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. #101
   On September 21st, 2010 at 5:26 pm, granite said:

   On September 21st, 2010 at 3:48 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

   I never though I’d say this, but you make me pine for Ziggy and lgm….

   Good one, Rogue!

   LOL!!!

2. #102
   On September 21st, 2010 at 5:28 pm, Salt said:

   On September 21st, 2010 at 3:48 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

   I never though I’d say this, but you make me pine for Ziggy and lgm….

   I will say this for lgm: No one here could better unite conservatives than he could.

3. #103
   On September 21st, 2010 at 5:32 pm, granite said:

   On September 21st, 2010 at 5:28 pm, Salt said:

   I will say this for lgmsybil: No one here could better unite conservatives than he could.

   I’m not sure he was #1, but he sure was near the top of the list.

4. #104
   On September 21st, 2010 at 6:01 pm, T-Bone said:

   Obama + SEIU = love
   Obama + Arizona = hate
   Obama loves union votes
   Obama hates 56 of the 57 states.

5. #105
   On September 21st, 2010 at 6:13 pm, rightisright said:

   I kinda doubt lgm would have been booted…he was an irritant most times but i don’t remember him being vulgar, rude or down right nasty with his posts. He said some rather outlandish things at times, but didn’t see him go over the line in my opinion and he used to piss me off like there’s no tomorrow with his wacko liberal ideas..

6. #106
   On September 21st, 2010 at 6:42 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

   On September 21st, 2010 at 3:53 pm, John Deaux said:

   I try to ignore the ad hominems I am frequently subjected to by a couple of commenters hoping they will just stop but I do reserve the right to defend myself.

   And I don’t think I deserve the treatment I have been getting from you-know-who who was booted last week and jsm. You and I don’t see eye-to-eye either on most things either but is that a problem die you? We’re just voicing our opinions, for what’s they’re worth.

   I think these penile sword fights ruin it for everyone. I like it here and enjoy reading the threads. I don’t want to be the reason why people stop coming here so I try hard to ignore the personal insults. I don’t like seeing people get booted (usually) and I don’t want to get booted myself. But at some point, the personal insults have to stop. Any suggestions?

7. #107
   On September 21st, 2010 at 6:52 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

   BTW, if people are confused about my positions, I am a movement conservative. I am not interested in Republican majorities and believe we should be focused this year on booting out incumbents, particularly RINOs like McCain. If you haven’t noticed, the cutting edge of movement conservatism has been defined the last couple-three months mostly by Andrew Brietbart, Mark Levin, Dan Riehl, and our very own Michelle Malkin.

   It’s a rough-and-tumble effort requiring lots of elbow throwing and all of the above are under blistering attack by the latest layer of the RINO onion to reveal itself on the “conservative” blogosphere. Everyone who is commenting here should be excited to be here and be part of it. But if my continually posting blistering comments aimed at the RINOs is too harsh for people, maybe you don’t know what is going on.

   We are fighting for principles and we (I mean the bloggers/pundits named above) are the ones with the traction and we should be piling on to expand our advantage. This is no time to be rationalizing John McCain or any other Republican polymorphic life form who plans to slip by.

   We have wounded a king (the establishment elites at all levels) and as Machiavelli once said, never wound a king. We need to finish the job or the king will survive long enough to kill us. This is no time to go knock-kneed and all squeamish.

8. #108
   On September 21st, 2010 at 7:19 pm, tarpon said:

   How could union MEMBERS be for replacement workers who make sub par wages?

9. #109
   On September 21st, 2010 at 8:28 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

   The Democtat running against Governer Brewer-Terry Goddard, our current Attorney General, is really running the smear ads. It seems Jan Brewer is Evil Incarnate and only Fairy Terry can save we poor souls from her clutches.

   I didn’t like his father either. Back in the 60s Old Dad ran for everything with the slogan Go Go Goddard. I agreed- GO GO AWAY GODDARDS.

