# NYTimes Exterminates George Bush!



## PoliticalChic

How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?

We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....



*1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*

*2. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*


*



*




3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
*
The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.
Discrimination still exists in America.


4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.
Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*


----------



## jillian

tissue?


----------



## 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.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Oh, if only it were that easy.


----------



## Edgetho

It's how communist scum work.











As people fall out of favor or are murdered by the communist scum (dimocrap FILTH haven't been caught doing that -- YET) they are also erased from archives and photos in an attempt to erase them from memory.

Orwellian as hell.  And it works

dimocraps are the scum of the earth.

PERIOD


----------



## BlindBoo

But when it really mattered the NYT was in the tank, or in-bed-with the Bush Administration and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  They faithfully parroted every talking point from the propaganda arm of the Bush Regime.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The NY Slimes is a leftist rag mag


----------



## The Rabbi

"All the news that fits our ideas fit to print."


----------



## depotoo

Yeah, and they don't mention him being there until 12 paragraphs later, on page 15.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Edgetho said:


> It's how communist scum work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As people fall out of favor or are murdered by the communist scum (dimocrap FILTH haven't been caught doing that -- YET) they are also erased from archives and photos in an attempt to erase them from memory.
> 
> Orwellian as hell.  And it works
> 
> dimocraps are the scum of the earth.
> 
> PERIOD



Gee, I'm surprised PoliticalChic has not thanked you for this post.  So insightful, fair and balanced, much like the genre she so embraces.  For the slow, this remark is sponsored by Sarcasm is us.


----------



## Preacher

Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.


----------



## Redfish

Odium said:


> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.


 

and who are these "real culprits" ?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Well, so I guess the NYT remaining 5 readers got gipped?

Oh well...


----------



## Skylar

PoliticalChic said:


> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*



Those are different pictures.


----------



## Katzndogz

In a couple of weeks the Times can have a follow up article saying that Bush refused to go.  They have the pictures to prove it.


----------



## depotoo

The White House did as well
Twitter


----------



## Redfish

depotoo said:


> The White House did as well
> Twitter


 

is anyone surprised?


----------



## depotoo

They don't care about perception at all of their actions by those that know.  Just amazes me, they never have.





Redfish said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The White House did as well
> Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is anyone surprised?
Click to expand...


----------



## Skylar

Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.


----------



## depotoo

Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't. 





Skylar said:


> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.


----------



## Preacher

Redfish said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and who are these "real culprits" ?
Click to expand...

These 6 Corporations Control 90 Of The Media In America - Business Insider
Six Jewish Companies Control 96 of the World s Media

Had to make sure to give you a source other than an alternate media option so you could verify it.


----------



## Preacher

Might be slightly outdated I don't know but its a good overview.


----------



## NLT

George W Bush cropped out of New York Times front cover image of Selma march - Telegraph

Libturds taking pettiness to a new low


----------



## The Rabbi

Odium said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and who are these "real culprits" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These 6 Corporations Control 90 Of The Media In America - Business Insider
> Six Jewish Companies Control 96 of the World s Media
> 
> Had to make sure to give you a source other than an alternate media option so you could verify it.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, radical anti-Semitic web sites are now reliable sources among radical anti-Semites.
Thanks, dolt.


----------



## Skylar

depotoo said:


> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
Click to expand...


I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.

So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.

Its a completely different picture.


----------



## Preacher

The Rabbi said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and who are these "real culprits" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These 6 Corporations Control 90 Of The Media In America - Business Insider
> Six Jewish Companies Control 96 of the World s Media
> 
> Had to make sure to give you a source other than an alternate media option so you could verify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes, radical anti-Semitic web sites are now reliable sources among radical anti-Semites.
> Thanks, dolt.
Click to expand...

Business Insider is a anti semite website! Hurry you better go tell them!  How about some articles from your own race eh dickhead?Who runs Hollywood C mon - Los Angeles Times

There ya go sonny. He admits it and is quite proud of it! Hell I would be to. You decide what America sees and hears the easiest way to control them.

Do Jews Control the Media Alan Dershowitz

Ah an leftist jew he tries to downplay it of course...go ahead call the LA times and Huff Post anti semitic...


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Pictures are different. One 'cropping President Bush out' is a street scene. One with him in frame is on a bridge. Could just be the street scene had many more marchers so made a better picture, whereas the one with President Bush on the bridge had far fewer.


----------



## Statistikhengst

This is going to shock NLT, but I agree. Former Pres. Bush and former FLOTUS Laura Bush should not have been cropped out of the main photo. However, there was more than one photo,if I recall. I just don't think both of them made it into the article.

I think it is fantastic that they went. Good for them.

The NYT article does, however, report that they were there.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Think they coulda panned right a bit excluding whoever those 3 women are at far-left to get President Bush, but it's not like the article claimed he wasn't there. Actually says they did mention he was there. 

Instead of thinking it was conscious and deliberate I'd think it was just bad editing. They saw a pic with thousands visible and went with that one for their cover instead of the other with what looks like only a few dozen. Right decision, but bad editing.


----------



## depotoo

Well, the bridge one definitely had Bush in it and was also cropped, dear.








Why do you try to provide cover when it is so obvious?  It harms you, not them.

The nyt harmed themselves years ago.







Skylar said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
Click to expand...


----------



## Redfish

Odium said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and who are these "real culprits" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These 6 Corporations Control 90 Of The Media In America - Business Insider
> Six Jewish Companies Control 96 of the World s Media
> 
> Had to make sure to give you a source other than an alternate media option so you could verify it.
Click to expand...

 

I knew it--------------------the evil corporations,  got it.


Now, care to tell us how many people those 6 evil corporations provide employment for, both directly and indirectly?  and how much those millions of people pay in federal state and local taxes?  No?  didn't think so.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

jillian said:


> tissue?




Lol, didn't think the whitewashing of history would bother you.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

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.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.


----------



## The Rabbi

Odium said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and who are these "real culprits" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These 6 Corporations Control 90 Of The Media In America - Business Insider
> Six Jewish Companies Control 96 of the World s Media
> 
> Had to make sure to give you a source other than an alternate media option so you could verify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes, radical anti-Semitic web sites are now reliable sources among radical anti-Semites.
> Thanks, dolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business Insider is a anti semite website! Hurry you better go tell them!  How about some articles from your own race eh dickhead?Who runs Hollywood C mon - Los Angeles Times
> 
> There ya go sonny. He admits it and is quite proud of it! Hell I would be to. You decide what America sees and hears the easiest way to control them.
> 
> Do Jews Control the Media Alan Dershowitz
> 
> Ah an leftist jew he tries to downplay it of course...go ahead call the LA times and Huff Post anti semitic...
Click to expand...

It's the worldwide Zionist conspiracy!  Run!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Statistikhengst said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



Good for you.

no sarcasm


----------



## paulitician

Typical Communist Media behavior. The usual suspect Race-Baiter  Dems are pissed off he showed up, and they'd be pissed off if he didn't. So it's 'Damed if you Do, Damned if you Don't' with the hateful Race-Baiters. 

But that's ok, less & less Americans are taking them seriously anymore. You can only hate and cry wolf so often. It's gotten to be very tired and old at this point.


----------



## hortysir

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.


He is important enough to include, especially when we have Dembulbs around here starting threads that "republican leadership absent from Selma"


----------



## Statistikhengst

paulitician said:


> Typical Communist Media behavior. The usual suspect Race-Baiter  Dems are pissed off he showed up, and they'd be pissed off if he didn't. So it's 'Damed if you Do, Damned if you Don't' with the hateful Race-Baiters.
> 
> But that's ok, less & less Americans are taking them seriously anymore. You can only hate and cry wolf so often. It's gotten to be very tired and old at this point.




Are you done ranting now?


----------



## hortysir

Statistikhengst said:


> This is going to shock NLT, but I agree. Former Pres. Bush and former FLOTUS Laura Bush should not have been cropped out of the main photo. However, there was more than one photo,if I recall.
> 
> I think it is fantastic that they went. Good for them.
> 
> The NYT article does, however, report that they were there.


'continued on page 15 as an afterthought


----------



## paulitician

Statistikhengst said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Communist Media behavior. The usual suspect Race-Baiter  Dems are pissed off he showed up, and they'd be pissed off if he didn't. So it's 'Damed if you Do, Damned if you Don't' with the hateful Race-Baiters.
> 
> But that's ok, less & less Americans are taking them seriously anymore. You can only hate and cry wolf so often. It's gotten to be very tired and old at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done ranting now?
Click to expand...


Maybe. We'll see.


----------



## Statistikhengst

paulitician said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Communist Media behavior. The usual suspect Race-Baiter  Dems are pissed off he showed up, and they'd be pissed off if he didn't. So it's 'Damed if you Do, Damned if you Don't' with the hateful Race-Baiters.
> 
> But that's ok, less & less Americans are taking them seriously anymore. You can only hate and cry wolf so often. It's gotten to be very tired and old at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done ranting now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. We'll see.
Click to expand...





Well, at least you are honest about your stay at Sunny Dale Sanitarium.

Progress!


----------



## Ernie S.

Delta4Embassy said:


> Pictures are different. One 'cropping President Bush out' is a street scene. One with him in frame is on a bridge. Could just be the street scene had many more marchers so made a better picture, whereas the one with President Bush on the bridge had far fewer.


Yeah right. This is the Times. Couldn't be any agenda there.


----------



## paulitician

Let's be real, the Democrats are scared shitless more African Americans are beginning to choose the other Party. Their Race-Baiting hate won't be enough to keep em all on the Plantation forever. Many more will choose other options.


----------



## Statistikhengst

hortysir said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is going to shock NLT, but I agree. Former Pres. Bush and former FLOTUS Laura Bush should not have been cropped out of the main photo. However, there was more than one photo,if I recall.
> 
> I think it is fantastic that they went. Good for them.
> 
> The NYT article does, however, report that they were there.
> 
> 
> 
> 'continued on page 15 as an afterthought
Click to expand...



That is, however, typical NYT format, has been for decades. I would not place too much value on that.


----------



## paulitician

Statistikhengst said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Communist Media behavior. The usual suspect Race-Baiter  Dems are pissed off he showed up, and they'd be pissed off if he didn't. So it's 'Damed if you Do, Damned if you Don't' with the hateful Race-Baiters.
> 
> But that's ok, less & less Americans are taking them seriously anymore. You can only hate and cry wolf so often. It's gotten to be very tired and old at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done ranting now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. We'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you are honest about your stay at Sunny Dale Sanitarium.
> 
> Progress!
Click to expand...


 Ha, that all you got? Pretty weak.


----------



## Ernie S.

Statistikhengst said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## BlindBoo

Considering how much he has stayed out of the limelight these past 6 years, I wouldn't be surprised if he asked them to crop him out.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.




Too bad we couldnt have edited out our current worthless buffoon.


----------



## paulitician

The New York Times = Communist/Progressive Democrat Bullshite

Anymore questions?


----------



## Roadrunner

NLT said:


> George W Bush cropped out of New York Times front cover image of Selma march - Telegraph
> 
> Libturds taking pettiness to a new low


Reminds one of all the people Stalin cropped out of pictures.

I am sure Obama envies Uncle Joe's ability to do more than crop them out.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Typical Communist Media behavior. The usual suspect Race-Baiter  Dems are pissed off he showed up, and they'd be pissed off if he didn't. So it's 'Damed if you Do, Damned if you Don't' with the hateful Race-Baiters.
> 
> But that's ok, less & less Americans are taking them seriously anymore. You can only hate and cry wolf so often. It's gotten to be very tired and old at this point.


Pretty close.... They are pissed he was there because they can't act all pissed because he wasn't. It's all about the show.
The hoped for narrative is racist Republicans didn't come because they hate blacks. So they have to crop a photo so that low info Dem voters receive the right message.


----------



## jillian

LordBrownTrout said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, didn't think the whitewashing of history would bother you.
Click to expand...

The fact that the rightwingnuts are faux-raging over this is pretty pathetic.


----------



## BlindBoo

jillian said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, didn't think the whitewashing of history would bother you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that the rightwingnuts are faux-raging over this is pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...


Petite fauxrage?


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *



Those are two different photos, dumbass!


----------



## Synthaholic

depotoo said:


> Yeah, and they don't mention him being there until 12 paragraphs later, on page 15.


Republicans:  "Look at ME!!!  Not all those Black people.  Look at ME!!!!"


----------



## PoliticalChic

Odium said:


> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.





I was waiting for some apologist for the totalitarians...and you popped righto out of the oubliette to do your job!


Here is more of the same, just a tad more disingenuous....

"*NBC News Reporter Maria Shriver Lies about Lack of GOP Leadership at Selma*

Maria Shriver, *a prominent member of the Democrat Party*’s Kennedy clan and a Special Anchor for NBC News, took to Twitter Saturday evening to* smear Republicans *over the fiftieth anniversary observation held in Selma to mark a pivotal moment in the Civil Rights movement. Shriver falsely said that no one from Republican leadership attended besides former President George W. Bush.

After taking her swipe at Republicans, Shriver piously added, “Not a partisan issue.”

Shriver has about 2,330,000 followers on Twitter, giving her inflammatory false report about Republicans a wide reach."
NBC News Reporter Maria Shriver Lies about Lack of GOP Leadership at Selma The Gateway Pundit




Disgusting Liberals/Progrssives/Democrats.


----------



## Synthaholic

Why didn't George Bush walk along the other side of the street instead of with Rep. John Lewis and President Obama (praise be unto Him!)?

He must be a racist, right?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are different pictures.
Click to expand...




In one short post you reveal yourself to be a liar, an imbecile, and a Leftist apologist.

Don't ever change.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was waiting for some apologist for the totalitarians...and you popped righto out of the oubliette to do your job!
> 
> 
> Here is more of the same, just a tad more disingenuous....
> 
> "*NBC News Reporter Maria Shriver Lies about Lack of GOP Leadership at Selma*
> 
> Maria Shriver, *a prominent member of the Democrat Party*’s Kennedy clan and a Special Anchor for NBC News, took to Twitter Saturday evening to* smear Republicans *over the fiftieth anniversary observation held in Selma to mark a pivotal moment in the Civil Rights movement. Shriver falsely said that no one from Republican leadership attended besides former President George W. Bush.
> 
> After taking her swipe at Republicans, Shriver piously added, “Not a partisan issue.”
> 
> Shriver has about 2,330,000 followers on Twitter, giving her inflammatory false report about Republicans a wide reach."
> NBC News Reporter Maria Shriver Lies about Lack of GOP Leadership at Selma The Gateway Pundit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disgusting Liberals/Progrssives/Democrats.
Click to expand...

Who else from Leadership showed up?


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one short post you reveal yourself to be a liar, an imbecile, and a Leftist apologist.
> 
> Don't ever change.
Click to expand...

You're claiming those are the same photos?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Look at Obama's arms, if you are that dense and need help.

ETA:  Hell, look at Malia, on the left-hand side, then repeat your ignorance.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.





