Gotta say (well, I don’t gotta, but I’m gonna…) I read that thread title and saw B’rer** Lib’s** name, and I immediately thought, uh-oh. He’s flipped polaritys, old yin becomes young yan, oh, dear me.
Happily, it was just an example of puckish wit, and well pucked too! I recommend your Cherokee tribal name should be Chortling Badger.
(Me? Oh, I’m Dances With Vulvas.)
/offtopic
I can’t spot the difference(s) in the two Kent State photos. Would someone point them out to me? It’s bugging me…
Thanks.
The photo looks OK to me. A little on the large (meaning close-up) size, but she looks fine. Does anyone think McCain is forked yet? 
The fencepole above Mary Ann Vecchio is missing in the top one.
Thanks. I’ll I can say is, I guess I need a new perscription.
What was the purpose of erasing the fence post?
Aesthetics, I assume. In the original, it looks “funny,” like the woman has a post sticking out of her head.
Similarly, some news organizations airbrushed this picture to remove the walkie-talkie antenna “sprouting” from Mary Decker’s chin.
Ah. Ok. Makes sense, now. I thought that the Kent State photo’s might have been on that website as examples of images manipulated to influence the viewer. (Like the photo up top of the US soldier.)
But I now see that there’s also an inside-the-industry debate on “purity” of news photos.
Interesting, and thanks!
Because it looked like she was screaming because she had a fencepost stuck in her head?
Slacker.
The fencepost was removed because, compositionally, it is distracting. It is a grievous photojournalistic sin to eliminate a districting element in the background in that manner. Were I on a newspaper, I would expect to be severely reprimanded, if not more likely outright fired, for such an ethical breach. You can argue philosophically about what is truth in photography and what is not, but manipulating photos to such a degree where you remove or add elements to a photograph is clearly out of bounds.
That may be true. But we must always remember that putting the heads of celebrities on top of the bodies of porn actors and actresses doing what they do best is the single most important activity a human being can engage in.
What?
Bigger boobs is always a help. Who would notice nostril hairs? Come to think of it, who did?
Why didn’t Newsweek use a decent pic of the Ms. Palin?
I think they went for the off-center ECU so you could see her Alaska earring.
Yikes, I didn’t mean to insult anyone, nor imply that Palin is Old, nor anything else. All I meant was that she’s way out of my age bracket, and thus, any statements about her attractiveness is sort of abstract. George Clooney is also attractive for his age, but considering that he’s closer to my parent’s age than mine, I wouldn’t make any advances or sleep with him, in the unlikely event that I found myself in a position to do for.
Well, probably not, anyway.
Well played, Lib.
As a consumer, I disagree about removing distracting elements in the background, in theory. That Kent State ‘doctored’ photograph is worth the sin of removing the fence post. (I would say the picture would be ineligible for any award, though.)
However, it does profoundly anger me that one of the original videos of a plane hitting one of the towers is always cut or doctored (I don’t know which) so it ends with the woman’s scream rather than the man’s shocked curse.
As for Palin? She’s cute as a bug, in every photo I’ve seen.
As for the OP? Very nice.
McCain & Rove, while lopsided, are more than sufficient, thank you.
So does she. Either she has some serious scratches on those lenses, or the are more lines round those eyes than George Burns circa 1985.
Maybe she could darken the lenses.
With black paint.
That’s it. Where’s my cane. I swear, when I get over there …
To formally answer the OP question:
Yes, yes they could. They could become Republicans. 
