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. #201
   On September 6th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, foxforce91 said:

   You can still read US Weekly if it interests you: next time you go to the grocery store, pick it up and read it while you’re shopping. Then put it back on the rack before you check out. Then you get your gossip and you don’t have to pay them for it.

2. #202
   On September 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, imjustsaying said:

   I just saw something that Us Magazine has pretty much made up the number of cancellations with an equal number of new subscriptions so that they are breaking even.

3. #203
   On September 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pm, RetFireman said:

   I just saw something that Us Magazine has pretty much made up the number of cancellations with an equal number of new subscriptions so that they are breaking even.

   SOrry…not buying it. I think it will be wuite some time before they make up the numbers of lost subscriptions. Besides…with the speed at which people can cancel versus how long it takes for subscription cards to reach them in the mail, do they really think anyone will believe that claim?

   They are now just as scared about their lost revenue and lost advertisers as the entire Liberal movement is about having lost an election that was supposedly a “slam-dunk” for their False Idol.

4. #204
   On September 6th, 2008 at 1:18 pm, ugly kid joe said:

   imjustsaying:
   “I just saw something that Us Magazine has pretty much made up the number of cancellations with an equal number of new subscriptions so that they are breaking even.”

   source please

5. #205
   On September 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm, greasywrench said:

   I find it ironic that Bill O’Reilly, the so-called modern day incarnation of Hitler to the far-left gave a fair and objective interview to Obama, and yet the phony messiah to Women, Oprah Winfrey, is scared to death of Sarah Palin. Once again, another Liberal fake has been exposed. It’s open season on Democrats and they’re shooting themselves.

6. #206
   On September 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm, Bruce said:

   imjustsaying:
   “I just saw something that Us Magazine has pretty much made up the number of cancellations with an equal number of new subscriptions so that they are breaking even.”

   source please

   US magazine.

7. #207
   On September 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm, RetFireman said:

   source please

   US magazine.

   And we all have seen just how honest and trustworthy they are…

8. #208
   On September 6th, 2008 at 2:46 pm, frontierguy said:

   Lost 10,000 subscriptions? George Soros will probably ask for 10,000 copies for himself to make up the loss. Unfortunately US weekly will be fine. I wonder how many defunct liberal organizations this man can save? I saw someone from Air America on MSNBC the other day. I had no idea they were still on. My city dropped them sometime ago. I suspect Georgie is keeping them on the air….

9. #209
   On September 6th, 2008 at 2:59 pm, FilmLadd said:

   On September 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pm, RetFireman said:

   The “Hive-Mind” thing is just killing me. Always a good thing to find another “Trekkie”

   I hope you don’t mind if I “absorb” it into my regular repertoire. Just too good to pass up.

   Not at all. One word of caution: the real-world hive-mind is far deadlier than the fictional one.

10. #210
    On September 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm, RobM1981 said:

    Note that US said “no, we don’t accept your letter” to Susanna. Unless she sends ANOTHER LETTER, they claim that they won’t honor her request.

    Anyone who is following this should change their letters to indicate that either:
    (a) they have read the article, and most assuredly want to cancel, or
    (b) they don’t care if the article declares Sarah Palin to be the second coming of Eleanor Roosevelt, the cover revulses them enough that they most certainly want to cancel – no if’s, and’s, or but’s…

11. #211
    On September 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm, johnrohan said:

    Us Magazine has pretty much made up the number of cancellations with an equal number of new subscriptions so that they are breaking even.

    Even if that is true, that is not something the magazine would want. It would only be polarizing them more, and turning it into even more of a left-wing, partisan publication. This may be fine for some political magazines, but Us is supposed to be a gossip mag. It lowers their audience base all around. I’m guessing their off the rack sales will go down the most.

12. #212
    On September 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm, orlandocajun said:

    “After reading should you still wish to cancel, please let us know and we will honor your request.”

    We’ll honor your request after you read the story? Boy, liberals really are stupid!

13. #213
    On September 6th, 2008 at 9:40 pm, Cosmo said:

    My wife gets “OK” and their cover was a “two-sided” job. The Palin side had the same cover shot as US with a “Sarah Palin’s Baby Scandal” plus “A Mother’s Painful Choice” as the headline and subheadline. The Barack Obama flipside says “Barack’s Inspiration” plus “Life With My Girls.” I admit I’m not voting for Barack, but the feel of the covers belies some bias.