No, they are not.....you liar/Democrat (redundant?)

They are pictures of the same event at roughly the same time, with President Bush removed for the purpose, as Democrat Liberal Liar Maria Shriver claimed, GOP did not attend.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.....
Click to expand...

That takes fucking balls, to blatantly lie when the truth is obvious that they are two different photos.

You have no integrity.


----------



## PoliticalChic

jillian said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, didn't think the whitewashing of history would bother you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that the rightwingnuts are faux-raging over this is pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...



More proof that Liberals/*Progressives don’t  make judgments about evil,or bad behavior.
It is an inveterate and indelible element of their character....as proven by your post.*

Interesting that both you and Netanyahu have the same nick name…”BB”…him due to his first name, you, due to brain size.


----------



## NYcarbineer

More rightwing victimology. 

The comical premise here is the claim that Bush is somehow entitled to be in the photo.

Maybe you RWnuts could add that to your list of proposed constitutional amendments.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Of course they say they didn't do it on purpose...yeah...they just forgot that a former U.S. President was marching with their beloved one. It didn't occur to them to how that TWO Presidents being there, white and black, side by side..nah...that is not the message they want to put forth.
  Dumbasses...

White House NYT leave Bushes out of lead photos from Selma march Fox News

NY Times Crops Bush Out Of Selma Picture Highlights Ferguson The Daily Caller

George W Bush cropped out of New York Times front cover image of Selma march - Telegraph


NYT front photo......





Actual event...






Look again at NYT photo...look who pops out next to the President...yeah...they chose a photo with Al Sharpton...so much more important that a former President of the United States.
Didn't fit the agenda.


----------



## depotoo

Now, wasn't that an unintelligent comment. 





Synthaholic said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and they don't mention him being there until 12 paragraphs later, on page 15.
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans:  "Look at ME!!!  Not all those Black people.  Look at ME!!!!"
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> More rightwing victimology.
> 
> The comical premise here is the claim that Bush is somehow entitled to be in the photo.
> 
> Maybe you RWnuts could add that to your list of proposed constitutional amendments.





The NYLiar drops by......to lie.


The NYSlimes, the paper of record,lies with this photo.

Democrat apparatchik compounds the lie by denying Bush was there.

And NYLiar swears to both.


----------



## BlindBoo

paulitician said:


> The New York Times = Communist/Progressive Democrat Bullshite
> 
> Anymore questions?



How do you reconcile the fact that they were in-bed-with the Bush/GOP led invasion and occupation of Iraq?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> More rightwing victimology.
> 
> The comical premise here is the claim that Bush is somehow entitled to be in the photo.
> 
> Maybe you RWnuts could add that to your list of proposed constitutional amendments.





"....your list of proposed constitutional amendments."

Could you list any constitutional amendments that I've proposed?

Or....is this merely another of your attempts to burnish your liar credentials?


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.....you liar/Democrat (redundant?)
> 
> They are pictures of the same event at roughly the same time, with President Bush removed for the purpose, as Democrat Liberal Liar Maria Shriver claimed, GOP did not attend.
Click to expand...


They are not the same picture, idiot.


----------



## Statistikhengst

paulitician said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Communist Media behavior. The usual suspect Race-Baiter  Dems are pissed off he showed up, and they'd be pissed off if he didn't. So it's 'Damed if you Do, Damned if you Don't' with the hateful Race-Baiters.
> 
> But that's ok, less & less Americans are taking them seriously anymore. You can only hate and cry wolf so often. It's gotten to be very tired and old at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done ranting now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. We'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you are honest about your stay at Sunny Dale Sanitarium.
> 
> Progress!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, that all you got? Pretty weak.
Click to expand...



I put on the kid gloves for the weak at heart like you, snookums.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.....you liar/Democrat (redundant?)
> 
> They are pictures of the same event at roughly the same time, with President Bush removed for the purpose, as Democrat Liberal Liar Maria Shriver claimed, GOP did not attend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not the same picture, idiot.
Click to expand...



I was gonna say you're a liar....but everyone already knows.


----------



## hortysir

BlindBoo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Times = Communist/Progressive Democrat Bullshite
> 
> Anymore questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Times = Communist/Progressive Democrat Bullshite
> 
> Anymore questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you reconcile the fact that they were in-bed-with the Bush/GOP led invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Click to expand...

The same way we "justify" the majority of dem congressional members were also on board


----------



## SuperDemocrat

NLT said:


> George W Bush cropped out of New York Times front cover image of Selma march - Telegraph
> 
> Libturds taking pettiness to a new low



Who cares!   The truth isn't as important as political goals.  It is important to realize that truth can be sacrificed for the greater good?  Would you really want people to know conservatives aren't racist


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> More rightwing victimology.
> 
> The comical premise here is the claim that Bush is somehow entitled to be in the photo.
> 
> Maybe you RWnuts could add that to your list of proposed constitutional amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NYLiar drops by......to lie.
> 
> 
> The NYSlimes, the paper of record,lies with this photo.
> 
> Democrat apparatchik compounds the lie by denying Bush was there.
> 
> And NYLiar swears to both.
Click to expand...


The photo was not a cropped version of the one you posted.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> More rightwing victimology.
> 
> The comical premise here is the claim that Bush is somehow entitled to be in the photo.
> 
> Maybe you RWnuts could add that to your list of proposed constitutional amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NYLiar drops by......to lie.
> 
> 
> The NYSlimes, the paper of record,lies with this photo.
> 
> Democrat apparatchik compounds the lie by denying Bush was there.
> 
> And NYLiar swears to both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The photo was not a cropped version of the one you posted.
Click to expand...




Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;

1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
2. Where the same objects photographed?
3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?


Hint: all five have the same correct response.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are two different photos, dumbass!
Click to expand...




Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;

1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
2. Where the same objects photographed?
3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?


Hint: all five have the same correct response.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
Click to expand...




Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;

1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
2. Where the same objects photographed?
3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?


Hint: all five have the same correct response.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *



Anyone with a brain should be able to tell that they are two different photos, just by the position of the President's head and  tie.

NOT one photo, cropped.

Now, was that so hard?


----------



## BlindBoo

hortysir said:


> The same way we "justify" the majority of dem congressional members were also on board



Oh you mean by lying or being lied to?

147 Democrats in Congress voted against Iraq Resolution

111 Democrats in Congress voted for Iraq Resolution.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
Click to expand...


Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.

lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.


----------



## Edgetho

Dozens -- No, HUNDREDS of photos were taken of the Lying Cocksucker in Chief marching in a parade he had NO right to claim as having anything to do with....  He has NO (0), Zero, American Slave Blood in him.....**

In fact, the Lying Cocksucker in Chief was raised in White Privilege and later took advantage of Affirmative Action programs....

But that's not why I called.

The photos are seconds, maybe milliseconds, apart.

The New Yawk Slimes is saying they're using the photos sent them.  No shit.

But, being the scum of the earth -- dimocrap filth, they lied....  They omitted that they also got Dozens, maybe HUNDREDS of photos with the Bush family in them.

Whether the photo is cropped or not is completely irrelevant and only dimocrap morons would even think to bring it up.

The Slimes was sent HUNDREDS of photos with the Bush family in them and chose not to run one.

There is one with them in it 'after the jump'.  Why couldn't they have run that one at the top of the page?

Simple:  They're the scum of the earth.  Like all dimocraps.

P.S.
** If you're dumb enough to believe that Barack 'the drunken idiot' Obama Sr is his real father  (he isn't, it's Frank Marshall Davis, Member; Communist Party USA)

The entire dimocrap scum party is just one lie after another


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
Click to expand...




Here ya' go, NYLiar:



Same:
*2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary



And, to review:

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.


Today it's Trick #2 on display:


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
Click to expand...


You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?


----------



## Skylar

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the two pictures being compared in the OP....are different pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
Click to expand...



Those aren't the same photograph. They have different angles. 

For your claim to be accurate, the photo that the NY Times used had to have Bush in it originally...with the NY Times cropping him out. 

You've presented no evidence that this the case. Instead, you've shown us a completely different picture from a completely different angle.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Did they crop Jeb Bush out too?

lol


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
Click to expand...




Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.

Here, try again:

1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
2. Where the same objects photographed?
3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?


Hint: all five have the same correct response.


----------



## Skylar

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
Click to expand...


I don't think 'crop' means what Political Chic thinks it means.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Skylar said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't the same photograph. They have different angles.
> 
> For your claim to be accurate, the photo that the NY Times used had to have Bush in it originally...with the NY Times cropping him out.
> 
> You've presented no evidence that this the case. Instead, you've shown us a completely different picture from a completely different angle.
Click to expand...


The RWnuts have pulled their usual stunt.  They've manufactured an entirely false premise and then attacked the Times based on that false premise.

It's what they do.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell us it was an accident?  If so, noone that has any sense will fall for it.  They had a choice to post a photo also with Bush.  They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't the same photograph. They have different angles.
> 
> For your claim to be accurate, the photo that the NY Times used had to have Bush in it originally...with the NY Times cropping him out.
> 
> You've presented no evidence that this the case. Instead, you've shown us a completely different picture from a completely different angle.
Click to expand...



Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.

Here, try again:

1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
2. Where the same objects photographed?
3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?


Hint: all five have the same correct response.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.
> 
> Here, try again:
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
Click to expand...


Your questions are based on a false premise, so they are irrelevant.


----------



## Skylar

NYcarbineer said:


> The RWnuts have pulled their usual stunt.  They've manufactured an entirely false premise and then attacked the Times based on that false premise.
> 
> It's what they do.



Yeah, how can you crop Bush from a photo that he wasn't in? 

Could someone explain that to me?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think 'crop' means what Political Chic thinks it means.
Click to expand...




You know exactly what I mean and what the OP reveals, don't you, you liar.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RWnuts have pulled their usual stunt.  They've manufactured an entirely false premise and then attacked the Times based on that false premise.
> 
> It's what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, how can you crop Bush from a photo that he wasn't in?
> 
> Could someone explain that to me?
Click to expand...




Sure....just answer the questions below:

1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
2. Where the same objects photographed?
3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.
> 
> Here, try again:
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your questions are based on a false premise, so they are irrelevant.
Click to expand...




I would say you've been exposed as a lying sack of sewage....

....but that would be gilding the lily, wouldn't it.


----------



## Pogo

I love the way Al Sharpton's peeking out from behind O'bama's shoulder, going "please notice me".  

What an attention whore.

Btw look at the *background *in both pics.  There are a lot more people showing in the one that the NYT ran than in the one with Bush on the side.  That prolly has more to do with the choice than anything.  Looks like ten times the impact.


----------



## rightwinger

The picture looks better without Bush in it. He is on the other side of the divider

Maybe next time Bush will learn where to position himself when the cameras start snapping


----------



## Skylar

PoliticalChic said:


> You know exactly what I mean and what the OP reveals, don't you, you liar.



So when the OP said '*NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*" they didn't actually mean that the NY Times crops George W. Bush from Selma March photo?

I don't think 'crop' means what you think it means. For example, how do you crop someone out of a photo that they aren't in?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know exactly what I mean and what the OP reveals, don't you, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the OP said '*NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*" they didn't actually mean that the NY Times crops George W. BVush from Selma March photo?
> 
> I don't think 'crop' means what you think it means. For example, how do you crop someone out of a photo that they aren't in?
Click to expand...



I have to teach you English as well as decorum????





*Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image *to improve framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio. Depending on the application, this may be performed on a physical *photograph*, artwork or film footage, or achieved digitally using *image *editing software.
*Cropping (image) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Cropping*_(*image*)
Wikipedia

Of course, here, it was for political reasons.


In your face!


----------



## NYcarbineer

lol, I guess the next time GW Bush will know better than to take pains to distance himself from the President.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know exactly what I mean and what the OP reveals, don't you, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the OP said '*NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*" they didn't actually mean that the NY Times crops George W. BVush from Selma March photo?
> 
> I don't think 'crop' means what you think it means. For example, how do you crop someone out of a photo that they aren't in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have to teach you English as well as decorum????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image *to improve framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio. Depending on the application, this may be performed on a physical *photograph*, artwork or film footage, or achieved digitally using *image *editing software.
> *Cropping (image) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Cropping*_(*image*)
> Wikipedia
> 
> Of course, here, it was for political reasons.
> 
> 
> In your face!
Click to expand...


*to improve framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio.*

...so you're accusing the Times of running a photo whose framing had been improved and whose subject matter had been accentuated.

Goddam, it's the end of the world.


----------



## Skylar

PoliticalChic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know exactly what I mean and what the OP reveals, don't you, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the OP said '*NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*" they didn't actually mean that the NY Times crops George W. BVush from Selma March photo?
> 
> I don't think 'crop' means what you think it means. For example, how do you crop someone out of a photo that they aren't in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have to teach you English as well as decorum????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image *to improve framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio. Depending on the application, this may be performed on a physical *photograph*, artwork or film footage, or achieved digitally using *image *editing software.
> *Cropping (image) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Cropping*_(*image*)
> Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Yup. What's your evidence that the photo that the NY Times used originally had Bush in the frame? Remember, the photo you compare it to.....was a completely different photo from a completely different angle.


----------



## rightwinger

The photo looks better without Bush in it

Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider


----------



## HUGGY

No worries.  They can't deny George his place in history leading us into two unnecessary wars.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know exactly what I mean and what the OP reveals, don't you, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the OP said '*NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*" they didn't actually mean that the NY Times crops George W. BVush from Selma March photo?
> 
> I don't think 'crop' means what you think it means. For example, how do you crop someone out of a photo that they aren't in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have to teach you English as well as decorum????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image *to improve framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio. Depending on the application, this may be performed on a physical *photograph*, artwork or film footage, or achieved digitally using *image *editing software.
> *Cropping (image) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Cropping*_(*image*)
> Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. What's your evidence that the photo that the NY Times used originally had Bush in the frame? Remember, the photo you compare it to.....was a completely different photo from a completely different angle.
Click to expand...




The pertinent evidence is this thread, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a lying sack of sewage, and a boot-licker for the Left.

All true, isn't it?


----------



## Skylar

PoliticalChic said:


> The pertinent evidence is this thread, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a lying sack of sewage, and a boot-licker for the Left.



There is no evidence in the thread that the original photo had Bush in frame. As the picture you offer as 'evidence'* isn't the original photo. *Its a completely different photo from a completely different angle.

You can't change the angle a photo was taken from by cropping it.....you get that, right?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

rightwinger said:


> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider



 Really? 
Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton. 
  As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.


----------



## AmericanFirst

rightwinger said:


> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider


Typical stupid you are.


----------



## PoliticalChic

HUGGY said:


> No worries.  They can't deny George his place in history leading us into two unnecessary wars.




Folks who didn't think of same as unnecessary: 
John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Robt Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Henry Waxman, Bob Graham.....et al.

Did you notice which party they all belong to?


Did you?