10. #110
    On September 21st, 2010 at 8:34 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    This is no time to go knock-kneed and all squeamish.

    Ooh, I think I wet meself!

11. #111
    On September 21st, 2010 at 9:30 pm, swede said:

    Pasadena Phil said:
    But at some point, the personal insults have to stop. Any suggestions?

    Perhaps you could think about not hurling them yourself. I don’t contend with your positions nearly as much as your arrogance and condescending insults toward other commenters who have as much right to voice their opinion as you. This victim game you and r4 are playing – claiming you’re being stalked is just creepy. Folks can read. Give it a rest.

12. #112
    On September 21st, 2010 at 9:41 pm, swede said:

    We are fighting for principles and we (I mean the bloggers/pundits named above) are the ones with the traction and we should be piling on to expand our advantage.

    I’m sorry. I forgot you are superior to us common posters, hanging with the likes of Brietbart, Levin and Michelle for coffee and such. You’re way more awesomer than I thought. Please forgive my indolence.

    What. Ever.

13. #113
    On September 21st, 2010 at 9:53 pm, rightisright said:

    this bickering really gets old fast…it’s ruining the website. And don’t tell me your debating or expressing your opinion. Gentleman, that can be done in a few posts not 20 or more on every thread and it’s always the same subject in the end. Poster against poster not the thread subject.

14. #114
    On September 21st, 2010 at 10:08 pm, right4life said:

    On September 21st, 2010 at 9:30 pm, swede said:

    Perhaps you could think about not hurling them yourself. I don’t contend with your positions nearly as much as your arrogance and condescending insults toward other commenters who have as much right to voice their opinion as you. This victim game you and r4 are playing – claiming you’re being stalked is just creepy. Folks can read. Give it a rest.

    well well aint it the pot calling the kettle black?

    I hadn’t posted in months…..and your first post me was an insult…I don’t even remember you…guess what you said wasn’t that memorable…

    so either you remember me, or you were upset that I dared disagree with your savior and dark lord the big R.

    oh and how is he by the way???

15. #115
    On September 21st, 2010 at 10:12 pm, right4life said:

    On September 21st, 2010 at 9:41 pm, swede said:

    I’m sorry. I forgot you are superior to us common posters

    oh you’ve got a long way to go to make it to that level…you’re the bottom of the barrel…

16. #116
    On September 21st, 2010 at 10:36 pm, Salt said:

    On September 21st, 2010 at 9:30 pm, swede said:

    These skirmishes are getting old and not helping raise the discourse here. Would you not take Phil’s request for resolving this at face value? Surely you can agree with him that continued insults aren’t helping anything here.

17. #117
    On September 21st, 2010 at 11:31 pm, Flyoverman said:

    We are fighting for principles and we (I mean the bloggers/pundits named above) are the ones with the traction and we should be piling on to expand our advantage.

    Phil, you might want to exclude Mark Levin from your list. He does not agree with your approach.

18. #118
    On September 21st, 2010 at 11:43 pm, John Deaux said:

    On September 21st, 2010 at 3:50 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    So to continually post hostile comments aimed at other commenters or comments that reveal a complete ignorance of the opinions and agenda of the host blogger is beyond futile. It is stupid.

    You mean like this?

    On September 21st, 2010 at 4:08 pm, right4life said:

    when are you gonna tell us all how you really feel?

    how is our friend R doing these days?

    Phil,

    You and I actually do see eye to eye on most issues. For the record, I sincerely hope that O’Donnell wins so the the whole electability issue will be put to rest. My initial comment was because you inserted McCain into a thread that was not about him at all. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a McCain fan on this site, so you’re preaching to the choir. Unlike some others, you actually do seem focused on issues instead of getting fun out of flame wars. How about we take our frustrations out on the libs instead of each other, okay?

19. #119
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 am, Salt said:

    On September 21st, 2010 at 11:31 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Phil, you might want to exclude Mark Levin from your list. He does not agree with your approach.

