is finding out it is between idiot and irrational in the dictionary …

   If these dolts wrote a college paper with that level of accuracy for their quotes and references they would hopefully get a well deserved “F” …

   for “fools”

4. #249503
   On February 20th, 2008 at 9:00 am, On-my-soap-box said:

   Three words: Out of whack.

   Looking forward to these three words:

   Out of print.

5. #249505
   On February 20th, 2008 at 9:01 am, cpodug said:

   Soap – can’t let the Sluimes go out of print – think of all the fish that will deprive of a wrap!

6. #249506
   On February 20th, 2008 at 9:02 am, cpodug said:

   … and that would be Slimes …

7. #249530
   On February 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

   …And people still actually take them seriously, huh? Now that’s funny.

8. #249531
   On February 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am, tre said:

   Hey Michelle,

   I heard of a few more quotes the New York Slimes said you made:

   One they said you call the “Sermon on the Mount.” I read it and its just beautiful.

   Another you call the “Parable of the Good Samaritan.” I hear lots of people quote that. It’s even entered the English language.

   One of my favorites you call the “Parable of the Prodical Son.”

   Can’t wait to read some more of your writings!

9. #249532
   On February 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am, zorro said:

   Well, the NYTimes did it again and printed another quote misattributed to me:

   This can’t be! They are the professionals!

10. #249533
    On February 20th, 2008 at 9:30 am, Lan Astaslem said:

    They’ve fixed it now… But no record of the correction. Now why am I not surprised?

11. #249535
    On February 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am, Larraby said:

    Why are we surprised by anything at the New York Times? This is the same newspaper that refuses to use the word “terrorist” when referring to Mughniyeh, the archcriminal recently assassinated. The NY Times reporters have used increasingly romanticized language to describe this terrorist. Reporter Walton, covering the story for the Times, described Mughniyeh as “the famously elusive militant”. According to the Times, Mughniyeh is some sort of Lebanese Austin Powers, an international man of mystery. Then I remembered that when the archterrorist Zubiyeh was doing nice things like kidnapping and beheading Jeff Berg in Iraq, the Times actually called Zubiyeh, “The Jordanian fighter”.

12. #249539
    On February 20th, 2008 at 9:37 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    On February 20th, 2008 at 9:01 am, cpodug said:
    Soap – can’t let the Sluimes go out of print – think of all the fish that will deprive of a wrap!

    cpodug asks soap what he makes out of that NYT article:

    I can make a broach, a pterodactyl…

13. #249541
    On February 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am, Barry F. said:

    On February 20th, 2008 at 9:00 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    Looking forward to these three words:

    Out of print.

    One can only hope, Soap. One can hope. And, hope that it would be soon.

14. #249552
    On February 20th, 2008 at 9:53 am, Boomer said:

    The once great paper of record continues to circle the drain.

15. #249557
    On February 20th, 2008 at 9:54 am, GiggleStick said:

    I think I know how this happened. In the back of their mind, they’re constantly seething about you, and they mention “Michelle Obama” so many times in the article, that they just got stuck on Michelle. It is a rookie mistake though.

16. #249612
    On February 20th, 2008 at 10:19 am, News2Use said:

    On February 20th, 2008 at 9:30 am, Lan Astaslem said:
    They’ve fixed it now… But no record of the correction. Now why am I not surprised?

    Good for you to remind them.

    (Correction: Earlier, Mr. Emanuel’s quote was mistakenly attributed to Michelle Malkin.)

17. #249693
    On February 20th, 2008 at 10:57 am, walterc said:

    Jeff Emanuel at Redstate.com.
    Michelle Malkin at MichelleMalkin.com.

    Looking, looking for the similarity….

    Found it, .com

18. #249729
    On February 20th, 2008 at 11:17 am, Klaatu said:

    Jeff Emanuel at Redstate.com.
    Michelle Malkin at MichelleMalkin.com.

    Looking, looking for the similarity….

    Nope, not seeing it.

    See, Michelle, you have to be tech savvy to understand this.

    Look carefully and you will note that both addresses contain “.com” and therefore must be related. This is the depth of analysis that we have come to expect from the NYT.

19. #249731
    On February 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am, Dimsdale said:

    If these dolts wrote a college paper with that level of accuracy for their quotes and references they would hopefully get a well deserved “F” …

    for “fools”

    In this case, you get a Pulizer Prize.

    Maybe that is the ultimate dunce award…

20. #249874
    On February 20th, 2008 at 12:29 pm, dan708 said:

    Wow, the Olde Grey Lady has gotten Alzheimer’s. As if we didn’t know…

21. #249892
    On February 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm, Larraby said:

    When it comes to the NY Times, nothing is ever a surprise. This is the same newspaper that assigned a left wing reporter (and I mean really, truly leftist in thought and ideology) named Deborah Sontag to the MidEast beat. She arrived for the 2000 Palestinian terror campaign and Ms. Sontag just knew, who was at fault, and it sure was not Yasser Arafat. So Ms. Sontag merrily wrote an article stating that an “Israeli military spokesman” had conceded that Israelis soldiers had murdered an innocent Palestinian. Unfortunately for Ms. Sontag, some Israelis started asking for the name of the “Israeli military spokesman” and his rank and when he made the remark and had Ms. Sontag taped the conversation. All of a sudden there was lots of backpedaling and the Times was forced to concede that the whole thing was right out of Jason Blair’s playbook.
    So there is nothing that the Times can’t botch, either deliberately or through incompetence.

22. #249970
    On February 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm, graysonret said:

    Well, you must be doing pretty good when the NYT tries to tie you to someone else’s mistake. It must mean you’re on their minds all the time. Got them worried. I’d call that a bonus. Reminds me of an oldie by WeFive (You were on my mind).

23. #250355
    On February 20th, 2008 at 7:19 pm, zorro said:

    Update 9:44am Eastern. Heh. They corrected their error.

    …and it only took them what, 16 hours? Not exactly nimble, are they…