'Cause, I can help if you didn't.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent evidence is this thread, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a lying sack of sewage, and a boot-licker for the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence in the thread that the original photo had Bush in frame. As the picture you offer as 'evidence'* isn't the original photo. *Its a completely different photo from a completely different angle.
> 
> You can't change the angle a photo was taken from by cropping it.....you get that, right?
Click to expand...




You've been exposed as a liar and a Democrat boot-liker.

Dismissed.


----------



## Stephanie

I don't know why anyone would pay for that slimy leftwing rag. they didn't nickname it the NewYakSlimes for no reason


----------



## rightwinger

Stephanie said:


> I don't why anyone would pay for that slimy leftwing rag. they didn't nickname it the NewYakSlimes for no reason


 
Finest newspaper in the nation


----------



## rightwinger

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
> As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.
Click to expand...

 
Looks like John Lewis next to the President

Nobody deserves to walk with the President more than John Lewis


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know exactly what I mean and what the OP reveals, don't you, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the OP said '*NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*" they didn't actually mean that the NY Times crops George W. BVush from Selma March photo?
> 
> I don't think 'crop' means what you think it means. For example, how do you crop someone out of a photo that they aren't in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have to teach you English as well as decorum????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image *to improve framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio. Depending on the application, this may be performed on a physical *photograph*, artwork or film footage, or achieved digitally using *image *editing software.
> *Cropping (image) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Cropping*_(*image*)
> Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. What's your evidence that the photo that the NY Times used originally had Bush in the frame? Remember, the photo you compare it to.....was a completely different photo from a completely different angle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent evidence is this thread, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a lying sack of sewage, and a boot-licker for the Left.
> 
> All true, isn't it?
Click to expand...


You've been reduced to foul mouthed ranting.  As usual.


----------



## BlindBoo




----------



## iamwhatiseem

Another photo from different news outlet...







And another.....






another...







NYT - chose Al Sharpton...and so did Obama's handlers.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Stephanie said:


> I don't why anyone would pay for that slimy leftwing rag. they didn't nickname it the NewYakSlimes for no reason



Yak?  A moose calling the Times a yak.  That's hilarious.


----------



## Pogo

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
> As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.
Click to expand...


As already noted, Sharpton is _behind _O'bama, trying desperately to get into the picture (which says more about him than he might want).  Walking _beside _the POTUS are John Lewis and (in the wheelchair, 103 years old) Amelia Boynton Robinson, both of whom were directly and dramatically involved 50 years ago.  And then the First Family.  George Wallace's daughter was also there although I don't know what she looks like.

Methinks Fox Noise doth whine a bit too much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault on a slow news day on what should be a positive event.

Fox Noise does not like positive.  Doesn't $ell.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Bush wasn't exterminated.  He was just obscured by the mushroom cloud of Saddam's nuke hitting NYC...

...probably from Syria.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Pogo said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
> As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As already noted, Sharpton is behind O'bama, trying desperately to get into the picture (which says more about him than he might want).  Walking next to the POTUS are John Lewis and (in the wheelchair, 103 years old) Amelia Boynton Robinson, both of whom were directly and dramatically involved 50 years ago.  And then the First Family.
> 
> Methinks Fox Noise doth whine a bit too much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault on a slow news day on what should be a positive event.
> 
> Fox Noise does not like positive.  Doesn't $ell.
Click to expand...


It's not Fox News. I specifically noted two other links for whiners like you.
As also stated, even MSNBC...I say again...even MSNBC included Bush in their photos and videos. 
Even MSNBC.


----------



## Pogo

iamwhatiseem said:


> Another photo from different news outlet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYT - chose Al Sharpton...and so did Obama's handlers.




I like the last one.  It's the most powerful.

When you want to convey the impact of a large gathering though, you need a massive crowd.  Your first pic has it, but aesthetically it's also a high-angle perspective and has the distraction of those traffic lights.  You have to realize what graphics editors are looking for, and making sure every notable figure gets in there really isn't high on the priority list.


----------



## rightwinger

I was very glad to see both Presidents Bush and Obama at the ceremony

I was also glad that none of the 2016 Presidential candidates were there. It would have politicized a solemn  event


----------



## TheOldSchool

The NYT cover is a waaaaay better photo than the others in this thread.  Discard whatever agenda your paranoid about and look at the composition of the photos.  It's not even a contest.


----------



## Skylar

PoliticalChic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent evidence is this thread, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a lying sack of sewage, and a boot-licker for the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence in the thread that the original photo had Bush in frame. As the picture you offer as 'evidence'* isn't the original photo. *Its a completely different photo from a completely different angle.
> 
> You can't change the angle a photo was taken from by cropping it.....you get that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been exposed as a liar and a Democrat boot-liker.
> 
> Dismissed.
Click to expand...


Translation: you can't possibly explain h ow someone could be cropped from a photo they aren't in.

So you're going to ignore anyone who asks.

Shrugs....you can't fix stupid.


----------



## Pogo

iamwhatiseem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
> As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As already noted, Sharpton is behind O'bama, trying desperately to get into the picture (which says more about him than he might want).  Walking next to the POTUS are John Lewis and (in the wheelchair, 103 years old) Amelia Boynton Robinson, both of whom were directly and dramatically involved 50 years ago.  And then the First Family.
> 
> Methinks Fox Noise doth whine a bit too much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault on a slow news day on what should be a positive event.
> 
> Fox Noise does not like positive.  Doesn't $ell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not Fox News. I specifically noted two other links for whiners like you.
> As also stated, even MSNBC...I say again...even MSNBC included Bush in their photos and videos.
> Even MSNBC.
Click to expand...


And I already essplained to you about graphics.  The shot they ran on the front page has a LOT more people in it than the alternate with Bush on the side.  That's worth a lot more than a "who's who" list for visual impact.  I mean it's not even close.

Which brings one to wonder -- is this event supposed to be about commemorating a significant event in civil rights history -- or is this even supposed to be about George Bush?  Which is more important?

Sorry, this really is scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel whining.  Would it kill them to  just acknowledge Selma and its significance?   Does everything they do have to be some kind of political football score?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Pogo said:


> When you want to convey the impact of a large gathering though, you need a massive crowd.  Your first pic has it, but aesthetically it's also a high-angle perspective and has the distraction of those traffic lights.  *You have to realize what graphics editors are looking for, and making sure every notable figure gets in there really isn't high on the priority list.*



 Yeah your right...choosing a photo with less traffic lights, and a creepy Sharpton pop-up over a photo placing together TWO U.S. Presidents together is much more powerful message.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Stephanie said:


> I don't know why anyone would pay for that slimy leftwing rag. they didn't nickname it the NewYakSlimes for no reason





Circulation and advertising revenue locked in a downward death spiral with no bottom in sight.


----------



## rightwinger

Pogo said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another photo from different news outlet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYT - chose Al Sharpton...and so did Obama's handlers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the last one.  It's the most powerful.
> 
> When you want to convey the impact of a large gathering though, you need a massive crowd.  Your first pic has it, but aesthetically it's also a high-angle perspective and has the distraction of those traffic lights.  You have to realize what graphics editors are looking for, and making sure every notable figure gets in there really isn't high on the priority list.
Click to expand...

 
I also liked the last one. But it shows a moment of silence from the speakers platform

The New York Times cover photo shows them marching over the bridge which was the idea. The wide shot with the barrier between the marchers is not as good a photo as the one they printed


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skylar said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent evidence is this thread, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a lying sack of sewage, and a boot-licker for the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence in the thread that the original photo had Bush in frame. As the picture you offer as 'evidence'* isn't the original photo. *Its a completely different photo from a completely different angle.
> 
> You can't change the angle a photo was taken from by cropping it.....you get that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been exposed as a liar and a Democrat boot-liker.
> 
> Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: you can't possibly explain h ow someone could be cropped from a photo they aren't in.
> 
> So you're going to ignore anyone who asks.
> 
> Shrugs....you can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...




You can  try to dig yourself out of the hole you've buried yourself in, but it isn't possible.


What have we learned about you?
If you were given an enema, you could be buried in a matchbox.


You've served your purpose.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Pogo said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
> As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As already noted, Sharpton is behind O'bama, trying desperately to get into the picture (which says more about him than he might want).  Walking next to the POTUS are John Lewis and (in the wheelchair, 103 years old) Amelia Boynton Robinson, both of whom were directly and dramatically involved 50 years ago.  And then the First Family.
> 
> Methinks Fox Noise doth whine a bit too much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault on a slow news day on what should be a positive event.
> 
> Fox Noise does not like positive.  Doesn't $ell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not Fox News. I specifically noted two other links for whiners like you.
> As also stated, even MSNBC...I say again...even MSNBC included Bush in their photos and videos.
> Even MSNBC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I already essplained to you about graphics.  The shot they ran on the front page has a LOT more people in it than the alternate with Bush on the side.  That's worth a lot more than a "who's who" list for visual impact.  I mean it's not even close.
> 
> Which brings one to wonder -- is this event supposed to be about commemorating a significant event in civil rights history -- or is this even supposed to be about George Bush?  Which is more important?
> 
> Sorry, this really is scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel whining.  Would it kill them to  just acknowledge Selma and its significance?   Does everything they do have to be some kind of political football score?
Click to expand...


Are you really that dumb?
You don't see the significance and message brought by having two Presidents, different party, VERY different political beliefs, one blacj and one white - HOLDING HANDS TOGETHER in SELMA has MORE significance that a photo with a queer Al Sharpton pop-up.
Really...you wanna say that again.

 Also AGAIN - every news outlet other than NYT showed both Presidents - even MSNBC!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Pogo

iamwhatiseem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you want to convey the impact of a large gathering though, you need a massive crowd.  Your first pic has it, but aesthetically it's also a high-angle perspective and has the distraction of those traffic lights.  *You have to realize what graphics editors are looking for, and making sure every notable figure gets in there really isn't high on the priority list.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah your right...choosing a photo with less traffic lights, and a creepy Sharpton pop-up over a photo placing together TWO U.S. Presidents together is much more powerful message.
Click to expand...


Traffic lights strong across the horizontal plane distract the eye.  That's just biology.
I suppose the traffic lights could have been photoshopped out.  Al Sharpton could have been photoshopped out too. But then *he'd *start whining.  And for reasons I can't fathom he's got a TV show to do it.

I think Sharpton should have been told the march was in Seattle and left waiting.  His presence cheapens the event.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

rightwinger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another photo from different news outlet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYT - chose Al Sharpton...and so did Obama's handlers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the last one.  It's the most powerful.
> 
> When you want to convey the impact of a large gathering though, you need a massive crowd.  Your first pic has it, but aesthetically it's also a high-angle perspective and has the distraction of those traffic lights.  You have to realize what graphics editors are looking for, and making sure every notable figure gets in there really isn't high on the priority list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also liked the last one. But it shows a moment of silence from the speakers platform
> 
> The New York Times cover photo shows them marching over the bridge which was the idea. The wide shot with the barrier between the marchers is not as good a photo as the one they printed
Click to expand...


It's not just the front page RW'ger...as noted by all articles..photos on other pages was also without Bush. I have not seen it of course, but according to them not till the end  of the piece did they include Bush.
That is stupid. And unfortunate.
 Showing two Presidents with very, very, very different politics, one white and one black, one Democrat and the other Republican - holding hands on the anniversary of Selma is significant! It shows that everyone, no matter race or politics can agree and honor what happened there and civil rights in general.
  But that is not what is on NYT's agenda. They instead spent most of the covereage talking about Ferguson.
Pathetic.


----------



## rightwinger

iamwhatiseem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
> As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As already noted, Sharpton is behind O'bama, trying desperately to get into the picture (which says more about him than he might want).  Walking next to the POTUS are John Lewis and (in the wheelchair, 103 years old) Amelia Boynton Robinson, both of whom were directly and dramatically involved 50 years ago.  And then the First Family.
> 
> Methinks Fox Noise doth whine a bit too much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault on a slow news day on what should be a positive event.
> 
> Fox Noise does not like positive.  Doesn't $ell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not Fox News. I specifically noted two other links for whiners like you.
> As also stated, even MSNBC...I say again...even MSNBC included Bush in their photos and videos.
> Even MSNBC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I already essplained to you about graphics.  The shot they ran on the front page has a LOT more people in it than the alternate with Bush on the side.  That's worth a lot more than a "who's who" list for visual impact.  I mean it's not even close.
> 
> Which brings one to wonder -- is this event supposed to be about commemorating a significant event in civil rights history -- or is this even supposed to be about George Bush?  Which is more important?
> 
> Sorry, this really is scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel whining.  Would it kill them to  just acknowledge Selma and its significance?   Does everything they do have to be some kind of political football score?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that dumb?
> You don't see the significance and message brought by having two Presidents, different party, VERY different political beliefs, one blacj and one white - HOLDING HANDS TOGETHER in SELMA has MORE significance that a photo with a queer Al Sharpton pop-up.
> Really...you wanna say that again.
> 
> Also AGAIN - every news outlet other than NYT showed both Presidents - even MSNBC!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

 
The day was not about Bush

It was about those who struggled on that day
Both John Lewis and 103 yr old Amelia Robinson deserved their spots


----------



## Pogo

iamwhatiseem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
> As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As already noted, Sharpton is behind O'bama, trying desperately to get into the picture (which says more about him than he might want).  Walking next to the POTUS are John Lewis and (in the wheelchair, 103 years old) Amelia Boynton Robinson, both of whom were directly and dramatically involved 50 years ago.  And then the First Family.
> 
> Methinks Fox Noise doth whine a bit too much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault on a slow news day on what should be a positive event.
> 
> Fox Noise does not like positive.  Doesn't $ell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not Fox News. I specifically noted two other links for whiners like you.
> As also stated, even MSNBC...I say again...even MSNBC included Bush in their photos and videos.
> Even MSNBC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I already essplained to you about graphics.  The shot they ran on the front page has a LOT more people in it than the alternate with Bush on the side.  That's worth a lot more than a "who's who" list for visual impact.  I mean it's not even close.
> 
> Which brings one to wonder -- is this event supposed to be about commemorating a significant event in civil rights history -- or is this even supposed to be about George Bush?  Which is more important?
> 
> Sorry, this really is scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel whining.  Would it kill them to  just acknowledge Selma and its significance?   Does everything they do have to be some kind of political football score?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that dumb?
> You don't see the significance and message brought by having two Presidents, different party, VERY different political beliefs, one blacj and one white - HOLDING HANDS TOGETHER in SELMA has MORE significance that a photo with a queer Al Sharpton pop-up.
> Really...you wanna say that again.
> 
> Also AGAIN - every news outlet other than NYT showed both Presidents - even MSNBC!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


You think Bush and O'bama are "very different"?

Again, counting celebrities isn't the point -- masses of people, and what they stood up for in 1965 -- is the point.  THEY are the heroes; that's the story here.  Let's quit idolizing Presidents and turn our attention on the power of the People.