    Gotta love the Great One.

20. #120
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 7:24 am, plymouthacclaim said:

    On September 21st, 2010 at 3:48 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    I never though I’d say this, but you make me pine for Ziggy and lgm….

    Too bad old ziggy left before any of us actually figured out how to spell his name. Now lgm, there’s a handle you can spell.

21. #121
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 7:52 am, right4life said:

    #118On September 21st, 2010 at 11:43 pm, John Deaux said:

    oh yes advertising your own blog, and trying to redirect traffic to it is much more in line with the agenda of the host!! (as your ‘friend’ used to do, and swede has done, no doubt you helped your friend too)

22. #122
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 8:15 am, John Deaux said:

    On September 22nd, 2010 at 7:52 am, right4life said:

    oh yes advertising your own blog, and trying to redirect traffic to it is much more in line with the agenda of the host!! (as your ‘friend’ used to do, and swede has done,

    What does this have to do with what I wrote? Is it relevant or are you just trying to be antagonistic?
    

    no doubt you helped your friend too)

    Blind accusations are the work of fools. Find somehwere that I repeatedly posted a link to someone’s blog or STFU.

23. #123
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 8:58 am, right4life said:

    On September 22nd, 2010 at 8:15 am, John Deaux said:

    you might want to check the mirror about being antagonistic. you have such hatred….you really don’t have much of a life do you?

    you should get some professional help.

24. #124
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 9:19 am, Jeff2161 said:

    On September 21st, 2010 at 3:54 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Rogue,

    I have always been worried about lgm. He just disappeared. I hope nothing happened to him.

    LGM is still posting, as of a few days ago, @ Volokh Conspiracy a Law Blog.

25. #125
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 9:20 am, Jeff2161 said:

    @ above, I should have said commenting at…

26. #126
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 9:22 am, Jeff2161 said:

    Interesting site, as well.
    http://volokh.com/

27. #127
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 am, plymouthacclaim said:

    On September 22nd, 2010 at 7:52 am, right4life said:

    If I might wade into the septic tank this thread has become:

    So, posting a link is forbidden if it is a link to something you wrote? You can only post a link if someone else wrote it? I have been known to link to my own stuff from time to time.
    Granted, I’m not the most prolific poster here, nor is my blog updated very often. I’m seriously asking here, I’m not trying to stir up the crap.

    I read the terms of use, and they do say this:

    I reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason whatsoever. Rarely will I do so simply because I disagree with you. I will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in my opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services. I may exercise these rights myself and I may delegate them to employees and/or contractors.

    That grants our gracious hostess a lot of leeway, but is not helpful for my question.

    I just don’t want to do something stupid that would get me banned.

28. #128
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 9:40 am, Flyoverman said:

    On September 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 am, Salt said:

    Gotta love the Great One.

    He definitely has earned that title. He’s awesome.

29. #129
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 9:47 am, right4life said:

    On September 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 am, plymouthacclaim said:

    On September 22nd, 2010 at 7:52 am, right4life said:

    If I might wade into the septic tank this thread has become:

    So, posting a link is forbidden if it is a link to something you wrote? You can only post a link if someone else wrote it? I have been known to link to my own stuff from time to time.

    I just think posting a link to another blog is rather rude. since it redirects traffic from this site to another.

    she should have the leeway…it is her blog after all…and I assume she runs it to make money…and sending traffic to another blog takes income from her

30. #130
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 9:54 am, Flyoverman said:

    she should have the leeway…it is her blog after all…

    Sometimes the simpliest explanations are the best.

    

31. #131
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 am, swede said:

    Salt said:
    These skirmishes are getting old and not helping raise the discourse here. Would you not take Phil’s request for resolving this at face value? Surely you can agree with him that continued insults aren’t helping anything here.

