| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Screw "Us" Magazine - boycott them and write a letter TODAY! |
| 2008-09-03 |
|
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #31 I forgot what I was going to say. |
| Posted by: Bob Omereper9886 2008-10-24 12:32 |
| #30 I thought US magazine circulation was limited to doctors offices. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-03 23:07 |
| #29 They didn't used to hate us, only despise us. But they weren't actually much less rude, just less noisy and prone to spraying bleach in old ladies' eyes. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-09-03 22:02 |
| #28 SciAm went way downhill when Martin Gardner left. |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2008-09-03 21:56 |
| #27 No, They always have. We just weren't so threatening. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-03 19:01 |
| #26 US Magazine - Owned by Jann Wenner( as part of the vast Wenner media conglomerate). Oh, I forgot to mention that he is a major contributor of the Obama Campaign. Bush Derangement Syndrome has become a malignancy. Once upon a time they only hated Bush, then they hated Bush and Cheney, Then they hated Bush Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and so on down the line. Now they hate all of us. |
| Posted by: Frank Martin 2008-09-03 18:55 |
| #25 John, The also have a rag called 'Self'. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-09-03 18:26 |
| #24 Any magazine named "US" has got to be elitist, self-centered pap. I'm surprised they don't publish magazines with the titles: 1. The Egoist, 2. Self-Involved, 3. Me. and 4. Narcissist. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-09-03 17:38 |
| #23 It says on the cover on the left that Michelle Obama loved Sex and the City. Sorry, I'd have to count that against her. That show was smut. |
| Posted by: Threreger de Medici3268 2008-09-03 16:10 |
| #22 Was a subscriber to sciam when that magazine came out, a bat-boy type article out of supposedly educated magazine. When the goebel swarming edition especial came out the whole magazine was an op-ed piece. Cancelled my subscription and instead send that amount to Rantburg. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-09-03 15:36 |
| #21 Sort of off topic, but Scientific America sold their soul long ago. They allow advertising from crazy stuff that none of their readers would ever buy, why? Because those advertisers can turn around and advertise in other areas "as seen in Scientific America". The editors must know this gambit of using their name to create false credibility for transcendental products and they simply do not care. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-03 14:08 |
| #20 3dc, I did the same many years ago when I detected liberal US politics being injected into pure Science pieces. It's all secondary science at best anyway, as opposed to primary data and information. |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2008-09-03 13:29 |
| #19 Scientific American - I ditched that rag after the proposed turning the rocky mountain states and half the central states into a "GAME PRESERVE FOR LARGE AFRICAN Mammals". Specific were elephants,rhinos, wildebeests zebras, lions, cheetahs, hyenas ... Scientific American and it English Lord owner can FOAD! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-09-03 13:07 |
| #18 Us is still in business? Wow, who knew? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-09-03 12:15 |
| #17 Don't write to them - write to their ADVERTISERS! Ask them if its a good idea to piss off half the american public by advertising in a rag which would do this. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-09-03 11:13 |
| #16 Who reads that rag anyway? Now if Scientific American ran that story, I'd be pissed. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-09-03 10:48 |
| #15 Surprise, surprise! A trashy celebrity magazine stoops to trashy celebrity behavior to gain trashy celebrity attention! Save your stamp -- a letter will accomplish nothing. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-09-03 10:28 |
| #14 Wenner media also owns Rolling Stone and some others. For decades these mags have been agiprop for the left at times. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-09-03 08:46 |
| #13 The filthy rag is taking the BEATING they deserve. Unfortunately, I suspect they are reveling in it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-09-03 08:34 |
| #12 I know that Lindsey Lohan isn't exactly the brightest bulb, but in her defense, this is what she had to say about the situation: "I've been watching the news all morning, like everyone else — and (I) keep hearing about the issues related to `teen pregnancy.' ... Well, I think the real problem comes from the fact that we are taking the focus off of getting to know Sarah Palin and her political views, and what she can do to make our country a less destructive place," Lohan wrote. It's pretty sad when a 22-year old druggie gets it right and the media punditry can't. (Ok, I don't agree with the "destructive" part, but hey....at least she's not dedicating half of her statement to "OMG! Shouldn't this woman be home with her kids!" crap that has *never* been aimed at men running for VP) |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields 2008-09-03 08:24 |
| #11 Me, too. US and People, neither one, are on my must read list. |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-09-03 06:43 |
| #10 I'd love to boycott, but I've never bought that trash even once in my life.... |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2008-09-03 04:52 |
| #9 Lohan, who cares what that snatch flasher has to say? |
| Posted by: Don Vito Grimp6526 2008-09-03 04:18 |
| #8 The more the Lefties squeal the better LOL!! >:) |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2008-09-03 01:57 |
| #7 49 Pan: Lohan sounded off on Palin just today. I was pleased to see the left bring out its heavy intellectual hitters. Lohan is somebody who stopped wearing panties when she heard that California law requires public utilities to be open for inspection at all times. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-09-03 01:35 |
| #6 Sorry for the asterisks. The software here apparently rejects comments containing the word "l*sbian." My guess is that this is an anti-spam measure. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-09-03 01:31 |
| #5 To the metrosexual men who run the leftist media, a typical American woman is either a corporate harpy who lists abortions on her resume, or a hairy-legged l**bian clinging bitterly to her cats. The left and their media allies have never really understood real women. McCain has exposed the misogynist left for what it is, and they are going to pay a price. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-09-03 01:29 |
| #4 Un Fuc&ing believable!!! I thought this was scrappleface, WRONG!!! This is vile and another example of the left's yellow journalistic attempts to smear someone. This will backfire on them. But, I have to admit, I was really excited to hear what Linsey Lohan has to say about it! Snark! Oh, and the comment, "Where is Edwards in the photo?" |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2008-09-03 00:39 |
| #3 Also they have comments for each article, feel free to go there on your own (no linkage), and speak your mind. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-09-03 00:08 |
| #2 I am not linked to them at all. They have a poll on their website asking should Sarah Palin step down. Bias. Let them know. Mark Neschis Corporate Communications Director Wenner Media Us Weekly 800-283-3956 advertising@usmagazine.com Also note that the publisher of Us magazine, Jann Wenner, is a large Obama backer -- and donor. Link goes to the McCain site, not even going to give these scumbags a link. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-09-03 00:07 |
| #1 Linky not working |
| Posted by: tipper 2008-09-03 00:04 |