----------



## Pogo

iamwhatiseem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
> As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As already noted, Sharpton is behind O'bama, trying desperately to get into the picture (which says more about him than he might want).  Walking next to the POTUS are John Lewis and (in the wheelchair, 103 years old) Amelia Boynton Robinson, both of whom were directly and dramatically involved 50 years ago.  And then the First Family.
> 
> Methinks Fox Noise doth whine a bit too much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault on a slow news day on what should be a positive event.
> 
> Fox Noise does not like positive.  Doesn't $ell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not Fox News. I specifically noted two other links for whiners like you.
> As also stated, even MSNBC...I say again...even MSNBC included Bush in their photos and videos.
> Even MSNBC.
Click to expand...


Then that should hammer home the point that these choices are about graphic impact, not about headhunting to keep a political football score.

Actually what you're saying here is that MSNBC is less biased than Fox.


----------



## rightwinger

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another photo from different news outlet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYT - chose Al Sharpton...and so did Obama's handlers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the last one.  It's the most powerful.
> 
> When you want to convey the impact of a large gathering though, you need a massive crowd.  Your first pic has it, but aesthetically it's also a high-angle perspective and has the distraction of those traffic lights.  You have to realize what graphics editors are looking for, and making sure every notable figure gets in there really isn't high on the priority list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also liked the last one. But it shows a moment of silence from the speakers platform
> 
> The New York Times cover photo shows them marching over the bridge which was the idea. The wide shot with the barrier between the marchers is not as good a photo as the one they printed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just the front page RW'ger...as noted by all articles..photos on other pages was also without Bush. I have not seen it of course, but according to them not till the end  of the piece did they include Bush.
> That is stupid. And unfortunate.
> Showing two Presidents with very, very, very different politics, one white and one black, one Democrat and the other Republican - holding hands on the anniversary of Selma is significant! It shows that everyone, no matter race or politics can agree and honor what happened there and civil rights in general.
> But that is not what is on NYT's agenda. They instead spent most of the covereage talking about Ferguson.
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...

 
The day was not about Bush

I was thrilled to see him attend but do not think he deserved any more "face-time" than those who risked their lives that day


----------



## peach174

I don't think that it was done intentionally.
The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.


----------



## Theowl32

Saying a left winger is the scum of the earth is an insult to scum of the earth.


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> I don't think that it was done intentionally.
> The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
> I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.


 
Did Mia Love attend? I saw Tim Scott there


----------



## NYcarbineer

Half the RWnuts are crying because Bush isn't in a certain photograph, the other half are defending Republicans for NOT going in the first place.


----------



## PoliticalChic

peach174 said:


> I don't think that it was done intentionally.
> The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
> I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.




"I don't think that it was done intentionally."

It seems that you don't read the NYTimes.

Here is a story that might give you a further perspective.

 “Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war….During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.”  The Democratic Party A Vast Sleeper Cell Human Events


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that it was done intentionally.
> The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
> I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't think that it was done intentionally."
> 
> It seems that you don't read the NYTimes.
> 
> Here is a story that might give you a further perspective.
> 
> “Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war….During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.”  The Democratic Party A Vast Sleeper Cell Human Events
Click to expand...

 
You can't even help derailing your own thread can you?


----------



## peach174

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that it was done intentionally.
> The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
> I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Mia Love attend? I saw Tim Scott there
Click to expand...


I can't seem to find any list of all of the 23 who attended on the web.
Could you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that it was done intentionally.
> The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
> I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't think that it was done intentionally."
> 
> It seems that you don't read the NYTimes.
> 
> Here is a story that might give you a further perspective.
> 
> “Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war….During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.”  The Democratic Party A Vast Sleeper Cell Human Events
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even help misdirecting your own thread can you?
Click to expand...




Anytime you object, I know I've been perfectly and accurately on target.

I appreciate the verification.


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that it was done intentionally.
> The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
> I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Mia Love attend? I saw Tim Scott there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't seem to find any list of all of the 23 who attended on the web.
> Could you?
Click to expand...

 
Thankfully, it was more about those who marched 50 years ago than the politicians

I was very glad that none of the 2016 Presidential candidates were there


----------



## peach174

PoliticalChic said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that it was done intentionally.
> The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
> I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't think that it was done intentionally."
> 
> It seems that you don't read the NYTimes.
> 
> Here is a story that might give you a further perspective.
> 
> “Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war….During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.”  The Democratic Party A Vast Sleeper Cell Human Events
Click to expand...



Politico is the one who started the crap by originally saying no Republicans was attending.
But there is no where on the web so far that I could find, that lists all of the Republicans who attended.
Could you find any site that listed all of their names?


----------



## peach174

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that it was done intentionally.
> The Photographer explained that it was a wide angle shot and that there was a technical problem with an upload of that wide angel shot to the newspaper.
> I do think that the mention of the Bushes father down the page was meant to ease up the lefts mention earlier of no Republicans attending. There was 23 Republicans who did show up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Mia Love attend? I saw Tim Scott there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't seem to find any list of all of the 23 who attended on the web.
> Could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thankfully, it was more about those who marched 50 years ago than the politicians
> 
> I was very glad that none of the 2016 Presidential candidates were there
Click to expand...

 
How do you know that for sure?
Have you found a list of all the Republicans who attended?


----------



## boilermaker55

EXTERMINATES?
Who spelled the word for you?
LOL what a laughable headline.
At least faux news taught you one thing..........
ex·ag·ger·ate
iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
_verb_
verb: *exaggerate*; 3rd person present: *exaggerates*; past tense: *exaggerated*; past participle: *exaggerated*; gerund or present participle: *exaggerating*
represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
"they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate



PoliticalChic said:


> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*


----------



## PoliticalChic

boilermaker55 said:


> EXTERMINATES?
> Who spelled the word for you?
> LOL what a laughable headline.
> At least faux news taught you one thing..........
> ex·ag·ger·ate
> iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
> _verb_
> verb: *exaggerate*; 3rd person present: *exaggerates*; past tense: *exaggerated*; past participle: *exaggerated*; gerund or present participle: *exaggerating*
> represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
> "they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
> synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate
> 
> It was not by accident.
> I use words with precision.
> 
> 1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.
> 
> 2. I exaggerated with purpose.
> Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
> Pink is good for your political persuasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
Click to expand...




It was not by accident.

1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.

2. I exaggerated with purpose.
Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
Pink


boilermaker55 said:


> EXTERMINATES?
> Who spelled the word for you?
> LOL what a laughable headline.
> At least faux news taught you one thing..........
> ex·ag·ger·ate
> iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
> _verb_
> verb: *exaggerate*; 3rd person present: *exaggerates*; past tense: *exaggerated*; past participle: *exaggerated*; gerund or present participle: *exaggerating*
> represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
> "they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
> synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
Click to expand...


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

BlindBoo said:


> But when it really mattered the NYT was in the tank, or in-bed-with the Bush Administration and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  They faithfully parroted every talking point from the propaganda arm of the Bush Regime.


That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion. 
Again, selective memory issues with democrats.


----------



## BlindBoo

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
> Again, selective memory issues with democrats.




Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against.  Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

BlindBoo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
> Again, selective memory issues with democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against.  Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.
Click to expand...

What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony narrative. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.


----------



## BlindBoo

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
> Again, selective memory issues with democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against.  Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.
Click to expand...


There was nothing in the legislation that called for an invasion or an occupation. The entire Iraq debacle/blunder is on the Bush Administration.


----------



## Siete

seriously ?

boy, the RW's are really reaching ... (or is it stooping) to new lows.

if the pic panned back far enough to include 43 you wouldn't have been able to recognize him anyway .. then they would have bitched about that .

SSDD

moving on .........................................................


----------



## Stephanie




----------



## Siete

I rest my case. Not even a nose or an eye ..


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

BlindBoo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
> Again, selective memory issues with democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against.  Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was nothing in the legislation that called for an invasion or an occupation. The entire Iraq debacle/blunder is on the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's lefty propaganda and opportunism. Iraq was a bipartisan effort. Ask Hillary.


----------



## AmericanFirst

iamwhatiseem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo looks better without Bush in it
> 
> Too bad he marched on the other side of the divider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Even you know that the administration handlers dictate who walks beside the President. They chose Al Sharpton.
> As stated by the articles you didn't read, other news outlets show dozens of photos of the two together. NYT is the only one that didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As already noted, Sharpton is behind O'bama, trying desperately to get into the picture (which says more about him than he might want).  Walking next to the POTUS are John Lewis and (in the wheelchair, 103 years old) Amelia Boynton Robinson, both of whom were directly and dramatically involved 50 years ago.  And then the First Family.
> 
> Methinks Fox Noise doth whine a bit too much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault on a slow news day on what should be a positive event.
> 
> Fox Noise does not like positive.  Doesn't $ell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not Fox News. I specifically noted two other links for whiners like you.
> As also stated, even MSNBC...I say again...even MSNBC included Bush in their photos and videos.
> Even MSNBC.
Click to expand...

Libtards refuse the truth because the truth refuses them.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BlindBoo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
> Again, selective memory issues with democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against.  Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was nothing in the legislation that called for an invasion or an occupation. The entire Iraq debacle/blunder is on the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...



Clearly you have a memory problem.
I wonder how you find your way home to that refrigerator box each day.



_"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."_
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

_"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."_President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"_Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.




"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
snopes.com Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes






"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give thePresident of the United Statesthe authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons withinthe nextfive years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003_


----------



## PoliticalChic

Siete said:


> seriously ?
> 
> boy, the RW's are really reaching ... (or is it stooping) to new lows.
> 
> if the pic panned back far enough to include 43 you wouldn't have been able to recognize him anyway .. then they would have bitched about that .
> 
> SSDD
> 
> moving on .........................................................





He can be clearly seem in the OP pic, you dunce.


----------



## 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.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BlindBoo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
> Again, selective memory issues with democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against.  Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was nothing in the legislation that called for an invasion or an occupation. The entire Iraq debacle/blunder is on the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...




Time for your remedial:

*"...* the *overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress, in the media, and among the public* — for reasons well beyond WMD. In October 2002, *both houses of Congress passed 23 writs justifying the removal of Saddam, an update of Bill Clinton’s 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. *

Senators Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Harry Reid were among those who not only *enthusiastically called for Saddam’s removal, but also warned of intelligence estimates of Saddam’s WMD arsenals...*. over 70 percent approval from the American people. 

Bush, in that regard, had achieved what Clinton had not on the eve of the Serbian War — he had* obtained a joint resolution of support from Congress before attacking,* and had taken nearly a year in concerted (though failed) attempts to win U.N. approval for Saddam’s removal.... 

Had Bush not gone to Congress, had he made no attempt to go to the U.N., had he had no public support, or had he been opposed by the liberal press, he probably would not have invaded Iraq."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343870/why-did-we-invade-iraq-victor-davis-hanson/page/0/2



Wise up, you dope.


----------



## boilermaker55

Just helping out someone that needed a little help.
You are so welcome!



PoliticalChic said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXTERMINATES?
> Who spelled the word for you?
> LOL what a laughable headline.
> At least faux news taught you one thing..........
> ex·ag·ger·ate
> iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
> _verb_
> verb: *exaggerate*; 3rd person present: *exaggerates*; past tense: *exaggerated*; past participle: *exaggerated*; gerund or present participle: *exaggerating*
> represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
> "they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
> synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate
> 
> It was not by accident.
> I use words with precision.
> 
> 1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.
> 
> 2. I exaggerated with purpose.
> Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
> Pink is good for your political persuasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not by accident.
> 
> 1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.
> 
> 2. I exaggerated with purpose.
> Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
> Pink
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXTERMINATES?
> Who spelled the word for you?
> LOL what a laughable headline.
> At least faux news taught you one thing..........
> ex·ag·ger·ate
> iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
> _verb_
> verb: *exaggerate*; 3rd person present: *exaggerates*; past tense: *exaggerated*; past participle: *exaggerated*; gerund or present participle: *exaggerating*
> represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
> "they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
> synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

boilermaker55 said:


> Just helping out someone that needed a little help.
> You are so welcome!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXTERMINATES?
> Who spelled the word for you?
> LOL what a laughable headline.
> At least faux news taught you one thing..........
> ex·ag·ger·ate
> iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
> _verb_
> verb: *exaggerate*; 3rd person present: *exaggerates*; past tense: *exaggerated*; past participle: *exaggerated*; gerund or present participle: *exaggerating*
> represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
> "they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
> synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate
> 
> It was not by accident.
> I use words with precision.
> 
> 1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.
> 
> 2. I exaggerated with purpose.
> Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
> Pink is good for your political persuasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not by accident.
> 
> 1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.
> 
> 2. I exaggerated with purpose.
> Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
> Pink
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXTERMINATES?
> Who spelled the word for you?
> LOL what a laughable headline.
> At least faux news taught you one thing..........
> ex·ag·ger·ate
> iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
> _verb_
> verb: *exaggerate*; 3rd person present: *exaggerates*; past tense: *exaggerated*; past participle: *exaggerated*; gerund or present participle: *exaggerating*
> represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
> "they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
> synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





There's really no explanation for your word-salad of a post, as you clearly didn't help anyone out, including yourself.
In fact, you came off looking pretty much a dunce, know what I mean, pinky?

You thought I inadvertently used 'exterminate,' and I disabused that notion.

So....the "You are so welcome!" is really seen as your effort to save face.

That's a quandary as well: how can you save what you never had?


----------



## BlindBoo

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
> Again, selective memory issues with democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against.  Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was nothing in the legislation that called for an invasion or an occupation. The entire Iraq debacle/blunder is on the Bush Administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. That's lefty propaganda and opportunism. Iraq was a bipartisan effort. Ask Hillary.
Click to expand...


Well the proof is in the pudding isn't it?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States *as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to* --

He asked for it and he got it.  But it wasn't an invasion plan nor was it a call for nation building.


----------



## Preacher

Redfish said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and who are these "real culprits" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These 6 Corporations Control 90 Of The Media In America - Business Insider
> Six Jewish Companies Control 96 of the World s Media
> 
> Had to make sure to give you a source other than an alternate media option so you could verify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it--------------------the evil corporations,  got it.
> 
> 
> Now, care to tell us how many people those 6 evil corporations provide employment for, both directly and indirectly?  and how much those millions of people pay in federal state and local taxes?  No?  didn't think so.
Click to expand...

And that has WHAT to do with this? European Americans could own them and have shows that reflect America and could employ just as many people. 



The Rabbi said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only so much space on the paper...oh and there is no left/right,liberal/conservative when it comes to the media its just played like that to keep people off balance and not sniff to much and see the real culprits and their raping of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and who are these "real culprits" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These 6 Corporations Control 90 Of The Media In America - Business Insider
> Six Jewish Companies Control 96 of the World s Media
> 
> Had to make sure to give you a source other than an alternate media option so you could verify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes, radical anti-Semitic web sites are now reliable sources among radical anti-Semites.
> Thanks, dolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business Insider is a anti semite website! Hurry you better go tell them!  How about some articles from your own race eh dickhead?Who runs Hollywood C mon - Los Angeles Times
> 
> There ya go sonny. He admits it and is quite proud of it! Hell I would be to. You decide what America sees and hears the easiest way to control them.
> 
> Do Jews Control the Media Alan Dershowitz
> 
> Ah an leftist jew he tries to downplay it of course...go ahead call the LA times and Huff Post anti semitic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the worldwide Zionist conspiracy!  Run!
Click to expand...