    I agree and appologize for my part. Just pointing out there is some blatant hypocrisy in the ad hominem category, and a lack of respect for other’s views. I have always respected yours.

    John Deaux said:

    I also agree with Phil for the most part on the issues, but dissagree with setting up battle lines between the allies rather than toward the enemy. I also miss lgm, zero, zyzzyg – and chap has been largely absent of late. Makes the place more of an echo chamber. I wonder if some in the absence of an antagonist just start swinging in the trench.

    plymouthacclaim said:

    Michelle graciously provides a link utility that many commenters use. It is a courtesy – a way to expand on a theme without taking up thread space. Apparently there is an unwritten bolg “ettiquette” that some think makes it inappropriate. It has never bothered me. Link what you like – if I’m interested I’ll click, if not, no problemmo. I click on folks who’s comments I findcompelling. Yours for example I find worth a click. Nice job.

    BTW, clicking away from the site then back helps Michelle. Registers two visits instead of one. Just so you know.

32. #132
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 6:31 pm, plymouthacclaim said:

    On September 22nd, 2010 at 9:47 am, right4life said:

    I just think posting a link to another blog is rather rude. since it redirects traffic from this site to another.
    I don’t know about you, but I have multiple windows open and multiple tabs within those windows grouped by theme. Maybe I’m just a power user. It doesn’t detract from my browsing experience to click away. By that logic, nobody should post any link.

    she should have the leeway…it is her blog after all…and I assume she runs it to make money…and sending traffic to another blog takes income from her
    I didn’t mean to imply that she shouldn’t. This is Michelle’s “house,” so she’s the boss. I just want to be clear on what I am allowed to do, due to the cryptic references above about an unnamed person being banned.

    The internet is not a linear experience, it is more of a branching tree. My browsing style is more like a pack of ADD squirrels jumping from branch to branch, from tree to tree. I click on many of the links our hostess provides as well as those others provide.
    If you don’t want to click my links, then don’t click them. I only post links that are relevant and I try not to overdo them, so I don’t view them as “spam.”

    Thanks for replying to my question.

33. #133
    On September 22nd, 2010 at 7:18 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    I will also get into this discussion, just to hopefully put an end to the subject.

    First off, I feel no guilt for linking to other sites in my comments. The notion of directing traffic to other websites from this site is superfluous when people have to come to michellemalkin.com in order to see the links on michellemalkin.com. So in that respect, Michelle isn’t losing any traffic. And if the link helps prove her point, I doubt she would show any objection to linking to another source. In fact, that’s exactly what she does in her own writing.

    Even if the link goes to a website that provides an opposing fact or opinion, Michelle allows it for the most part. She also does this quite often herself.

    Secondly, she allows us the option of putting a link to websites within our monikers. Most of us don’t have a blog to tout (yet), but a few of us do (such as plymouthacclaim and ITTRP–scroll over/click on their names to see what I’m talking about).

    It’s indeed a privilege to allow us the option to promote a particular website (whether it’s a blog, a business website, a Facebook or Twitter account, or simply a webpage that reflects ourselves in some way), and I will definitely use the option if I ever feel like expanding my sphere of influence. (I am currently not ready to be a somebody.) Michelle provides us an opportunity to be viewed by a wider audience, and I won’t knock anyone for taking advantage of the opportunity, as long as they don’t abuse that privilege (I’m lookin’ at you, Doug Powers). It’s a common practice to have this option all around the blogosphere.

    And lastly, in Michelle’s T’s & C’s that plymouthacclaim notes, the promotional material she doesn’t allow is “spam.” If you’ve gone to comment sections on other sites, you’re probably familiar with “spam,” which is usually the sort of annoying robo-comment that will more often than not advertise products or services that have no relation to the topic being discussed.

    Michelle reserves the right to do what she wants with her website, and my comments are my general interpretations of her rules.

    Object if you will, but that’s all I have to say on this topic, which has nothing to do with Michelle’s original post. Sorry again, Michelle.