    The bottom lines read:
    “How she’s standing by her teenage daughter plus the real truth about baby Trig” compared to “Harry Potter at bedtime, first row at dance recitals, what he is really like as a Dad!”

    Reminds me of the Chris Rock bit “I take care of my kids.” Look it up. I think he was describing Obama. “Look at what a great Dad I am. I go to dance recitals. I read to my kids. Now elect me president.”

    By that measure, I should be the Holy Roman Emperor by now.

14. #214
    On September 6th, 2008 at 10:47 pm, Politicalguano said:

    Is US Magazine breaking the law in refusing to cancel the subscription? There is no requirement that anyone write 2 requests to cancel. Sounds like the start of a class action lawsuit – surely some lawyer wants to make some money and obtain justice for those who want to cancel.
    US magazine, if sincere, needs to devote an entire issue to Palin, with a new cover photo of Palin, which is absolutely positive, and do a story listing the lies told about her and photographs of the liars with their families and reveal any dirt on those liars. Also they need to do hit pieces on the very shrill Reid, the attacks by NOW and document that NOW only supports Democrats – ladies why aren’t you writing the IRS to complain that NOW is a political organization not deserving tax free status.
    Since US mag is not sincere, I hope it has a lot of cancelations and also boycott their advertisers. Ad money goes straight to support of BO.
    Ladies also need to complain to the networks about the misogynistic behavior of the mainstream media – sexists who need to be fired.

15. #215
    On September 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am, RachelD said:

    After reading the letter closely it is clear that the headline, “US weekly begs readers to stay” is much too kind to US weekly.

    I suggest revising the headline to “US weekly has your money and wants to keep it.”

16. #216
    On September 7th, 2008 at 9:38 am, Helene said:

    US magazine has postcards inside for subscribing.

    I went to the grocery store, picked up a bunch of US magazines, shook them so the subscription postcards fell out, mailed the postcards to the subscriber service with a note that I will never subscribe because of their treatment of Sarah Palin,

    The magazine will pay for the postage for the cards and get my message.

    Mission accomplished.

    Easy to do, no muss no fuss.

17. #217
    On September 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm, Cambronne said:

    “Is US Magazine breaking the law in refusing to cancel the subscription? ”

    They are not breaking a law, but they cannot pretend that they are not on notice of the request for cancellation.
    They would be breaking the law if they continued to bill for the subscription.

    The subscriber has done all she need to do to cancel. If US Weekly continues to send her the magazine they do so at their own expense.

18. #218
    On September 7th, 2008 at 9:54 pm, bookish1 said:

    Check out the latest “OK”,”National Enquirer,” and “People.” Two of them are smearing Palin. The other one has a photo of Barack and wife, and a story on him and “his girls.” This is truly bizarre.

19. #219
    On September 8th, 2008 at 12:36 am, love2rumba said:

    The subscriber has done all she need to do to cancel. If US Weekly continues to send her the magazine they do so at their own expense.

    That is true if her particular portion of her remaining subscription has already expired. If not, it is considered “Unearned Revenue”- a liability to US magazine, and they can only legally count her unused subscription payment as revenue if it sent magazines out to her…otherwise if she is saying “please unsubscribe me”, they are taking her money and still sending her a service she no longer wishes. US from an accounting standpoint would be fools to do this not only to be dishonoring a customer request, but would be also attempting to count as revenue a service delivered that the customer does not want….they are overstating their revenues (while claiming to reduce their liabilities) to those looking at their balance sheet.

20. #220
    On September 8th, 2008 at 5:52 pm, rsb1 said:

    If US is smart, they are processing every cancellation and doing refunds, etc. as needed (to respect the customer) and then creating a special “trial offer” subset where they send these cancelled customers the mag at no cost for a short while and then ask if they might reconsider and re-subscribe. Of course, it takes organization and business smarts to do this, so I doubt that they would. Then again, if they did something like this, they could “claim” an equal number of “new” subscriptions…