Gets ass kicked screams insult and runs off with tail between legs.


----------



## Stephanie

The NYslimes isn't the only slimy people around. so are the Democrats

SNIP:

* DNC Chief Wasserman Schultz Scrubs Bush From “Powerful And Moving Image” Of Obama At Selma Event… *
A Republican scrubs Obama … raaaacist!






Pre-Bush scrubbing:




SNIP:







ALL of it here:
DNC Chief Wasserman Schultz Scrubs Bush From Powerful And Moving Image Of Obama At Selma Event Weasel Zippers


----------



## AvgGuyIA

PoliticalChic said:


> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*


This is exactly how liberals document "overt racism" from republicans.  Years from now, liberal USMB posters will show this NYT photo and ask, "where are the republicans?  Why no republican president in this March?"

That's why the NYT cropped the photo.   Count on it being used as ammo against republicans.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

BlindBoo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because democrats favored and encouraged invasion.
> Again, selective memory issues with democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 111 of them voted in favor, but 147 voted against.  Not that facts matter to pseudo-cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Usually parties vote monolithically. When that many dissent you have an endorsement. So stop with the rationalization and the phony. It wasn't Bush's invasion. That's propaganda aimed at partisan dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was nothing in the legislation that called for an invasion or an occupation. The entire Iraq debacle/blunder is on the Bush Administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. That's lefty propaganda and opportunism. Iraq was a bipartisan effort. Ask Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the proof is in the pudding isn't it?
> 
> SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
> 
> (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States *as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to* --
> 
> He asked for it and he got it.  But it wasn't an invasion plan nor was it a call for nation building.
Click to expand...

Dems are just as responsible for Iraq as Bush. It wasn't 'Bush's war'. But it is Obama's failure since he completely undermined the effort and gains made.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> 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?


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Statistikhengst said:


> This is going to shock NLT, but I agree. Former Pres. Bush and former FLOTUS Laura Bush should not have been cropped out of the main photo. However, there was more than one photo,if I recall. I just don't think both of them made it into the article.
> 
> I think it is fantastic that they went. Good for them.
> 
> The NYT article does, however, report that they were there.


Folks get your ice right here.  Straight from Hell.


----------



## JoeMoma

So Bush got slighted!  So what?  He is a big enough man to handle it.
On the other hand, not showing him helps the media to keep the narrative alive that republicans are racists.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying you can't crop a person out of a photo if they weren't in the photo to begin with.
> 
> So for the claims of the OP to be valid, you have to show us that the original photo included GW. And the photo offered isn't the original photo.
> 
> Its a completely different picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.
> 
> Here, try again:
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
Click to expand...

The cut and paste queen has OCD.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> tissue?



Integrity?


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image to *improve* framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio.


So why then are you complaining about the NYTimes' professional desire to improve the framing, accentuate the subject matter, or change the aspect ratio?

Is it because Right-Wing Media is incapable of improving, so you lash out at those who can?

Did you spew hatred at the girls in High School who were better than you at math, too?


----------



## Synthaholic

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> 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.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BlindBoo said:


> But when it really mattered the NYT was in the tank, or in-bed-with the Bush Administration and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  They faithfully parroted every talking point from the propaganda arm of the Bush Regime.




That propaganda arm being Bill and Hillary Clinton, Pope Algore, Nancy Pelosi, et al...

*"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998*
*
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.  It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
*
It's cool BlindFool - you have a party to lie for.


----------



## Jackson

iamwhatiseem said:


> Of course they say they didn't do it on purpose...yeah...they just forgot that a former U.S. President was marching with their beloved one. It didn't occur to them to how that TWO Presidents being there, white and black, side by side..nah...that is not the message they want to put forth.
> Dumbasses...
> 
> White House NYT leave Bushes out of lead photos from Selma march Fox News
> 
> NY Times Crops Bush Out Of Selma Picture Highlights Ferguson The Daily Caller
> 
> George W Bush cropped out of New York Times front cover image of Selma march - Telegraph
> 
> 
> NYT front photo......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actual event...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look again at NYT photo...look who pops out next to the President...yeah...they chose a photo with Al Sharpton...so much more important that a former President of the United States.
> Didn't fit the agenda.



DUMBASSES with a RACIST AGENDA.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's gauge the extent of your veracity;
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.
> 
> Here, try again:
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cut and paste queen has OCD.
Click to expand...




Watch how deftly I stump you: on what basis do you suggest 'cut and paste' as a pejorative?
I'll wait while you go to a neighbor to borrow a dictionary.....






"The cut and paste queen has OCD:
Can you support that?


The fact is that you keep trying to score points because I reveal the emptiness of your political perspective...as I did when I proved that you vote totalitarian rather than American.

I will continue to do so.

With metronomic regularity.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image to *improve* framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio.
> 
> 
> 
> So why then are you complaining about the NYTimes' professional desire to improve the framing, accentuate the subject matter, or change the aspect ratio?
> 
> Is it because Right-Wing Media is incapable of improving, so you lash out at those who can?
> 
> Did you spew hatred at the girls in High School who were better than you at math, too?
Click to expand...



Actually, there was no one better than I at math.

Math team, baby.

You have yet to be correct at anything you've posted.
An amazing consistency.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



An easily provable lie.


----------



## Siete

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.
> 
> Here, try again:
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cut and paste queen has OCD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch how deftly I stump you: on what basis do you suggest 'cut and paste' as a pejorative?
> I'll wait while you go to a neighbor to borrow a dictionary.....
> View attachment 37609
> 
> 
> 
> "The cut and paste queen has OCD:
> Can you support that?
> 
> 
> The fact is that you keep trying to score points because I reveal the emptiness of your political perspective...as I did when I proved that you vote totalitarian rather than American.
> 
> I will continue to do so.
> 
> With metronomic regularity.
Click to expand...


pejorative?

ok, its not your pejorative .. Obama made you do it.

Better?


----------



## Siete

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image to *improve* framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio.
> 
> 
> 
> So why then are you complaining about the NYTimes' professional desire to improve the framing, accentuate the subject matter, or change the aspect ratio?
> 
> Is it because Right-Wing Media is incapable of improving, so you lash out at those who can?
> 
> Did you spew hatred at the girls in High School who were better than you at math, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there was no one better than I at math.
> 
> Math team, baby.
> 
> You have yet to be correct at anything you've posted.
> An amazing consistency.
Click to expand...


Queen of the Bullshit Team too .


----------



## Uncensored2008

Siete said:


> [
> 
> pejorative?
> 
> ok, its not your pejorative .. Obama made you do it.
> 
> Better?



Uh sploogy, "pejorative" <> "prerogative."

Big words starting with "P" confuse democrats....


----------



## jillian

Uncensored2008 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity?
Click to expand...


that's something you know nothing about.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Siete said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.
> 
> Here, try again:
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cut and paste queen has OCD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch how deftly I stump you: on what basis do you suggest 'cut and paste' as a pejorative?
> I'll wait while you go to a neighbor to borrow a dictionary.....
> View attachment 37609
> 
> 
> 
> "The cut and paste queen has OCD:
> Can you support that?
> 
> 
> The fact is that you keep trying to score points because I reveal the emptiness of your political perspective...as I did when I proved that you vote totalitarian rather than American.
> 
> I will continue to do so.
> 
> With metronomic regularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pejorative?
> 
> ok, its not your pejorative .. Obama made you do it.
> 
> Better?
Click to expand...





You imbecile.

Borrow the other dolt's dictionary when he finds someone who'll lend him one.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's gone from ONE photo cropped to two different photos taken on the same day.
> 
> lol, you're the second best poster on this forum for making Political C look stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.
> 
> Here, try again:
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cut and paste queen has OCD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch how deftly I stump you: on what basis do you suggest 'cut and paste' as a pejorative?
> I'll wait while you go to a neighbor to borrow a dictionary.....
> View attachment 37609
> 
> 
> 
> "The cut and paste queen has OCD:
> Can you support that?
> 
> 
> The fact is that you keep trying to score points because I reveal the emptiness of your political perspective...as I did when I proved that you vote totalitarian rather than American.
> 
> I will continue to do so.
> 
> With metronomic regularity.
Click to expand...


You're the Cut and Paste queen of this forum, and never have an original thought of your own.
You apparently have OCD (Google it) since you cut and pasted the same reply at least 6 times.

I'm truly sorry that I cannot make it even simpler for you to understand, but my English-to-Retard translator is installed on my other computer.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Siete said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cropping refers to the removal of the outer parts of an image to *improve* framing, accentuate subject matter or change aspect ratio.
> 
> 
> 
> So why then are you complaining about the NYTimes' professional desire to improve the framing, accentuate the subject matter, or change the aspect ratio?
> 
> Is it because Right-Wing Media is incapable of improving, so you lash out at those who can?
> 
> Did you spew hatred at the girls in High School who were better than you at math, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there was no one better than I at math.
> 
> Math team, baby.
> 
> You have yet to be correct at anything you've posted.
> An amazing consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Queen of the Bullshit Team too .
Click to expand...




Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That is why I never have to do the same.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Actually, there was no one better than I at math.


Of course.  Were you also Homecoming Queen and Head Cheerleader?


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> that's something you know nothing about.



How would you know? You have no ability to recognize integrity, since you have never practiced it....


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
Click to expand...

Then prove that someone other than the Commander in Chief can send our military into armed conflict, absent a declaration of war.

Use the Constitution.  If you don't know what that is, ask someone.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.
> 
> Here, try again:
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cut and paste queen has OCD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch how deftly I stump you: on what basis do you suggest 'cut and paste' as a pejorative?
> I'll wait while you go to a neighbor to borrow a dictionary.....
> View attachment 37609
> 
> 
> 
> "The cut and paste queen has OCD:
> Can you support that?
> 
> 
> The fact is that you keep trying to score points because I reveal the emptiness of your political perspective...as I did when I proved that you vote totalitarian rather than American.
> 
> I will continue to do so.
> 
> With metronomic regularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the Cut and Paste queen of this forum, and never have an original thought of your own.
> You apparently have OCD (Google it) since you cut and pasted the same reply at least 6 times.
> 
> I'm truly sorry that I cannot make it even simpler for you to understand, but my English-to-Retard translator is installed on my other computer.
Click to expand...



Time to teach you another lesson.

1. So you're objection to cut and paste is "[you] never have an original thought of your own."

The posts that I construct use the support of quotes, all of which are are linked or sourced.
I can do that because my education is so much more extensive than yours.


2. Some pointers.
a. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

b. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(Critical Appraisal and Analysis - Critically Analyzing Information Sources - LibGuides at Cornell University)


3. Instead, you operate via Liberal Plagiarism: ....you are one of those who never deviates from the messages of the NYTimes, the DNC, MSNBC, etc...basically Liberal plagiarism.......
...because you never give credit to the one from whom you stole the talking points.

In short....'you never have an original idea' period.

I ripped you a new one, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then prove that someone other than the Commander in Chief can send our military into armed conflict, absent a declaration of war.
> 
> Use the Constitution.  If you don't know what that is, ask someone.
Click to expand...



Get that dictionary.

Look up 'decision.'

Then look up 'imbecile' so you know when to answer.



The word you seek is 'authority.'
Government school grad, huh?


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> The posts that I construct use the support of quotes, all of which are are linked or sourced.


That would be true if you actually constructed posts.  You do not.  You just cop and paste the thoughts of others.  And when called on your bullshit, you either re-post the OP, or cut and paste from the dictionary.

You are incapable of debating without the use of outside sources to speak for you.

This thread is a perfect example.  Just a cut and paste of others' work.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then prove that someone other than the Commander in Chief can send our military into armed conflict, absent a declaration of war.
> 
> Use the Constitution.  If you don't know what that is, ask someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Get that dictionary.
> 
> Look up 'decision.'
> 
> Then look up 'imbecile' so you know when to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> *The word you seek is 'authority.'*
> Government school grad, huh?
Click to expand...


No, I used the correct word: decision.  Bush said so himself.


*"I'm the decider" - George W. Bush*

Ripped you a new one, didn't I?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The posts that I construct use the support of quotes, all of which are are linked or sourced.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true if you actually constructed posts.  You do not.  You just cop and paste the thoughts of others.  And when called on your bullshit, you either re-post the OP, or cut and paste from the dictionary.
> 
> You are incapable of debating without the use of outside sources to speak for you.
> 
> This thread is a perfect example.  Just a cut and paste of others' work.
Click to expand...




You're a Liberal Plagiarist.
And a liar.

Simple to prove you aren't: take one of my OPs and find any place where you find the same construction.

You can't....you're simply furious because I smashed that custard pie in our kisser.

Won't be the last.


"You are incapable of debating without the use of outside sources to speak for you."
This is the winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor"

You're whining because I have more education than you do...and you can't comprehend how much I know, have read and studied, and use in said constructions!



Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Synthaholic said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

It was authorized by the Democrat Senate.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then prove that someone other than the Commander in Chief can send our military into armed conflict, absent a declaration of war.
> 
> Use the Constitution.  If you don't know what that is, ask someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Get that dictionary.
> 
> Look up 'decision.'
> 
> Then look up 'imbecile' so you know when to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> *The word you seek is 'authority.'*
> Government school grad, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I used the correct word: decision.  Bush said so himself.
> 
> 
> *"I'm the decider" - George W. Bush*
> 
> Ripped you a new one, didn't I?
Click to expand...





No, imbecile.....anyone can have the decision,* as did just about every Democrat *about Iraq and WMDs....but  only one has* the authority to go to war.*


"Ripped you a new one, didn't I?"
I love how you copied what I wrote...Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


 You are both stupid and dishonest....you'd try to steal a free sample.


----------



## Statistikhengst

PoliticalChic said:


> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*



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.




Must really suck to be you.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ernie S. said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Siete said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, NYLiar:
> 
> 
> 
> Same:
> *2. *Similar in kind, quantity, or degree.
> same - definition of same by The Free Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> And, to review:
> 
> And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!
> 
> His act includes only two tricks:
> 
> Trick #1....lies
> 
> Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.
> 
> 
> Today it's Trick #2 on display:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't crop a photo by using an entirely different photo.  Why is that concept above your brain capacity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....you seem unable to respond to the questions.
> 
> Here, try again:
> 
> 1. Were the two photos taken the same day?
> 2. Where the same objects photographed?
> 3. What the same occasion the subject of both photos?
> 4.Was there a political reason for cropping the members of the photos?
> 5. Are you a lying sack of sewage?
> 
> 
> Hint: all five have the same correct response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cut and paste queen has OCD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch how deftly I stump you: on what basis do you suggest 'cut and paste' as a pejorative?
> I'll wait while you go to a neighbor to borrow a dictionary.....
> View attachment 37609
> 
> 
> 
> "The cut and paste queen has OCD:
> Can you support that?
> 
> 
> The fact is that you keep trying to score points because I reveal the emptiness of your political perspective...as I did when I proved that you vote totalitarian rather than American.
> 
> I will continue to do so.
> 
> With metronomic regularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pejorative?
> 
> ok, its not your pejorative .. Obama made you do it.
> 
> Better?
Click to expand...




I have to admit that this is the funniest post of the day.
I laugh every time I read it.


If only I could imagine that you made the mistake on purpose.....
....but I've seen your other posts.



Here's your prize.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Statistikhengst said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must really suck to be you.
Click to expand...




"...not in that frame because he was so far to our right..."

You....just one more unoriginal lying sack of sewage.....

Laura Bush was one person over, and President Bush next to her.


BTW....Your proctologist called. They've found your head.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there was no one better than I at math.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Were you also Homecoming Queen and Head Cheerleader?
Click to expand...



You really REALLY wouldn't want to compare our two education tracks.....

Trust me on that.

It'd make you look even stupider than I do in these posts.


----------



## Statistikhengst

PoliticalChic said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must really suck to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...not in that frame because he was so far to our right..."
> 
> You....just one more unoriginal lying sack of sewage.....
> 
> Laura Bush was one person over, and President Bush next to her.
> 
> 
> BTW....Your proctologist called. They've found your head.
Click to expand...



So, you have proven that you are incapable of reading and understanding.

But we already knew that, PoliticalKunt.


----------



## Statistikhengst

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there was no one better than I at math.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Were you also Homecoming Queen and Head Cheerleader?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really REALLY wouldn't want to compare our two education tracks.....
> 
> Trust me on that.
> 
> It'd make you look even stupider than I do in these posts.
Click to expand...



I doubt anyone trusts you for anything, the way you behave.


----------



## Synthaholic

AvgGuyIA said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was authorized by the Democrat Senate.
Click to expand...

Who had the final decision to invade or not invade?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Statistikhengst said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must really suck to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...not in that frame because he was so far to our right..."
> 
> You....just one more unoriginal lying sack of sewage.....
> 
> Laura Bush was one person over, and President Bush next to her.
> 
> 
> BTW....Your proctologist called. They've found your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you have proven that you are incapable of reading and understanding.
> 
> But we already knew that, PoliticalKunt.
Click to expand...




Watch you language....you're not speaking to your family.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It was Bush's decision, and ONLY Bush's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then prove that someone other than the Commander in Chief can send our military into armed conflict, absent a declaration of war.
> 
> Use the Constitution.  If you don't know what that is, ask someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Get that dictionary.
> 
> Look up 'decision.'
> 
> Then look up 'imbecile' so you know when to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> *The word you seek is 'authority.'*
> Government school grad, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I used the correct word: decision.  Bush said so himself.
> 
> 
> *"I'm the decider" - George W. Bush*
> 
> Ripped you a new one, didn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, imbecile.....anyone can have the decision,* as did just about every Democrat *about Iraq and WMDs....but  only one has* the authority to go to war.*
> 
> 
> "Ripped you a new one, didn't I?"
> I love how you copied what I wrote...Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
> 
> 
> You are both stupid and dishonest....you'd try to steal a free sample.
Click to expand...

The vote for the Iraq war was 77 - 23.  A majority of Democrats voted for the War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm


----------



## PoliticalChic

Uncensored2008 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> pejorative?
> 
> ok, its not your pejorative .. Obama made you do it.
> 
> Better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh sploogy, "pejorative" <> "prerogative."
> 
> Big words starting with "P" confuse democrats....
Click to expand...




Uncensored2008 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> pejorative?
> 
> ok, its not your pejorative .. Obama made you do it.
> 
> Better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh sploogy, "pejorative" <> "prerogative."
> 
> Big words starting with "P" confuse democrats....
Click to expand...




Siesta's post made my day.....I'm still laughing.

His is the sort of insight and intelligence that put Obama in office.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It was Bush's decision, and ONLY Bush's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then prove that someone other than the Commander in Chief can send our military into armed conflict, absent a declaration of war.
> 
> Use the Constitution.  If you don't know what that is, ask someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Get that dictionary.
> 
> Look up 'decision.'
> 
> Then look up 'imbecile' so you know when to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> *The word you seek is 'authority.'*
> Government school grad, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I used the correct word: decision.  Bush said so himself.
> 
> 
> *"I'm the decider" - George W. Bush*
> 
> Ripped you a new one, didn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, imbecile.....anyone can have the decision,* as did just about every Democrat *about Iraq and WMDs....but  only one has* the authority to go to war.*
Click to expand...

We never declared war.  The Congress voted to not tie the president's hands as to the *decision *to begin hostilities, leaving the final *decision *to him, as Commander in Chief.

I thought you claimed to be smart?



> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.



I was sincerely mocking you.  I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference.

You are desperate to win....something.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Then prove that someone other than the Commander in Chief can send our military into armed conflict, absent a declaration of war.
> 
> Use the Constitution.  If you don't know what that is, ask someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Get that dictionary.
> 
> Look up 'decision.'
> 
> Then look up 'imbecile' so you know when to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> *The word you seek is 'authority.'*
> Government school grad, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I used the correct word: decision.  Bush said so himself.
> 
> 
> *"I'm the decider" - George W. Bush*
> 
> Ripped you a new one, didn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, imbecile.....anyone can have the decision,* as did just about every Democrat *about Iraq and WMDs....but  only one has* the authority to go to war.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We never declared war.  The Congress voted to not tie the president's hands as to the *decision *to begin hostilities, leaving the final *decision *to him, as Commander in Chief.
> 
> I thought you claimed to be smart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was sincerely mocking you.  I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference.
> 
> You are desperate to win....something.
Click to expand...



Exposing the asininities of posters is one of my guilty pleasures.....but it's simply redundant in your case.

Time for the dictionary again, huh.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Synthaholic said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## NYcarbineer

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when it really mattered the NYT was in the tank, or in-bed-with the Bush Administration and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  They faithfully parroted every talking point from the propaganda arm of the Bush Regime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That propaganda arm being Bill and Hillary Clinton, Pope Algore, Nancy Pelosi, et al...
> 
> *"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
> 
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
> 
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
> weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
> He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.  It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
> *
> It's cool BlindFool - you have a party to lie for.
Click to expand...


Why don't you post Barack Obama's statements about Iraq, Saddam, and going to war?

You know, the Democrat who actually became president because he was right about Iraq?

lol


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
Click to expand...


Then prove it.  Prove that someone other than Bush made the choice to invade Iraq.


----------



## Siete

Mushroom Cloud !!

hell, this country has been hiding from mushroom clouds since the 50's when school kids (now congressmen) went out in the halls and covered their heads when  a bell rang 4 times .... enter 43, word play, 911, and presto-change-o ... everyone votes yes.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> It'd make you look even stupider than I do in these posts.


NOTHING could make me look stupider than you do in these posts.


----------



## Synthaholic

AvgGuyIA said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Then prove that someone other than the Commander in Chief can send our military into armed conflict, absent a declaration of war.
> 
> Use the Constitution.  If you don't know what that is, ask someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Get that dictionary.
> 
> Look up 'decision.'
> 
> Then look up 'imbecile' so you know when to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> *The word you seek is 'authority.'*
> Government school grad, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I used the correct word: decision.  Bush said so himself.
> 
> 
> *"I'm the decider" - George W. Bush*
> 
> Ripped you a new one, didn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, imbecile.....anyone can have the decision,* as did just about every Democrat *about Iraq and WMDs....but  only one has* the authority to go to war.*
> 
> 
> "Ripped you a new one, didn't I?"
> I love how you copied what I wrote...Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
> 
> 
> You are both stupid and dishonest....you'd try to steal a free sample.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The vote for the Iraq war was 77 - 23.  A majority of Democrats voted for the War
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
Click to expand...

There wasn't a vote for war, idiot.  We never declared war.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then prove that someone other than the Commander in Chief can send our military into armed conflict, absent a declaration of war.
> 
> Use the Constitution.  If you don't know what that is, ask someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get that dictionary.
> 
> Look up 'decision.'
> 
> Then look up 'imbecile' so you know when to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> *The word you seek is 'authority.'*
> Government school grad, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I used the correct word: decision.  Bush said so himself.
> 
> 
> *"I'm the decider" - George W. Bush*
> 
> Ripped you a new one, didn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, imbecile.....anyone can have the decision,* as did just about every Democrat *about Iraq and WMDs....but  only one has* the authority to go to war.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We never declared war.  The Congress voted to not tie the president's hands as to the *decision *to begin hostilities, leaving the final *decision *to him, as Commander in Chief.
> 
> I thought you claimed to be smart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was sincerely mocking you.  I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference.
> 
> You are desperate to win....something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exposing the asininities of posters is one of my guilty pleasures.....but it's simply redundant in your case.
> 
> *Time for the dictionary again, huh.*
Click to expand...

Yes, so that you can look up 'decider', as in "I'm the decider" - George W. Bush


----------



## Synthaholic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An easily provable lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then prove it.  Prove that someone other than Bush made the choice to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

Maybe she's just trying to hide her Cheney-love.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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

AvgGuyIA said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 77 - 23 was the vote.  Majority of democrats voted for the war.
Click to expand...


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

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.

Statistikhengst said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Yarddog

NYcarbineer said:


> 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.

NYcarbineer said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 77 - 23 was the vote.  Majority of democrats voted for the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong 147 Democrats voted against the war.  110 voted for it.
Click to expand...

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

Pogo said:


> 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

Ernie S. said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 77 - 23 was the vote.  Majority of democrats voted for the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong 147 Democrats voted against the war.  110 voted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Have you ever heard the term 'bicameral legislature'?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Yarddog said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Ernie S. said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he didn't crop a photo, he composed it in such a way that he didn't have to. OK, gotcha.
Click to expand...



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

NYcarbineer said:


> 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

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...


You're not making any sense.


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## NYcarbineer

Statistikhengst said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he didn't crop a photo, he composed it in such a way that he didn't have to. OK, gotcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


>



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 fucking nuts.


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


>



88% of Mississippians voted for Goldwater in 1964.  Goldwater was the Republican.

Goldwater was one of the few Republicans who voted against the 64 Civil Rights bill.

Conservative racist Democrats in the South began a shift to voting Republican as soon as it became clear that the new Republican Party was their new home.

So it remains to this day.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking nuts.
Click to expand...


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


>



You've turned into Vigilante.  Good for you.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 88% of Mississippians voted for Goldwater in 1964.  Goldwater was the Republican.
> 
> Goldwater was one of the few Republicans who voted against the 64 Civil Rights bill.
> 
> Conservative racist Democrats in the South began a shift to voting Republican as soon as it became clear that the new Republican Party was their new home.
> 
> So it remains to this day.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Democrats in the South still vote Democrat or they don't vote. All you have to do is talk to them to find this out like I have. The difference today is there are fewer Democrats in the South these days. Most of them are transplants from other states. Folks moving here to escape high taxes in liberal Meccas like New York, Minnesota, California, etc. The South is still affordable, so people are moving here and changing the demographics. I talk to them every election. Most of the Dixicrats said they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Obama, so they didn't vote.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've turned into Vigilante.  Good for you.
Click to expand...

And you're the same idiot you've always been.


----------



## mudwhistle

Democrats told everyone you're a racist if you don't vote for Obama. For almost 7 years they've been calling us racists for not agreeing with his anti-American policies. In our colleges and universities they're brainwashing our kids into rejecting alternative viewpoints. They practice censorship in the news. They specialize in identity politics. Any blacks who dare to be Republicans are called Uncle Toms and every other racist name in the book. They used a justified police shooting of a black thug who had just robbed a convenience store to base their attacks on Republicans. They finally admitted that "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is based on outright lies.

And we're supposed to support these lying assholes?????


----------



## Stephanie

The progressive/lefties are desperate and will crawl to any low for their Party. If it mean misleading the people then so be it...shun the Nyslimes, WashingtonCompost, LaSlimes, etc


----------



## Statistikhengst

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking nuts.
Click to expand...


Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?


----------



## mudwhistle

Statistikhengst said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
Click to expand...

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.


----------



## Redfish

Statistikhengst said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
Click to expand...

 

The dems ran a campaign ad showing a bomb going off and claimed that Goldwater would start a nuclear war.  It was an effective ad and won the election for the criminal known as LBJ.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AvgGuyIA said:


> It was authorized by the Democrat Senate.



In the same way the New York Times photoshopped Bush out of the Selma march, Synthia photoshops the democrats out of the Iraq war. Dishonesty is a major part of being a leftist.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Statistikhengst said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must really suck to be you.
Click to expand...


Kind of a Freudian slip there Statist, so the party press cut the Bush's out of the photo because they are "too far to the right?"

Yeah, we already knew that....


----------



## Synthaholic

Ernie S. said:


> The Dems held the majority at that point


That's a lie.

Why am I not shocked?


----------



## Synthaholic

Statistikhengst said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he didn't crop a photo, he composed it in such a way that he didn't have to. OK, gotcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

They can't help themselves, turning an historic commemoration into just another whine about the "aggrieved White victim".


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Democrats told everyone you're a racist if you don't vote for Obama. For almost 7 years they've been calling us racists for not agreeing with his anti-American policies. In our colleges and universities they're brainwashing our kids into rejecting alternative viewpoints. They practice censorship in the news. They specialize in identity politics. Any blacks who dare to be Republicans are called Uncle Toms and every other racist name in the book. They used a justified police shooting of a black thug who had just robbed a convenience store to base their attacks on Republicans. They finally admitted that "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is based on outright lies.
> 
> And we're supposed to support these lying assholes?????



Whoa.  Lot going on there.  Run that  back...

Democrats told everyone you're a racist if you don't vote for Obama.

Strawman...

For almost 7 years they've been calling us racists for not agreeing with his anti-American policies. 

Strawman-on-strawman action.  

In our colleges and universities they're brainwashing our kids into rejecting alternative viewpoints. 

Strawmanège-a-trois!  Ooh la la.

They practice censorship in the news. 

Strawman with four wheel drive...

They specialize in identity politics.



Any blacks who dare to be Republicans are called Uncle Toms and every other racist name in the book. 

The _quintupessential _Strawman...

They used a justified police shooting of a black thug who had just robbed a convenience store to base their attacks on Republicans. They finally admitted that "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is based on outright lies.



And we're supposed to support these lying assholes?????

Strawman cleanup in aisle six...

Your logical fallacy is:

Blanket generalization.



 ​


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats told everyone you're a racist if you don't vote for Obama. For almost 7 years they've been calling us racists for not agreeing with his anti-American policies. In our colleges and universities they're brainwashing our kids into rejecting alternative viewpoints. They practice censorship in the news. They specialize in identity politics. Any blacks who dare to be Republicans are called Uncle Toms and every other racist name in the book. They used a justified police shooting of a black thug who had just robbed a convenience store to base their attacks on Republicans. They finally admitted that "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is based on outright lies.
> 
> And we're supposed to support these lying assholes?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa.  Lot going on there.  Run that  back...
> 
> Democrats told everyone you're a racist if you don't vote for Obama.
> 
> Strawman...
> 
> For almost 7 years they've been calling us racists for not agreeing with his anti-American policies.
> 
> Strawman-on-strawman action.
> 
> In our colleges and universities they're brainwashing our kids into rejecting alternative viewpoints.
> 
> Strawmanège-a-trois!  Ooh la la.
> 
> They practice censorship in the news.
> 
> Strawman with four wheel drive...
> 
> They specialize in identity politics.
> 
> 
> 
> Any blacks who dare to be Republicans are called Uncle Toms and every other racist name in the book.
> 
> The _quintupessential _Strawman...
> 
> They used a justified police shooting of a black thug who had just robbed a convenience store to base their attacks on Republicans. They finally admitted that "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is based on outright lies.
> 
> 
> 
> And we're supposed to support these lying assholes?????
> 
> Strawman cleanup in aisle six...
> 
> Your logical fallacy is:
> 
> Blanket generalization.
> 
> View attachment 37648 ​
Click to expand...

Blanket generalization. Agreed. But not on my part.
Every bit of it is true sadly.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


>



Complete horseshit.  No wonder you had to have a Googly image make your point so that you could run away.

Number one, Fallacy of Composition assumes that some sample group, e.g. Southerners, are predominantly Democrats, ergo every action they take is driven by their, of all things, political philosophy.  Which was conservative anyway.

Number two, fundamental ignorance of what political parties are and how they work.  A political party is a device to acquire and consolidate power.  That's it, end of definition.  To imagine a political party is some sort of fixed point in space that never ever shifts with the political winds is to be at best a blind partisan hack and at worse a moron.

Moreover by the beginning of the Civil War for practical purposes only the Democratic Party even _existed_; the RP was six years old and just getting started.  Whigs were dead.  Know-Nothings, Anti-Masons, Free Soilers and several others had sparked, fizzled and died off.  The election of as recently as 1824 didn't even* have* parties involved.  To apply the circumstances we have today where a single party (cleverly disguised as two) completely and totally dominate everything to an era when we the people changed political parties like shirts is profound ignorance.  Go look up the "First Party System" and "Second Party System" in a history book.  Git chew a edumacation.  This application of contemporary dichotomy to the past is Blatantly Beyond Bullshit.

*All* of this time the issue of slavery was building, hotly debated, even causing some of those myriad parties to rise an fall.  James Buchanan is widely held to be the worst or second-worst POTUS ever for his failure to address it.  But to suggest the Civil War was somehow caused by "Democrats" in the South one day up and seceding out of nothing is to not only display the same abject ignorance of American history but to rudely insult the reader's intelligence.

More moreover on this point -- in the election of 1860 the Republican candidate obviously was Lincoln, being the second candidate that party ever ran.  Who was the Democratic nominee?  Steven Douglas.

How may states did Lincoln win in the South?  Zero.
How many states did Douglas win in the South?  Zero.

The South wasn't having the DP, disrupted the convention which had to be suspended, walked out and formed their own parties and candidates (two of them) -- a pattern that would re-enact itself several times in the future (1924, 1948, 1964) so to identify the South with a political party _philosophically _is outright disingenuousness ---- and articulates that same American history ignorance again.  Because as just stated above, the purpose of a political party is to acquire power -- not to represent an ideology.  The latter changes with the wind; the former *never *does.

More to follow on this complete crock of anti-American revisionist claptrap.  Got things to do.  I shall return.


----------



## Statistikhengst

mudwhistle said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
Click to expand...


Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 88% of Mississippians voted for Goldwater in 1964.  Goldwater was the Republican.
> 
> Goldwater was one of the few Republicans who voted against the 64 Civil Rights bill.
> 
> Conservative racist Democrats in the South began a shift to voting Republican as soon as it became clear that the new Republican Party was their new home.
> 
> So it remains to this day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Democrats in the South still vote Democrat or they don't vote. All you have to do is talk to them to find this out like I have. The difference today is there are fewer Democrats in the South these days. Most of them are transplants from other states. Folks moving here to escape high taxes in liberal Meccas like New York, Minnesota, California, etc. The South is still affordable, so people are moving here and changing the demographics. I talk to them every election. Most of the Dixicrats said they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Obama, so they didn't vote.
Click to expand...


So you dispute what?  That 88% of MS voters in 1964 voted for the Republican Goldwater? 

They did.  A state that was Democrat for a hundred years suddenly went Republican.  Why?

Because Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights act and Johnson didn't. 

Wake up.


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
Click to expand...


LBJ SIGNED the Civil Rights Act in 1964.  Goldwater VOTED AGAINST IT.

That is why the South went Republican in 1964.


----------



## peach174

Synthaholic said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems held the majority at that point
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Why am I not shocked?
Click to expand...


No it is true.
The Dems in the Senate had the majority in 2001.
In the 2000 election, Republicans retained control of the House but the Senate split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. In May 2001, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties from Republican to Independent and began caucusing with the Democrats, giving the Democrats the effective majority and making then-Sen. Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) the majority leader.


----------



## Yarddog

NYcarbineer said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Bush and Laura could have bumped the two ladies in wheelchairs off to the fringe.
Click to expand...



or they could have stood on the other side


----------



## Yarddog

NYcarbineer said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Bush and Laura could have bumped the two ladies in wheelchairs off to the fringe.
Click to expand...



So its more important for Obama to be photographed with other black people,  than for a president and the former president  to be walking side by side in what is suppossed to be something important.  The whole thing is about symbolism anyway, so if your going to bother to do that,  they should have put them side by side.  Its a symbol of the Nation coming together over civil rights.    PISS poor planning by whoever put this on ,  I could have done a better job


----------



## Pogo

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete horseshit.  No wonder you had to have a Googly image make your point so that you could run away.
> 
> Number one, Fallacy of Composition assumes that some sample group, e.g. Southerners, are predominantly Democrats, ergo every action they take is driven by their, of all things, political philosophy.  Which was conservative anyway.
> 
> Number two, fundamental ignorance of what political parties are and how they work.  A political party is a device to acquire and consolidate power.  That's it, end of definition.  To imagine a political party is some sort of fixed point in space that never ever shifts with the political winds is to be at best a blind partisan hack and at worse a moron.
> 
> Moreover by the beginning of the Civil War for practical purposes only the Democratic Party even _existed_; the RP was six years old and just getting started.  Whigs were dead.  Know-Nothings, Anti-Masons, Free Soilers and several others had sparked, fizzled and died off.  The election of as recently as 1824 didn't even* have* parties involved.  To apply the circumstances we have today where a single party (cleverly disguised as two) completely and totally dominate everything to an era when we the people changed political parties like shirts is profound ignorance.  Go look up the "First Party System" and "Second Party System" in a history book.  Git chew a edumacation.  This application of contemporary dichotomy to the past is Blatantly Beyond Bullshit.
> 
> *All* of this time the issue of slavery was building, hotly debated, even causing some of those myriad parties to rise an fall.  James Buchanan is widely held to be the worst or second-worst POTUS ever for his failure to address it.  But to suggest the Civil War was somehow caused by "Democrats" in the South one day up and seceding out of nothing is to not only display the same abject ignorance of American history but to rudely insult the reader's intelligence.
> 
> More moreover on this point -- in the election of 1860 the Republican candidate obviously was Lincoln, being the second candidate that party ever ran.  Who was the Democratic nominee?  Steven Douglas.
> 
> How may states did Lincoln win in the South?  Zero.
> How many states did Douglas win in the South?  Zero.
> 
> The South wasn't having the DP, disrupted the convention which had to be suspended, walked out and formed their own parties and candidates (two of them) -- a pattern that would re-enact itself several times in the future (1924, 1948, 1964) so to identify the South with a political party _philosophically _is outright disingenuousness ---- and articulates that same American history ignorance again.  Because as just stated above, the purpose of a political party is to acquire power -- not to represent an ideology.  The latter changes with the wind; the former *never *does.
> 
> More to follow on this complete crock of anti-American revisionist claptrap.  Got things to do.  I shall return.
Click to expand...


Number three, neither "Democrats" nor Nathan Bedford Forrest founded any incarnation of the KKK.  That was done (the first time) by some young Confederate veteran soldiers -- as a social club, in 1865 (Christmas Day), out of small-town boredom.  A lark.  All the Greek terms and alliteration of "kleagles" and "klaverns" exemplifies that.  When they dressed up in sheets and rode through town, at that time not as any kind of terrorist act but a simple college-kid prank, they were surprised to find strong visible reaction and took on the sheets as a kind of uniform.

_*Context: *What was happening at the same time however_ is where the plot sickens -- having just been vanquished and humiliated in a war they expected to win, factions in the South rose up in resistance and guerilla warfare, targeting what they saw as occupying forces from the North as well as the newly-freed slaves whenever they did outrageously unacceptable things like request a fair wage, dare to walk into town, or try to vote.  These targets were at the least intimidated and at worst, publicly hanged, burned alive, even skinned.  In effect the War was not over.  Sometimes these incidents were flash mobs, but several paramilitary groups formed, usually by Confederate soldier veterans, to organize the resistance.  The Knights of the White Camellia is probably the second-best known.  The White League -- and several others.  Into the originally-innocuous Ku Klux Klan came *this* dynamic, and it became a vehicle for the same violence all the insurgents were doing.

By the way, these six young veterans who started the Klan?  No known political affiliation.  Just college-age veteran soldiers.  In 1865 there wasn't much in the South in the way of politics-as-usual anyway-- the entire focus, for what had been as long as anyone could remember the ruling class (i.e. whites), was either picking up one's shattered life, rising up in armed resistance, or both.  So the idea of _normal _political debate in that time and place as in two or more alternative political philosophies-- didn't even exist. And I specify whites because no one else had power.

Here lie the seeds of the Democratic 99-year (white) dominance of the South; it's just been vanquished and humiliated by the first President of the newfangled "Republican Party"; associating with that party is going to be literally unthinkable for generations.  Lincoln's party represents the "aggressor".  In a kind of supreme irony the South saw itself as _enslaved _by the North.  But we digress with background here -- the point is the Klan was neither founded by a political party; it wasn't even founded as a terrorist group.  Revisionism's a bitch.

Back to the Klan and Nathan Bedford Forrest.  Forrest had been a prominent Civil War general, and by accounts from both sides a brilliant strategist, and so had status.  The rising KKK asked Forrest to be the figurehead of the organization in the spring of 1867 -- a year and a half _after_ the KKK was already formed and looking to expand, organize and take on legitimacy.  So he wasn't a "founder", which again displays the abject pig-ignorance of making points via Google Images, than which on a message board there's probably no more cowardly act.  Matter of fact once the violence got out of control he issued an order *disbanding *the Klan in January of 1869 and thereafter denied being a part of it.  In spite of this, freelancers -- again, like the war not accepting of an ending -- kept up the action for a few years into the 1870s before Grant and the government suppressed it out of existence.  By the end of the 1870s the Klan was dead.  As were the other paramilitary groups that had sprung up synonymously with them.

So why do we know of the Klan so prominently today and not the White League?  Because in 1915 (a time which had degraded to the absolute nadir of racial strife in this country, a tenor the school history books somehow forget to point out), a preacher-turned-salesman and inveterate club-starter/joiner in Georgia named William Simmons revived it, capitalizing on the impact of the racist film "Birth of a Nation" which glorified the KKK, which was at the time an romanticized artifact of decades past.  Simmons, working off the film, introduced the whole burning crosses schtick, in fact using the imagery to (re)start the organization on Stone Mountain.  By 1920 he had hired PR agents to proselytize the Klan and grow it -- after all, there was money to be made in memberships.

Oh by the way just to stay on point , William Simmons?  Again, no known political affiliation.  He insisted the Klan was a "fraternal" organization -- although clearly a polarizing one

_*Context: *What was happening at the time here_ was not only the blanket of racism across the country with lynchings and race riots going on regularly, but an isolationism derived from a recent influx of immigrants, especially from central and eastern Europe.  So Simmons' Klan expanded its hatred to not just blacks but equal-opportunity terrorism against Catholics, Jews, loose women and adulterers, and communists, hailing themselves as champions of "100% Americanism", which might sound eerily familiar.  In one instance they took a (white) woman out an whipped her for "failing to go to church" and when her 15-year-old son came out to defend her they whipped him too.

Simmons' PR people used the isolationism angle to build up huge memberships around the country, far outside the South, and this is the point where they get into politics.  Not with a particular party -- Democrats in the South, Republicans in the midwest and west.  Whatever worked at the time.  In Oregon they got a Democrat into the governor's chair and a Republican as mayor of Portland,  Republican Senators and Governors in Colorado and Indiana.  Republican city council in Anaheim.  And obviously, Democrats in the South.  Because unlike your façile Google Imagery, the KKK at least understood what a political party is and what it isn't.

Matter of fact when a Governor in Oklahoma (Walton) tried to drive the Klan out after the infamous Tulsa race riots, the KKK got him removed.  When a Presidential candidate from Alabama (Underwood) denounced the Klan, they denounced him and muscled him out of contention.  Walton and Underwood were both Democrats. 

Doesn't fit your Big Ugly Loosey-Loosey Superficial Hotlinked Image Theory does it?  The things you find out when you look under the BULLSHIT.

This second Klan, after internal power struggles and infighting and a huge rape scandal, followed by the Depression and World War Two, dwindled in its influence and largely spun down.  Then in 1946 a dentist named Samuel Green tried to re-form and reorgaize it again, once again on Stone Mountain.  Again playing on nativism, Green targeted the "uppity nigras who got all the good jobs while you were in uniform" as well as the influx of Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.  Happily Green was killed by a heart attack in 1949, decentralizing and splintering the group which has been intermittently sputtering ever since.

Oh and this Samuel Green?  All together now -- no known political affiliation.

What your dumbdown image is trying to do here is play pollitical football with what is clearly (racism, anti-Semitism, bigotry in general and theocracy) a *cultural* issue. Trying to play dress-up with demons not only plays the Eliminationist monolithic-thought game but in fact cheapens the entire question and in effect suppresses examination of it.

And I will not allow this pig-ignorant revisionism.

Your last point about Opelousas -- no idea.  There's no link.  There's no link to any of this bullshit.

Here's some links.  Study them.  And quit promulgating Google Image Bullshit.  It's counterproductive.  This ain't no fucking football game, Jack.

Ku Klux Klan - a History of Racism
Klan in Oregon
Kolorado Klan Kountry
Red Summer
The Irony of the Solid South: Democrats, Republicans and Race, 1865-1944

Git chew a edumacation.  Quit trying to dumb us down.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...


