C’mon people, those are clearly the wings of the President’s little angel, who hovers behind him at all times offering spirtual guidance.
The problem is that you argued, in the OP, that this image is representative of a particular type of bias in the media. You have failed rather spectacularly to demonstrate anything of the sort.
Now you know how we feel reading your posts.
As off-the-mark as the OP clearly was even before I saw the photo, I foolishly thought that at least the picture would show something that looked like devil’s horns. You know, straight pointy things arising from the sides of the head? The things in the picture don’t even look like that. They rise from the rear of his head and are not at all straight. Are you saying that the nefarious liberal media wanted him to appear like a buck?
Jesus, if a stretch like this is your best evidence of a liberal media…
Speaking of which, I never got around to posting a thread about this, but remember all the folks who felt that the liberal media wasn’t telling the truth about the situation in Iraq? Not only did the ISG demonstrate that things there are as bad as they seem, they concluded that the Bush administration was shading the truth about the number of deaths there every day in order to make things look not so bad. (Now the Bush administration is even treating the number of enemy attacks as a classified bit of information.)
So, to all of you who were shouting “What about all the schools being built that the liberal media is ignoring?” I offer a hardy and heartfelt “Fucko off!”
Is the OP really suggesting that there was a “liberal” cabal of the press who intentionally photographed the decider in front of the Presidential seal in just such a way as to make it kinda sorta look like he has horns coming out of his head and that they did this because they were sincerely hoping it would make people think Bush was a devil? (They’d be preaching to the choir in my case)
Or does she think it was photoshopped or something?
She’s kidding, right?
I’ve seen a lot of stupid OPs in my time here. This one is right up there with Reeder complaining about Jenna Bush sticking her tongue out at the reporters.
Wow. Moronic OP. Dimwitted, backward, besotted, boring, brainless, daffy, daft, dense, dim, doltish, dumb, feeble-minded, half-baked, half-witted, ignorant, imbecilic, indolent, insensate, low, not very bright, numbskulled, obtuse, retarded, scatterbrained, shallow, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupid, tedious, thick, unintellectual, vacuous, wearisome, and witless OP.
Thank you, online thesaurus.
Have you read some of the claims of a “liberal media” that the right-wing “watchdog groups” trot out? I wouldn’t be surprised to see the OP repeated as unvarished truth over at Newsbusters within a day or two.
I think what it actually is, is that people have become so attuned to the liberal bias of the media (for which it has no one to blame but itself) that we tend to see it even where it doesn’t really exist. I don’t believe Bush was deliberately photographed in such a way as to make it look like he had devil horns (and to be fair, the OP probably got this idea from a blurb on Drudge), but I certainly can’t fault the OP for thinking that he was.
Then you’re both morons: You’re actually using imagined liberal bias as an excuse for imagining additional liberal bias. This is why it’s so easy to laugh off the whole liberal bias idea.
Ah, of course! The fact that someone comes up with crap examples of the “liberal media” is actually proof that it exists. Genius! Your weakness becomes your strength!
A saner mind might conclude that this is merely a symptom of someone so tragically wed to their boring political divisions that they’ll “see” anything that reinforces their own prejudices. But that’s almost certainly a dangerously liberal idea.
Ruby, baby, are you always this paranoid when you drop LSD or only on the bad trips?
Fixed that for ya.
(All bracketed insertions, strikethroughs, and underlinings courtesy of liberal-biased reality.)
Show some compassion! it’s been hard for them since the Election…
Yeah, we know that you see a liberal bias in media where none exists. We’ve been telling you that for years. Glad to see the message is finally starting to sink in.
*Some * of you have, anyway. The more suggestible, less questioning, less curious, less interested in doing their own thinking, who have been told that over a course of many years by the only mass media outlet which they think is fair and balanced.
If it isn’t true, but you persist in believing it anyway, *whose * fault is that again?
Which you yourself know, well, how?
You *wouldn’t * place the blame for being easily fooled on the fool? :rolleyes:
Aah! Just what was missing. The typical braindead, tongue-deep-in-Bush’s-rectum, delusional post from Starvin’.
Well done, warmongering piece of shit.
PS-Read back to Hentor’s post if you want a dose of reality 'bout your “lbr’l media,” you wasted clump of loosely hanging skin. Commented on – and ignored by my counterpart in said debate – by yours truly a full two weeks ago.
You jest, but in all honesty I think it’s a symptom not of one side or the other, but of the general political divisiveness that seems to have become the norm in the States of late in which “bipartisan” is practically a dirty word. The “biased media” cobblers may be a canard largely peculiar to the right, but it works just as much the other way.
In a highly customer-facing job I once held at the BBC, I was called upon to deal with all sorts of accusations of bias by all sorts of people. The BBC and I were accused of being biased against Muslims, for Muslims, against gays, for gays, against homophobes would you believe (I’ll cop to that), against Grimsby FC, against goths, pagans, Christians, neo-pagans, people who believe Willow was the main focus of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, canonical Dr Who fans, inclusivist Who fans, The Who … the list goes on (and on, and on).
Bias is positively the easiest thing to perceive, and mostly an accusation of bias amounts to no more than that the allegedly biased organ failed to vigourously espouse the accuser’s opinion. Such accusations are offered even when the “biased” party is offering no opinion whatsoever, and is merely reporting the facts (witness the recent “prostitutes” trainwreck). Of course this doesn’t mean that bias doesn’t exist, but it’s far more difficult to demonstrate than people would like to think.
As for the assertion that even demonstrably false accusations of bias prove the bias exists, well; that’s so mindlessly self-serving it deserves a round of applause.
I think that’s “whom.” (snicker)
A geriatric gerund, posed in the pejorative declension with a sublimated subjunctive, is grammaticly correct to an excruciating degree. So bite me.
On the nipples no doubt.