1 posted on
07/11/2011 10:15:51 AM PDT by
GOPGuide
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: GOPGuide
Is Tina Brown a covert Tea Party operative?
2 posted on
07/11/2011 10:17:17 AM PDT by
GOPGuide
To: GOPGuide
NewsWeak. They can’t even give it away.
3 posted on
07/11/2011 10:17:39 AM PDT by
Huskrrrr
To: GOPGuide
They’re doing that backwards, aren’t they. Oh well...it’s Newsweek, they never get anything right.
4 posted on
07/11/2011 10:17:39 AM PDT by
pgkdan
(Time for a Cain Mutiny!)
To: GOPGuide
So the old excuse, "Tree-based media is dying -- but our WEBSITE is doing GREAT...." is not valid.
D'ya think maybe it is their message????
Naaaaaahhhhh...... keep shoveling socialism and whacko liberalism, Gnuzweak.
5 posted on
07/11/2011 10:17:54 AM PDT by
Lazamataz
(Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
To: GOPGuide
Whoa. All those brilliant geniuses at Newsweek couldn’t figure out how to turn a buck on the internet.
6 posted on
07/11/2011 10:18:10 AM PDT by
Steely Tom
(Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
To: GOPGuide
Happy Dance, Happy dance. I wonder how many shovel ready jobs they’ll loose?
To: GOPGuide
Or maybe she bought Newsweek for a tax writeoff? The Newsweek building must have some sort of market value.
8 posted on
07/11/2011 10:18:34 AM PDT by
GOPGuide
To: GOPGuide
People are saturated with liberal news. The smart ones go to the internet to get real news, not more liberal drivel.
11 posted on
07/11/2011 10:22:00 AM PDT by
pallis
To: GOPGuide
LOL- that makes sense because the paper magazine business is doing much better than the electronic media...
12 posted on
07/11/2011 10:24:40 AM PDT by
God luvs America
(63.5million pay no federal income tax then vote demoKrat)
To: GOPGuide
Good...then this assures no one will read their drivel...
13 posted on
07/11/2011 10:26:19 AM PDT by
WKUHilltopper
(And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
To: GOPGuide
If it wasn’t for the magazine rack at your local dentists office, the print magazine would have disappeared a long time ago.
To: GOPGuide
Ain’t this going the wrong direction? I thought electronic was replacing dead tree, not the other way around.
15 posted on
07/11/2011 10:32:47 AM PDT by
kevkrom
(Imagine if the media spent 1/10 the effort vetting Obama as they've used against Palin.)
To: GOPGuide
That's OK, you can't line a catbox with a website.
Unless you put an Ipad under the litter.
16 posted on
07/11/2011 10:33:41 AM PDT by
dirtboy
To: GOPGuide
If an unread magazine takes its website offline, does anyone notice?
18 posted on
07/11/2011 10:37:44 AM PDT by
NRA1995
(Obama couldn't run a lemonade stand, much less a country. Away with him!)
To: GOPGuide
They’ve got a website? I never go to the fascist websites for information. I always come here.
19 posted on
07/11/2011 10:38:27 AM PDT by
LouAvul
To: GOPGuide
This is how desperate they have become for sales and web hits...
To: GOPGuide
Is this for real?
I would start laughing if someone could confirm to me that it was.
To: GOPGuide
Save the magazine by going print-only? Errr... Good luck with that.
I wonder how Newsweek would be doing if it hadn't spiked the Lewinsky story.
To: GOPGuide
Oh...the HORROR!
23 posted on
07/11/2011 10:47:28 AM PDT by
broken_arrow1
(I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
To: GOPGuide
It’s hardly a magazine anymore.
...more like a pamphlet or tract.
Liberal, of course.
24 posted on
07/11/2011 10:50:53 AM PDT by
Peter W. Kessler
(Dirt is for racing... asphalt is for getting there.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson