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

[Maple]

come on guys, seriously.......

its good for a laugh, but really? pathetic.

" The queen of Rage??" What a title and what a picture- the liberals are scared to death of a conservative woman and does it ever show. Hey, Newsweek, you could use a little manning up there.

 

[oreo]

come on guys, seriously.......

its good for a laugh, but really? pathetic.

" The queen of Rage??" What a title and what a picture- the liberals are scared to death of a conservative woman and does it ever show. Hey, Newsweek, you could use a little manning up there.

If you remember Newsweek did it to Hillary Clinton too--(when she was running against Obama for the nomination?) This picture is so sca.....ry--LOL my knees are knocking together--LOL

 

[Political Junky]

come on guys, seriously.......

its good for a laugh, but really? pathetic.

I have seen that look on her face a thousand times.

Me too.
For awhile they were putting very heavy eye makeup on her and it became less obvious.

 

[Ali777]

come on guys, seriously.......

its good for a laugh, but really? pathetic.

Newsweek admitted that this was what's called a "light-check" photo.
Come on Newsweek. I thought there were certain journalistic standards no one crossed.

 

[Offshore]

come on guys, seriously.......

its good for a laugh, but really? pathetic.

Newsweek admitted that this was what's called a "light-check" photo.
Come on Newsweek. I thought there were certain journalistic standards no one crossed.

There is no 'journalistic' standards at Newsweak. They campaign for the democratic party and that is all.

 

[masquerade]

After hearing some of Algore's meltdown, I think Newsweek would have faired better if they put him on the cover.

 

[St.Blues]

Liberals continue to prove to be self serving and always wrong. They're are all useful idiots and don't know it yet. Go Tea party Go!

Blues

 

[uscitizen]

come on guys, seriously.......

its good for a laugh, but really? pathetic.

Newsweek admitted that this was what's called a "light-check" photo.
Come on Newsweek. I thought there were certain journalistic standards no one crossed.

So now Newsweek is on a par with Fox? Just on the other side?

 

[BDBoop]

Come on... liberals loath conservative women. Conservative women in particular threaten the very existence of liberalism and they actually live their lives with respect to their beliefs.
It's the only way to quantify the unrelenting and unrestrained attacks by liberals on conservative women. It's the only way to explain the obsessive neediness by liberals to not just insult conservative women, but destroy them.
Liberals 'need' women to be democrats and pro abortion......they need the gender votes on their side.....'need' them in a camp that says you are not woman nor feminist unless you fit the liberal elite mold.

It couldn't possibly simply be because they have no clue who the founding fathers were, and/or think that Paul Revere rode to warn the British? Nooooooo .....

Well...if you read 'the rest of the story' ...Palin was right. After capture, he did warn the British. How unfortunate, that liberal followers were not even informed because the smug arrogance of the liberal media.....would never admit Sarah Palin was indeed correct...and smart.
It's an unswerving fact that liberals will praise men (and liberal women) that call conservative women whores (Meg Whitman and Nikki Haley), conservative women stupid (Palin), conservative women evil crazy (Bachmann) ,and even say Condoleeza Rice is not a black woman.....I admire that all those conservative women...can take the crap savagery from the left. I find a truly amazing strength in women that handle this kind of deliberate slander to themselves and their families

Oh, nevermind. I hadn't realized you were a RWNJ. Off with you.

 

[Trajan]

YUP....you caught us

We Libruls shure are skeered of Palin and Bachmann

Come on... liberals loath conservative women. Conservative women in particular threaten the very existence of liberalism and they actually live their lives with respect to their beliefs.
It's the only way to quantify the unrelenting and unrestrained attacks by liberals on conservative women. It's the only way to explain the obsessive neediness by liberals to not just insult conservative women, but destroy them.
Liberals 'need' women to be democrats and pro abortion......they need the gender votes on their side.....'need' them in a camp that says you are not woman nor feminist unless you fit the liberal elite mold.

It couldn't possibly simply be because they have no clue who the founding fathers were, and/or think that Paul Revere rode to warn the British? Nooooooo .....

and there ya go, attack her positions, if she said it, she said, this? fair game.

the pic(s) etc.? cheap.

 

[Ravi]

I love it!

Another good one would be her adoration of Jebus. But that would only garner sympathy.

 

[Trajan]

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.

and when they post is as a cover or in a paper, and it winds up here as a topic, you can be sure that I will be here, if they air brush obama or gore or Clinton they can airbrush palin or bachmann etc,....SEE the difference? you're going to compare a rightwing blog to a nationally circulated news magazine?

Wingnuts are superficial that way. They think that you have to be good-looking and young to be good and effective in your job.

OR;

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."


you were saying?

 

[manifold]

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.

^Not a single fact.

All conjecture and opinion from someone with a proven bias.

He can deny it, but nobody with functioning brain cell will buy it.

 

[manifold]

For the record, I don't give a flying fuck about Bachmann's crazy eyes.

It's her crazy ideas that concern me.

 

[Rozman]

If they were covering the President or any Liberal for that matter the photo would have been properly lit,the colors for the back round would have been perfect.They are the Communications arm of the WH...

 

[hippie2049]

In my first response I made light of Marcus Bachmann's closet.

I also meant to convey that, as a super Lib, Michelle Bachmann was done wrong. In any video still, whoever is doing it, can be made to look sexy, attractive, slutty, pure, smart, stupid, sane, insane, and just about any other way of characterizing any person. They choose to go with a disparaging image of MB, which I do not condone.

I believed MB was crazy before the NW picture because of what she says and believes and hold to the notion that she is crazy.

 

[Dr Grump]

Michelle is a dick.

Not surprised the right-wing loons on this site are defending a right-wing loon...

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

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.

That's not what crazy looks like. Crazy is talking about the people you killed or the way the CIA broadcasts secret messages to the microchip planted in your spine without showing an ounce of emotion. "Flat affect".

It's just a bad picture. So what? I am not sure that the code of journalistic ethics requires that your cover pictures are on par with Cosmo.

Why should it matter? If you guys insist that the popularity of candidates like Palin and Bachmann is not at all related to superficial appearances, what harm is there in showing Bachmann without her makeup artist?

 

[Trajan]

Michelle is a dick.

Not surprised the right-wing loons on this site are defending a right-wing loon...

then be honest about it and attack her positions. don't ambush her, its cheap...

 

[Trajan]

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.

That's not what crazy looks like. Crazy is talking about the people you killed or the way the CIA broadcasts secret messages to the microchip planted in your spine without showing an ounce of emotion. "Flat affect".

It's just a bad picture. So what? I am not sure that the code of journalistic ethics requires that your cover pictures are on par with Cosmo.

Why should it matter? If you guys insist that the popularity of candidates like Palin and Bachmann is not at all related to superficial appearances, what harm is there in showing Bachmann without her makeup artist?

the media? selectivity? honesty? .....