NYTimes Exterminates George Bush!

[asaratis]

The idea was to put Obama in the exact center of the photo. Had they been able to airbrush in a halo...we'd have seen Jesus leading the march.

Umm... who represents more national importance to any photo than the country's President?

Hey, I think it was more camera position and picture quality that drove the image. The truck was in Obama's lane...for the FP photo. The shot with all of the front line pictured (including Bush) was centered on the bridge.

I'm just wondering which one (Bush or Obama) first removed his jacket and rolled up his sleeves.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dems are just as responsible for Iraq as Bush. It wasn't 'Bush's war'.

Bullshit. It was Bush's decision, and ONLY Bush's decision.

77 - 23 was the vote. Majority of democrats voted for the war.

Wrong 147 Democrats voted against the war. 110 voted for it.

 

[alanbmx123]

just remember the Sherriff of Selma that led the violence Jim Clark was a Democrat, along with all the KKK leaders in the south. and Lyndon Johnson would not let the voting rights act in the 50's come to a vote when he ran the senate

 

[Pogo]

The idea was to put Obama in the exact center of the photo. Had they been able to airbrush in a halo...we'd have seen Jesus leading the march.

Umm... who represents more national importance to any photo than the country's President?

Hey, I think it was more camera position and picture quality that drove the image. The truck was in Obama's lane...for the FP photo. The shot with all of the front line pictured (including Bush) was centered on the bridge.

I'm just wondering which one (Bush or Obama) first removed his jacket and rolled up his sleeves.

That's what I said from the beginning. The pic with Bush shows a way smaller crowd. When you're splashing a pic on the Sunday front page you want visual impact, not anticlimax.

 

[Pogo]

I see we've been merged. The thread I was with said Bush was "cropped" out of the photo. This one says "exterminated". Neither is true of course; they compare different pictures. The one with Bush on the right, again, shows far fewer people in the background, where the one used shows a completely full image of a mass of people. Anyone who's ever set up a newspaper can see that (image impact) is the criterion for choosing front page splash.

Moreover the comparable pic with Bush marching shows a dearth of people specifically on his side of the street -- most of the crowd is on the side with O'bama. Now whether that means the marchers following were deliberately avoiding the right (their left) side of the street because Bush was in the front is unknown and open to speculation. It would be further idle speculation to suggest the NYT didn't run that shot because the population spread would make him look bad by implication -- and I don't believe that was the case. But the symbolism is clearly there, it would have made Bush look at the least unpopular, and had the photo run we might expect the same wags would be whining for that reason.

I'm thinking specificlly of this pic, which USMB seems to have eliminated when it merged threads and disappeared IamwhatIseem's OP:

​

And not insignificant, speaking of symbolism, is that giant can't-be-ignored divider between the two of them. That would not have sent a positive message, now would it?

 

[Ernie S.]

Third thread on this.

The choice was obvious: include the entire First Family and cut out Bush or publish the entire image with faces so small they would be recognizable. Bush just isn't important enough to include.

I still say I wish would have just edited him out before he did the enormous damage he did.

I disagree, respectfully. The president of a former President at this event is indeed important to record. The NYT could have put two photos in. It often puts in two photos for lots of things.

Whether it's deliberate or not, I don't know. But it was bad judgement. On this one, NLT, amazingly, gets a point from me.

And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?

Well, hold the jury on that one:

Well, actually:

NYT photographer We didn t crop George W. Bush from Selma pic - Nick Gass - POLITICO

“Just so you know, President Bush was not cropped out, he was not in that frame because he was so far to our right,” photographer Doug Mills wrote in an email to POLITICO.

In a note to photo editors on Sunday, Mills said he didn’t file the shot with Bush included because it was overexposed.

“I did not even send this frame because it’s very wide and super busy and Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade,” Mills wrote, per Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan.

So he didn't crop a photo, he composed it in such a way that he didn't have to. OK, gotcha.

