I Am Outraged!!

[DavidS]

Have you SEEN the latest cover of Newsweek? How DARE they not re-touch the photograph on there of Sarah Palin! How DARE they allow her blemmishes to show! How DARE they allow the American people to view Sarah Palin's wrinkles!

I quote "This photo is a CLEAR slap in the face of Sarah Palin! Why? Because it's un-retouched!"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YInuTc3C3jM]YouTube - FOX Freakout Over Unretouched Palin Photo On Newsweek Cover[/ame]

I kid you not. This was actually in the news today. Meanwhile, Joe Schmoe is losing his life savings in the past couple of weeks in the stock market, unemployment is skyrocketing, dealerships around the country are dropping like flies and General Motors might not have enough money to last through 2009.

I kid you not, one of these idiots actually said "THIS IS MORIFYING!"

 

[WillowTree]

You'll get over it. Just take two aspirin.

 

[Caligirl]

Have you SEEN the latest cover of Newsweek? How DARE they not re-touch the photograph on there of Sarah Palin! How DARE they allow her blemmishes to show! How DARE they allow the American people to view Sarah Palin's wrinkles!

I quote "This photo is a CLEAR slap in the face of Sarah Palin! Why? Because it's un-retouched!"

YouTube - FOX Freakout Over Unretouched Palin Photo On Newsweek Cover

I kid you not. This was actually in the news today. Meanwhile, Joe Schmoe is losing his life savings in the past couple of weeks in the stock market, unemployment is skyrocketing, dealerships around the country are dropping like flies and General Motors might not have enough money to last through 2009.

I kid you not, one of these idiots actually said "THIS IS MORIFYING!"

Oh geeeyawd!!!!

 

[Missourian]

Welcome to the 24 hour news cycle.

 

[Modbert]

Have you SEEN the latest cover of Newsweek? How DARE they not re-touch the photograph on there of Sarah Palin! How DARE they allow her blemmishes to show! How DARE they allow the American people to view Sarah Palin's wrinkles!

I quote "This photo is a CLEAR slap in the face of Sarah Palin! Why? Because it's un-retouched!"

YouTube - FOX Freakout Over Unretouched Palin Photo On Newsweek Cover

I kid you not. This was actually in the news today. Meanwhile, Joe Schmoe is losing his life savings in the past couple of weeks in the stock market, unemployment is skyrocketing, dealerships around the country are dropping like flies and General Motors might not have enough money to last through 2009.

I kid you not, one of these idiots actually said "THIS IS MORIFYING!"

Oh noes! Fuck Iraq, the Economy, and everything else!

This is the #1 important news story of the day!

And people wonder why I find Fox News to be a fuckin joke.

Meanwhile the people in outrage are probably caked in makeup while complaining about how dare the news show how a person actually looks.

 

[WillowTree]

Oh noes! Fuck Iraq, the Economy, and everything else!

This is the #1 important news story of the day!

And people wonder why I find Fox News to be a fuckin joke.

Meanwhile the people in outrage are probably caked in makeup while complaining about how dare the news show how a person actually looks.

Will work for you also. Couple of aspirin will do wonders. What's worse? them freaking? or you freaking cause they're freaking?

 

[Modbert]

Will work for you also. Couple of aspirin will do wonders. What's worse? them freaking? or you freaking cause they're freaking?

I'm not freaking, called sarcasm.

Though the part about Fox News being a joke and everything below that wasn't a joke.

 

[Gem]

I'm going to begin by saying that I agree this is not an issue worthy of "mortification," however...I do think its funny that people seem to think that getting upset over small things is completely justified when it happens to "their side," and completely silly when its the "other side," who is upset.

NewsWeek Magazine has put out HOW MANY covers now of Barack Obama? In each one he looks poised and professional. Thoughtful and sincere. Dare I say, Presidential? This isn't because Obama always looks that way. They could have put him on the cover when his mouth is all open during on of his infamous "um, ahhh...weeellllll...you seeeeee, hold up...I can't hear myself," moments...looking nervous and uncomfortable...but no...they have always shown him looking poised and ready.

