Newsweek- Bachmann cover....for god sakes.

[Warrior102]

I agree GTH

 

[Sallow]

Newsweek should have used this picture on their cover

 

[Synthaholic]

If a conservative mag had done this to Hillary , the left would have been up in arms about it.
It would have been blasted by all the news outlets.

Hillary wasn't stupid enough to put herself in that position.

Thank you for proving my point to Trajan. You got that from katysconservativecorner.com, a Rightwing media site.


And there is a difference, also. The wingnuts always want to portray Hillary as ugly and/or old. They did the same thing with Janet Reno and Helen Thomas and Nancy Pelosi and every other Liberal woman. Wingnuts are superficial that way. They think that you have to be good-looking and young to be good and effective in your job.

 

[rightwinger]

This has to be my favorite Sarah Palin photoshopped pic:

I don't know what's more hilarious: The obviously different body habitus, the goofy non-congruent look on Palin's face, the American flag bikini, or the fact that she is posing with a BB gun.

Could that pool be any greener?

 

[Synthaholic]

The POINT of using THAT particular photograph (it need not have been Photoshopped) was to portray Bachmann as "crazy." The eyes do seem to convey that in that picture.

But it's not a mere mistake or error of judgment.

It was SELECTED quite deliberately FOR that very purpose.

It is essentially just liberals being liberals and engaging in propaganda.

They can deny it, but nobody with a functioning brain cell will buy their lie.

And you have no proof of any of that.

 

[peach174]

If a conservative mag had done this to Hillary , the left would have been up in arms about it.
It would have been blasted by all the news outlets.

Right. They would never portray Hillary in an unflattering way.

Idiot.

Caricatures are very different than actual photographs

Caricatures can be insulting or complimentary and can serve a political purpose or be drawn solely for entertainment. Caricatures of politicians are commonly used in editorial cartoons, while caricatures of movie stars are often found in entertainment magazines.

They do it to the right also but not really bad photos like they did with her.



I think these two are pretty funny. Especially McCain

 

[Sallow]

Hillary wasn't stupid enough to put herself in that position.

Thank you for proving my point to Trajan. You got that from katysconservativecorner.com, a Rightwing media site.


And there is a difference, also. The wingnuts always want to portray Hillary as ugly and/or old. They did the same thing with Janet Reno and Helen Thomas and Nancy Pelosi and every other Liberal woman. Wingnuts are superficial that way. They think that you have to be good-looking and young to be good and effective in your job.

That's the shooting match..ace.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Synthaholic]

That's awesome!

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Liability]

The POINT of using THAT particular photograph (it need not have been Photoshopped) was to portray Bachmann as "crazy." The eyes do seem to convey that in that picture.

But it's not a mere mistake or error of judgment.

It was SELECTED quite deliberately FOR that very purpose.

It is essentially just liberals being liberals and engaging in propaganda.

They can deny it, but nobody with a functioning brain cell will buy their lie.

And you have no proof of any of that.

Unlike you, bucko, my eyes work and so does my brain.

Some things, as it turns out, ARE self evident.

Besides, it's not like Tina Brown DENIED it, ya dishonest dipshit:

Yesterday, defending Newsweek‘s cover, Brown Tweeted: ”Bachmann’s intensity is galvanizing voters in Iowa right now and Newsweek’s cover captures that.”

Tina Brown Defends Her Michele Bachmann ‘Newsweek’ Cover | TheGrindstone

Yeah, Tina. "Intensity," not "craziness." Imagine the nerve of your critics suggesting that you were using that image for some ulterior motive.

Shame on all of us.

Obviously, Simpleholic got it right.

 

[Warrior102]

Hillary wasn't stupid enough to put herself in that position.

Thank you for proving my point to Trajan. You got that from katysconservativecorner.com, a Rightwing media site.


And there is a difference, also. The wingnuts always want to portray Hillary as ugly and/or old. They did the same thing with Janet Reno and Helen Thomas and Nancy Pelosi and every other Liberal woman. Wingnuts are superficial that way. They think that you have to be good-looking and young to be good and effective in your job.

Then why are you, bigot, doing what you're doing to Michelle Bachmann ?


And regarding the Hillary photo, it doesn't matter who is hosting the ACTUAL PHOTO of Hillary Clinton. There's no "portraying" anything here. It's her actual appearance - horrific - however, I don't refer to her as I do Joe Biden - "Batshit Crazy."

Carry on.

 

[BDBoop]

The POINT of using THAT particular photograph (it need not have been Photoshopped) was to portray Bachmann as "crazy." The eyes do seem to convey that in that picture.

But it's not a mere mistake or error of judgment.

It was SELECTED quite deliberately FOR that very purpose.

It is essentially just liberals being liberals and engaging in propaganda.

They can deny it, but nobody with a functioning brain cell will buy their lie.

And you have no proof of any of that.

Unlike you, bucko, my eyes work and so does my brain.

Some things, as it turns out, ARE self evident.

Besides, it's not like Tina Brown DENIED it, ya dishonest dipshit:

Yesterday, defending Newsweek‘s cover, Brown Tweeted: ”Bachmann’s intensity is galvanizing voters in Iowa right now and Newsweek’s cover captures that.”

Tina Brown Defends Her Michele Bachmann ‘Newsweek’ Cover | TheGrindstone

Yeah, Tina. "Intensity," not "craziness." Imagine the nerve of your critics suggesting that you were using that image for some ulterior motive.