 

[Yarddog]

99% of Republican politicians cropped themselves out of the photos,

by not showing up. They did so to remind us that the modern GOP wants nothing to do with anything associated with the GOP of 1965.

99 % wow thats amazing

 

[Ernie S.]

Dems are just as responsible for Iraq as Bush. It wasn't 'Bush's war'.

Bullshit. It was Bush's decision, and ONLY Bush's decision.

77 - 23 was the vote. Majority of democrats voted for the war.

Wrong 147 Democrats voted against the war. 110 voted for it.

Senate vote, stupid or can't you figure that out by adding 77 and 23? The Dems held the majority at that point so the majority of Senate Democrats voted for the war.

 

[Yarddog]

I see we've been merged. The thread I was with said Bush was "cropped" out of the photo. This one says "exterminated". Neither is true of course; they compare different pictures. The one with Bush on the right, again, shows far fewer people in the background, where the one used shows a completely full image of a mass of people. Anyone who's ever set up a newspaper can see that (image impact) is the criterion for choosing front page splash.

Moreover the comparable pic with Bush marching shows a dearth of people specifically on his side of the street -- most of the crowd is on the side with O'bama. Now whether that means the marchers following were deliberately avoiding the right (their left) side of the street because Bush was in the front is unknown and open to speculation. It would be further idle speculation to suggest the NYT didn't run that shot because the population spread would make him look bad by implication -- and I don't believe that was the case. But the symbolism is clearly there, it would have made Bush look at the least unpopular, and had the photo run we might expect the same wags would be whining for that reason.

I'm thinking specificlly of this pic, which USMB seems to have eliminated when it merged threads and disappeared IamwhatIseem's OP:

​

And not insignificant, speaking of symbolism, is that giant can't-be-ignored divider between the two of them. That would not have sent a positive message, now would it?

The unedited version below is even more insidious, Im afraid. but , whoever planned this march could have made it much more meaningful had Bush and Obama been walking side by side.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dems are just as responsible for Iraq as Bush. It wasn't 'Bush's war'.

Bullshit. It was Bush's decision, and ONLY Bush's decision.

77 - 23 was the vote. Majority of democrats voted for the war.

Wrong 147 Democrats voted against the war. 110 voted for it.

Senate vote, stupid or can't you figure that out by adding 77 and 23? The Dems held the majority at that point so the majority of Senate Democrats voted for the war.

Have you ever heard the term 'bicameral legislature'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see we've been merged. The thread I was with said Bush was "cropped" out of the photo. This one says "exterminated". Neither is true of course; they compare different pictures. The one with Bush on the right, again, shows far fewer people in the background, where the one used shows a completely full image of a mass of people. Anyone who's ever set up a newspaper can see that (image impact) is the criterion for choosing front page splash.

Moreover the comparable pic with Bush marching shows a dearth of people specifically on his side of the street -- most of the crowd is on the side with O'bama. Now whether that means the marchers following were deliberately avoiding the right (their left) side of the street because Bush was in the front is unknown and open to speculation. It would be further idle speculation to suggest the NYT didn't run that shot because the population spread would make him look bad by implication -- and I don't believe that was the case. But the symbolism is clearly there, it would have made Bush look at the least unpopular, and had the photo run we might expect the same wags would be whining for that reason.

I'm thinking specificlly of this pic, which USMB seems to have eliminated when it merged threads and disappeared IamwhatIseem's OP:

​

And not insignificant, speaking of symbolism, is that giant can't-be-ignored divider between the two of them. That would not have sent a positive message, now would it?

The unedited version below is even more insidious, Im afraid. but , whoever planned this march could have made it much more meaningful had Bush and Obama been walking side by side.


View attachment 37641

Yeah, Bush and Laura could have bumped the two ladies in wheelchairs off to the fringe.