So why then...would they put a woman on the cover without airbrushing out any of her facial hair or wrinkles or pores? Airbrushing is standard now...everybody has it done...and most covers do in without question because it makes their covers look more polished and professional.

So the questions should be asked...why did Newsweek choose not to do it for Palin?

I think the obvious answer is - because they wanted her to look unpoised and unprofessional just as badly as they want Obama to look presidential. Now if you have another take thats fine...but it does need to include a reasonable explanation as to why Newsweek does not put out unairbrushed pictures like this most of the time...and chose now to do so...

You can roll your eyes and claim this isn't a story...and in a way, you're absolutely right....it isn't a shock at all that Time magazine wants Obama to win and would deliberately make Palin look bad.

And as far as outrage goes, it isn't one-sided...take a look at some of your pals on the left practically losing their marbles over the reporter who had the audacity to say Obama's plane smelled and his people don't treat the press nicely.

This isn't of major importance...there are far bigger issues to worry about...but that doesn't mean that these little stories don't contain nuggets of interest, signs of the times, indications of the leanings of organizations, etc. I can worry about the economy AND give 3 minutes of thought to this...its called multi-tasking, and Obama thinks we all should be doing it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Have you SEEN the latest cover of Newsweek? How DARE they not re-touch the photograph on there of Sarah Palin! How DARE they allow her blemmishes to show! How DARE they allow the American people to view Sarah Palin's wrinkles!

I quote "This photo is a CLEAR slap in the face of Sarah Palin! Why? Because it's un-retouched!"

YouTube - FOX Freakout Over Unretouched Palin Photo On Newsweek Cover

I kid you not. This was actually in the news today. Meanwhile, Joe Schmoe is losing his life savings in the past couple of weeks in the stock market, unemployment is skyrocketing, dealerships around the country are dropping like flies and General Motors might not have enough money to last through 2009.

I kid you not, one of these idiots actually said "THIS IS MORIFYING!"

I always turn to Fox News for breaking stories about facial blemishes, and 1960s radicals I've never heard of.

 

[CA95380]

I quote "This photo is a CLEAR slap in the face of Sarah Palin! Why? Because it's un-retouched!"

Good gawd! Just think how much we are going to have to pay in taxes for her "touchup's" jobs - if she gets into the Veep office. Can you say 55 gallon drums of make-up???? Yikes!!!! Just so she can have her picture taken!

Oh well .... maybe she will share that with McCain ... they could both use a touchup!

 

[WillowTree]

I'm going to begin by saying that I agree this is not an issue worthy of "mortification," however...I do think its funny that people seem to think that getting upset over small things is completely justified when it happens to "their side," and completely silly when its the "other side," who is upset.

Time Magazine has put out HOW MANY covers now of Barack Obama? In each one he looks poised and professional. Thoughtful and sincere. Dare I say, Presidential? This isn't because Obama always looks that way. They could have put him on the cover when his mouth is all open during on of his infamous "um, ahhh...weeellllll...you seeeeee, hold up...I can't hear myself," moments...looking nervous and uncomfortable...but no...they have always shown him looking poised and ready.

So why then...would they put a woman on the cover without airbrushing out any of her facial hair or wrinkles or pores? Airbrushing is standard now...everybody has it done...and most covers do in without question because it makes their covers look more polished and professional.

So the questions should be asked...why did Time choose not to do it for Palin?

I think the obvious answer is - because they wanted her to look unpoised and unprofessional just as badly as they want Obama to look presidential.

You can roll your eyes and claim this isn't a story...and in a way, you're absolutely right....it isn't a shock at all that Time magazine wants Obama to win and would deliberately make Palin look bad.

And as far as outrage goes, it isn't one-sided...take a look at some of your pals on the left practically losing their marbles over the reported who had the audacity to say Obama's plane smelled and his people don't treat the press nicely.