Shame on all of us.

Obviously, Simpleholic got it right.

Oh, okay! So ask your peeps why it is that they're having a fit of the hissies over the "crazy look on Newsweek." We'll wait right here.

 

[Warrior102]

And you have no proof of any of that.

Unlike you, bucko, my eyes work and so does my brain.

Some things, as it turns out, ARE self evident.

Besides, it's not like Tina Brown DENIED it, ya dishonest dipshit:

Yesterday, defending Newsweek‘s cover, Brown Tweeted: ”Bachmann’s intensity is galvanizing voters in Iowa right now and Newsweek’s cover captures that.”

Tina Brown Defends Her Michele Bachmann ‘Newsweek’ Cover | TheGrindstone

Yeah, Tina. "Intensity," not "craziness." Imagine the nerve of your critics suggesting that you were using that image for some ulterior motive.

Shame on all of us.

Obviously, Simpleholic got it right.

Oh, okay! So ask your peeps why it is that they're having a fit of the hissies over the "crazy look on Newsweek." We'll wait right here.

It's a fake/photoshopped cover, dingaling.

 

[Offshore]

Newsweek....a shill for the liberals. (ya think)
I'm thinkin' you know you're losing when you resort
to this kind of childish, infantile and petulant unjournalism.
I'm thinkin' a lot of people are sick of liberals' immature crappy
talking points and name -calling.
The tendentious media and liberal rants.......they've run out of arguments.
That's the truth of it. Sad.

 

[Liability]

If a conservative mag had done this to Hillary , the left would have been up in arms about it.
It would have been blasted by all the news outlets.

Hillary wasn't stupid enough to put herself in that position.

And ya know what?

That picture taken at a bad moment unfairly depicted Shrillary. It was unfair and cheesy propaganda then, and the bullshit pulled by Tina Brown's fucking rag is no different now.

I'd wager a goodly sum of cash that any of us have had pictures taken of us that are a whole lot less flattering than we usually appear and NONE of us would would ever want to see the bad shots hitting a magazine.

 

[Liability]

And you have no proof of any of that.

Unlike you, bucko, my eyes work and so does my brain.

Some things, as it turns out, ARE self evident.

Besides, it's not like Tina Brown DENIED it, ya dishonest dipshit:

Yesterday, defending Newsweek‘s cover, Brown Tweeted: ”Bachmann’s intensity is galvanizing voters in Iowa right now and Newsweek’s cover captures that.”

Tina Brown Defends Her Michele Bachmann ‘Newsweek’ Cover | TheGrindstone

Yeah, Tina. "Intensity," not "craziness." Imagine the nerve of your critics suggesting that you were using that image for some ulterior motive.

Shame on all of us.

Obviously, Simpleholic got it right.

Oh, okay! So ask your peeps why it is that they're having a fit of the hissies over the "crazy look on Newsweek." We'll wait right here.

If you had any hint of a working brain cell, dumb shit, you'd understand that it IS a look of craziness.

I never said otherwise.

Jeez. You are stupid for real.

 

[Ravi]

Unlike you, bucko, my eyes work and so does my brain.

Some things, as it turns out, ARE self evident.

Besides, it's not like Tina Brown DENIED it, ya dishonest dipshit: Tina Brown Defends Her Michele Bachmann ‘Newsweek’ Cover | TheGrindstone

Yeah, Tina. "Intensity," not "craziness." Imagine the nerve of your critics suggesting that you were using that image for some ulterior motive.

Shame on all of us.

Obviously, Simpleholic got it right.

Oh, okay! So ask your peeps why it is that they're having a fit of the hissies over the "crazy look on Newsweek." We'll wait right here.

It's a fake/photoshopped cover, dingaling.

Not faked, just unflattering. It wasn't nice of Newsweek to run it. The media should always portray presidential candidates as presidential, even if they are bat shit crazy.

 

[Liability]

Oh, okay! So ask your peeps why it is that they're having a fit of the hissies over the "crazy look on Newsweek." We'll wait right here.

It's a fake/photoshopped cover, dingaling.

Not faked, just unflattering. It wasn't nice of Newsweek to run it. The media should always portray presidential candidates as presidential, even if they are bat shit crazy.

The media can use any unflattering picture they want for any purpose, even propaganda.

And that is a fact clearly understood by Newsweak.

 

[Warrior102]

Oh, okay! So ask your peeps why it is that they're having a fit of the hissies over the "crazy look on Newsweek." We'll wait right here.

It's a fake/photoshopped cover, dingaling.

Not faked, just unflattering. It wasn't nice of Newsweek to run it. The media should always portray presidential candidates as presidential, even if they are bat shit crazy.

You're right - it wasn't nice of Newsweek -

turns out it is an actual edition of the magazine -

And NOW is defending Bachmann ??? Wow -

The National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill said that the cover of the magazine's latest edition is "sexist" and referred to a simple test by the group's founder Gloria Steinem to explain how they determined that conclusion -- would the magazine do the same to a man.

"Who has ever called a man 'The King of Rage?' Basically what Newsweek magazine -- and this is important, what Newsweek magazine, not a blog, Newsweek magazine -- what they are saying of a woman who is a serious contender for president of the United States of America…They are basically casting her as a nut job," O'Neill said to The Daily Caller and NOW confirmed to FoxNews.com on Tuesday.
?