 

[Stephanie]

The libs evidently don't mind being lied to by the NYslimes. But now some television host on Fox news. OMG omg omg omg

this is why they can't be taken seriously...they are two faced hypocrites

 

[Statistikhengst]

Third thread on this.

The choice was obvious: include the entire First Family and cut out Bush or publish the entire image with faces so small they would be recognizable. Bush just isn't important enough to include.

I still say I wish would have just edited him out before he did the enormous damage he did.

I disagree, respectfully. The president of a former President at this event is indeed important to record. The NYT could have put two photos in. It often puts in two photos for lots of things.

Whether it's deliberate or not, I don't know. But it was bad judgement. On this one, NLT, amazingly, gets a point from me.

And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?

Well, hold the jury on that one:

Well, actually:

NYT photographer We didn t crop George W. Bush from Selma pic - Nick Gass - POLITICO

“Just so you know, President Bush was not cropped out, he was not in that frame because he was so far to our right,” photographer Doug Mills wrote in an email to POLITICO.

In a note to photo editors on Sunday, Mills said he didn’t file the shot with Bush included because it was overexposed.

“I did not even send this frame because it’s very wide and super busy and Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade,” Mills wrote, per Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan.

So he didn't crop a photo, he composed it in such a way that he didn't have to. OK, gotcha.

Actually, yes.

And when you look at the original panorama, indeed, the former President and his lovely wife are in very bright light, whilst the President and his lovely wife and kids are in shade.

It still may have been bad judgement, but maybe it was simply a photographer doing his job.

It certainly is amazing the lengths that Righties will go to bellyache.

 

[mudwhistle]

99% of Republican politicians cropped themselves out of the photos,

by not showing up. They did so to remind us that the modern GOP wants nothing to do with anything associated with the GOP of 1965.

This is a picture of Democrats harassing blacks and whites that are trying to have lunch with them in the 60s...

Now Democrat are faking they're on the side of blacks all the while they're giving them the shaft....

 

[NYcarbineer]

99% of Republican politicians cropped themselves out of the photos,

by not showing up. They did so to remind us that the modern GOP wants nothing to do with anything associated with the GOP of 1965.

This is a picture of Democrats harassing blacks and whites that are trying to have lunch with them in the 60s...

Now Democrat are faking they're on the side of blacks all the while they're giving them the shaft....

You're not making any sense.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Third thread on this.

The choice was obvious: include the entire First Family and cut out Bush or publish the entire image with faces so small they would be recognizable. Bush just isn't important enough to include.

I still say I wish would have just edited him out before he did the enormous damage he did.

I disagree, respectfully. The president of a former President at this event is indeed important to record. The NYT could have put two photos in. It often puts in two photos for lots of things.

Whether it's deliberate or not, I don't know. But it was bad judgement. On this one, NLT, amazingly, gets a point from me.

And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?

Well, hold the jury on that one:

Well, actually:

NYT photographer We didn t crop George W. Bush from Selma pic - Nick Gass - POLITICO

“Just so you know, President Bush was not cropped out, he was not in that frame because he was so far to our right,” photographer Doug Mills wrote in an email to POLITICO.

In a note to photo editors on Sunday, Mills said he didn’t file the shot with Bush included because it was overexposed.

“I did not even send this frame because it’s very wide and super busy and Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade,” Mills wrote, per Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan.

So he didn't crop a photo, he composed it in such a way that he didn't have to. OK, gotcha.

Actually, yes.

And when you look at the original panorama, indeed, the former President and his lovely wife are in very bright light, whilst the President and his lovely wife and kids are in shade.

It still may have been bad judgement, but maybe it was simply a photographer doing his job.

It certainly is amazing the lengths that Righties will go to bellyache.

The cult has to invent a scandal every week. It's their nourishment.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[NYcarbineer]

So Johnson signs the Civil Rights bill, he's the racist.

Goldwater votes against it, then within months is the presidential nominee of the GOP, and somehow he's the black man's best friend.

You're ******* nuts.