Fact is Palin is so pretty, they can't make her look otherwise.

 

[Red Dawn]

Palin is a unattractive, angry, religious rightwing freak.

There's nothing attractive about her.

Blemishes not withstanding!

 

[WillowTree]

Palin is a unattractive, angry, religious rightwing freak.

There's nothing attractive about her.

Blemishes not withstanding!

Jealous?

 

[Missourian]

Palin is a unattractive, angry, religious rightwing freak.

There's nothing attractive about her.

Blemishes not withstanding!

Yeah right.

 

[Modbert]

I'm going to begin by saying that I agree this is not an issue worthy of "mortification," however...I do think its funny that people seem to think that getting upset over small things is completely justified when it happens to "their side," and completely silly when its the "other side," who is upset.

Time Magazine has put out HOW MANY covers now of Barack Obama? In each one he looks poised and professional. Thoughtful and sincere. Dare I say, Presidential? This isn't because Obama always looks that way. They could have put him on the cover when his mouth is all open during on of his infamous "um, ahhh...weeellllll...you seeeeee, hold up...I can't hear myself," moments...looking nervous and uncomfortable...but no...they have always shown him looking poised and ready.

So why then...would they put a woman on the cover without airbrushing out any of her facial hair or wrinkles or pores? Airbrushing is standard now...everybody has it done...and most covers do in without question because it makes their covers look more polished and professional.

So the questions should be asked...why did Time choose not to do it for Palin?

I think the obvious answer is - because they wanted her to look unpoised and unprofessional just as badly as they want Obama to look presidential. Now if you have another take thats fine...but it does need to include a reasonable explanation as to why Time does not put out unairbrushed pictures like this most of the time...and chose now to do so...

You can roll your eyes and claim this isn't a story...and in a way, you're absolutely right....it isn't a shock at all that Time magazine wants Obama to win and would deliberately make Palin look bad.

And as far as outrage goes, it isn't one-sided...take a look at some of your pals on the left practically losing their marbles over the reporter who had the audacity to say Obama's plane smelled and his people don't treat the press nicely.

This isn't of major importance...there are far bigger issues to worry about...but that doesn't mean that these little stories don't contain nuggets of interest, signs of the times, indications of the leanings of organizations, etc. I can worry about the economy AND give 3 minutes of thought to this...its called multi-tasking, and Obama thinks we all should be doing it.

Just come out and say it's a giant Liberal conspiracy. Then Fox News might hire you.

 

[DavidS]

Will work for you also. Couple of aspirin will do wonders. What's worse? them freaking? or you freaking cause they're freaking?

Part of it was sarcasm, part if it was outrage and their outrage. Believe it or not, FixNews DOES have influence over people... people that are stupid, yes, but they still have influence.

Is it so fair and balanced when the supposed moderator, who herself is caked in makeup, takes the side of the outrage?

Can you believe how angry that brunnette got? Can you believe that people are actually voting or not voting based upon what this brunnette thinks?

 

[WillowTree]

Part of it was sarcasm, part if it was outrage and their outrage. Believe it or not, FixNews DOES have influence over people... people that are stupid, yes, but they still have influence.

Is it so fair and balanced when the supposed moderator, who herself is caked in makeup, takes the side of the outrage?

Can you believe how angry that brunnette got? Can you believe that people are actually voting or not voting based upon what this brunnette thinks?

No, I cannot imagine that. You should give people more credit than that. You sound like that nutjob Michael Collins from across the pond.

 

[DavidS]

No, I cannot imagine that. You should give people more credit than that. You sound like that nutjob Michael Collins from across the pond.

Have you ever worked retail? Have you ever met joe sixpack?

 

[WillowTree]

Have you ever worked retail? Have you ever met joe sixpack?

No, I have never worked retail.

 

[DavidS]

No, I have never worked retail.

I have. I've been in the restaraunt business for 12 years. Believe me, that segment right there convinced a few hundred people either way.