Where do you see anybody's party affiliation?  Registration cards sticking out of their pockets?  Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?

Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.


----------



## Pogo

Statistikhengst said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he didn't crop a photo, he composed it in such a way that he didn't have to. OK, gotcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


That, and the whole assemblage clearly says "everybody's following O'bama, nobody wants to follow Bush, and there's a huge divider between them".  You gotta wonder if that's really the image they'd want the NYT to have gone with.

(duh)

Drones....


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


>




*Once again for the slow readers:*

There is a discernible pattern --  but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it.  You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won.  Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
*>>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)*


Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
*>>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%) *
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
*ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)*
*ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)*

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side.  But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But *96 on one side versus 92 on the other side??  * You just hit the motherlode.  _NOW _you can cite chew some polarization.
BIG time.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political.  And _regional_, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means *cultural*.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions.  (!)

And to think people bitch about  "gridlock".

Canard obliterated.  /offtopic

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP.  Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.


----------



## boilermaker55

This seems to fit you so eloquently......





PoliticalChic said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just helping out someone that needed a little help.
> You are so welcome!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXTERMINATES?
> Who spelled the word for you?
> LOL what a laughable headline.
> At least faux news taught you one thing..........
> ex·ag·ger·ate
> iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
> _verb_
> verb: *exaggerate*; 3rd person present: *exaggerates*; past tense: *exaggerated*; past participle: *exaggerated*; gerund or present participle: *exaggerating*
> represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
> "they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
> synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate
> 
> It was not by accident.
> I use words with precision.
> 
> 1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.
> 
> 2. I exaggerated with purpose.
> Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
> Pink is good for your political persuasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not by accident.
> 
> 1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.
> 
> 2. I exaggerated with purpose.
> Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
> Pink
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXTERMINATES?
> Who spelled the word for you?
> LOL what a laughable headline.
> At least faux news taught you one thing..........
> ex·ag·ger·ate
> iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
> _verb_
> verb: *exaggerate*; 3rd person present: *exaggerates*; past tense: *exaggerated*; past participle: *exaggerated*; gerund or present participle: *exaggerating*
> represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
> "they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
> synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no explanation for your word-salad of a post, as you clearly didn't help anyone out, including yourself.
> In fact, you came off looking pretty much a dunce, know what I mean, pinky?
> 
> You thought I inadvertently used 'exterminate,' and I disabused that notion.
> 
> So....the "You are so welcome!" is really seen as your effort to save face.
> 
> That's a quandary as well: how can you save what you never had?
Click to expand...


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you see anybody's party affiliation?  Registration cards sticking out of their pockets?  Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.
Click to expand...

Fuck You too!!!


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you see anybody's party affiliation?  Registration cards sticking out of their pockets?  Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck You too!!!
Click to expand...


So is that a 'yes'? 

Where is it?  What, do you see little speech bubbles that the rest of us don't?  Read minds off of photographs perhaps?
Or maybe you're reading the tea leaves in a cup on the counter.  


Dumbass.
Live by the fallacy -- die by it.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again for the slow readers:*
> 
> There is a discernible pattern --  but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it.  You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won.  Easily.
> 
> I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:
> 
> The original House version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
> *>>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)*
> 
> 
> Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
> *>>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%) *
> The Senate version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
> *ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)*
> *ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)*
> 
> Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side.  But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.
> 
> But *96 on one side versus 92 on the other side??  * You just hit the motherlode.
> 
> The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political.  And _regional_, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means *cultural*.
> 
> You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
> You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
> It's truly bipartisan in both directions.  (!)
> 
> And to think people bitch about  "gridlock".
> 
> Canard obliterated.  /offtopic
> 
> And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP.  Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.
Click to expand...

You guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names. Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists. A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"

You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you see anybody's party affiliation?  Registration cards sticking out of their pockets?  Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck You too!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is that a 'yes'?
> 
> Where is it?  What, do you see little speech bubbles that the rest of us don't?  Read minds off of photographs perhaps?
> Or maybe you're reading the tea leaves in a cup on the counter.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> Live by the fallacy -- die by it.
Click to expand...


That's rich.  An Obama supporter throwing around accusations of this sort.

I suggest you do the same. Democrats are full of falsehoods. It's their bread and butter. They live and die by their lies. Catch them in a lie and they deny it and double down on their lies.

You post all of these facts about how Northern Democrats were less racist than their Southern counterparts. Peer pressure explains much of that. Do you think a bunch of Repubs are gonna act like Southern Democrats by harrassing blacks who try to eat at the lunch counter? Highly unlikely. Even you have to admit that those Crackers were Democrats. When I was a kid just about everyone was a Democrat. I didn't know any Republicans. So chances are pretty damned good all of those assholes were Democrats


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again for the slow readers:*
> 
> There is a discernible pattern --  but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it.  You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won.  Easily.
> 
> I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:
> 
> The original House version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
> *>>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)*
> 
> 
> Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
> *>>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%) *
> The Senate version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
> *ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)*
> *ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)*
> 
> Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side.  But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.
> 
> But *96 on one side versus 92 on the other side??  * You just hit the motherlode.
> 
> The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political.  And _regional_, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means *cultural*.
> 
> You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
> You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
> It's truly bipartisan in both directions.  (!)
> 
> And to think people bitch about  "gridlock".
> 
> Canard obliterated.  /offtopic
> 
> And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP.  Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.
Click to expand...


I *just did *name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end.  And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat?  Generalize much?  And... 'you guys'?  Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me?  Some kind of committee?




mudwhistle said:


> Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.



And where did I say anything like this then?
Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what?  Do you have any idea what debate is?




mudwhistle said:


> A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"
> 
> You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.



Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.

So let's see, your homework would be...

Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?

Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you see anybody's party affiliation?  Registration cards sticking out of their pockets?  Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck You too!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is that a 'yes'?
> 
> Where is it?  What, do you see little speech bubbles that the rest of us don't?  Read minds off of photographs perhaps?
> Or maybe you're reading the tea leaves in a cup on the counter.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> Live by the fallacy -- die by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's rich.  An Obama supporter throwing around accusations of this sort.
> 
> I suggest you do the same. Democrats are full of falsehoods. It's their bread and butter. They live and die by their lies. Catch them in a lie and they deny it and double down on their lies.
Click to expand...


I just gave you copious historical details -- names, dates, places and links.  You gave us Google Images based on complete bullshit, which I deconstructed with the above.

Guess which one of us is dealing in Fallacy.

And by the way how come you're putting ll this effort into derailing a thread into completely irrelevant tangents?  Is something inconvenient?


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again for the slow readers:*
> 
> There is a discernible pattern --  but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it.  You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won.  Easily.
> 
> I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:
> 
> The original House version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
> *>>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)*
> 
> 
> Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
> *>>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%) *
> The Senate version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
> *ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)*
> *ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)*
> 
> Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side.  But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.
> 
> But *96 on one side versus 92 on the other side??  * You just hit the motherlode.
> 
> The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political.  And _regional_, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means *cultural*.
> 
> You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
> You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
> It's truly bipartisan in both directions.  (!)
> 
> And to think people bitch about  "gridlock".
> 
> Canard obliterated.  /offtopic
> 
> And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP.  Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I *just did *name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end.  And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat?  Generalize much?  And... 'you guys'?  Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me?  Some kind of committee?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where did I say anything like this then?
> Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what?  Do you have any idea what debate is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"
> 
> You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.
> 
> So let's see, your homework would be...
> 
> Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...
Click to expand...


You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party.  Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a picture of Democrats harassing blacks and whites that are trying to have lunch with them in the 60s...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you see anybody's party affiliation?  Registration cards sticking out of their pockets?  Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck You too!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is that a 'yes'?
> 
> Where is it?  What, do you see little speech bubbles that the rest of us don't?  Read minds off of photographs perhaps?
> Or maybe you're reading the tea leaves in a cup on the counter.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> Live by the fallacy -- die by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's rich.  An Obama supporter throwing around accusations of this sort.
> 
> I suggest you do the same. Democrats are full of falsehoods. It's their bread and butter. They live and die by their lies. Catch them in a lie and they deny it and double down on their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just gave you copious historical details -- names, dates, places and links.  You gave us Google Images based on complete bullshit, which I deconstructed with the above.
> 
> Guess which one of us is dealing in Fallacy.
> 
> And by the way how come you're putting ll this effort into derailing a thread into completely irrelevant tangents?  Is something inconvenient?
Click to expand...

Sometimes that's what happens in a thread. Somebody makes a claim and others try to disprove it and so-on.

Sometimes we have to use a little God Damned common-sense. It's clear that is a rare occurance when dealing with the constant Bullshit that comes from the Democratic Party these days.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again for the slow readers:*
> 
> There is a discernible pattern --  but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it.  You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won.  Easily.
> 
> I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:
> 
> The original House version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
> *>>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)*
> 
> 
> Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
> *>>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%) *
> The Senate version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
> *ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)*
> *ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)*
> 
> Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side.  But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.
> 
> But *96 on one side versus 92 on the other side??  * You just hit the motherlode.
> 
> The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political.  And _regional_, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means *cultural*.
> 
> You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
> You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
> It's truly bipartisan in both directions.  (!)
> 
> And to think people bitch about  "gridlock".
> 
> Canard obliterated.  /offtopic
> 
> And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP.  Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I *just did *name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end.  And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat?  Generalize much?  And... 'you guys'?  Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me?  Some kind of committee?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where did I say anything like this then?
> Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what?  Do you have any idea what debate is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"
> 
> You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.
> 
> So let's see, your homework would be...
> 
> Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party.  Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.  I said "thousands" to retain the movie catchphrase but I meant "millions"...

1944:





1956:






1980:





2000:


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again for the slow readers:*
> 
> There is a discernible pattern --  but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it.  You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won.  Easily.
> 
> I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:
> 
> The original House version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
> *>>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)*
> 
> 
> Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
> *>>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%) *
> The Senate version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
> *ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)*
> *ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)*
> 
> Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side.  But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.
> 
> But *96 on one side versus 92 on the other side??  * You just hit the motherlode.
> 
> The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political.  And _regional_, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means *cultural*.
> 
> You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
> You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
> It's truly bipartisan in both directions.  (!)
> 
> And to think people bitch about  "gridlock".
> 
> Canard obliterated.  /offtopic
> 
> And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP.  Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I *just did *name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end.  And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat?  Generalize much?  And... 'you guys'?  Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me?  Some kind of committee?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where did I say anything like this then?
> Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what?  Do you have any idea what debate is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"
> 
> You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.
> 
> So let's see, your homework would be...
> 
> Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party.  Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.
Click to expand...


Cherrypicking.  If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes.  The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither.  You can't have it both ways.

One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region.  That's still true; only the chosen party has changed.  Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology.  And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when _it_ gets results.  As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts.  And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.

So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.

And that, sir, is insane.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again for the slow readers:*
> 
> There is a discernible pattern --  but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it.  You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won.  Easily.
> 
> I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:
> 
> The original House version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
> *>>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)*
> 
> 
> Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
> *>>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%) *
> The Senate version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
> *ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)*
> *ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)*
> 
> Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side.  But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.
> 
> But *96 on one side versus 92 on the other side??  * You just hit the motherlode.
> 
> The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political.  And _regional_, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means *cultural*.
> 
> You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
> You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
> It's truly bipartisan in both directions.  (!)
> 
> And to think people bitch about  "gridlock".
> 
> Canard obliterated.  /offtopic
> 
> And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP.  Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I *just did *name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end.  And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat?  Generalize much?  And... 'you guys'?  Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me?  Some kind of committee?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where did I say anything like this then?
> Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what?  Do you have any idea what debate is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"
> 
> You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.
> 
> So let's see, your homework would be...
> 
> Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party.  Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cherrypicking.  If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes.  The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region.  That's still true; only the chosen party has changed.  Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology.  And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when _it_ gets results.  As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts.  And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.
> 
> So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.
> 
> And that, sir, is insane.
Click to expand...

Trying to lump the KKK in with a segregationist like Stromberg Thurmond is a bit of a stretch. Robert Byrd was an official member of the KKK but Democrats accepted him and kept him around even when he began babbling like a retard. I believe there are racists in the Democratic Party today. One of them sits in the Whitehouse. His Attorney General was another. 

Oh, a map doesn't prove which party a voter is. There is no way of telling exactly which party a voter belongs to because it's a blind ballot. You can suggest trends but nothing specific. Sometimes a Republican will vote for a Democrat and vice-verse, but the polarization of the electorate is making that less and less common.


----------



## asaratis

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 88% of Mississippians voted for Goldwater in 1964.  Goldwater was the Republican.
> 
> Goldwater was one of the few Republicans who voted against the 64 Civil Rights bill.
> 
> Conservative racist Democrats in the South began a shift to voting Republican as soon as it became clear that the new Republican Party was their new home.
> 
> So it remains to this day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Democrats in the South still vote Democrat or they don't vote. All you have to do is talk to them to find this out like I have. The difference today is there are fewer Democrats in the South these days. Most of them are transplants from other states. Folks moving here to escape high taxes in liberal Meccas like New York, Minnesota, California, etc. The South is still affordable, so people are moving here and changing the demographics. I talk to them every election. Most of the Dixicrats said they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Obama, so they didn't vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dispute what?  That 88% of MS voters in 1964 voted for the Republican Goldwater?
> 
> They did.  A state that was Democrat for a hundred years suddenly went Republican.  Why?
> 
> Because Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights act and Johnson didn't.
> 
> Wake up.
Click to expand...

You wake up!  Johnson was against civil rights for the negro until he realized how many votes the lying, sleazy Democrats could harvest from the black Democrat plantation.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again for the slow readers:*
> 
> There is a discernible pattern --  but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it.  You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won.  Easily.
> 
> I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:
> 
> The original House version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
> *>>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)*
> 
> 
> Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
> *>>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%) *
> The Senate version:
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
> *ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)*
> *ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)*
> 
> Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side.  But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.
> 
> But *96 on one side versus 92 on the other side??  * You just hit the motherlode.
> 
> The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political.  And _regional_, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means *cultural*.
> 
> You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
> You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
> It's truly bipartisan in both directions.  (!)
> 
> And to think people bitch about  "gridlock".
> 
> Canard obliterated.  /offtopic
> 
> And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP.  Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I *just did *name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end.  And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat?  Generalize much?  And... 'you guys'?  Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me?  Some kind of committee?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where did I say anything like this then?
> Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what?  Do you have any idea what debate is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"
> 
> You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.
> 
> So let's see, your homework would be...
> 
> Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party.  Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cherrypicking.  If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes.  The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region.  That's still true; only the chosen party has changed.  Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology.  And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when _it_ gets results.  As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts.  And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.
> 
> So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.
> 
> And that, sir, is insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to lump the KKK in with a segregationist like Stromberg Thurmond is a bit of a stretch. Robert Byrd was an official member of the KKK but Democrats accepted him and kept him around even when he began babbling like a retard. I believe there are racists in the Democratic Party today. One of them sits in the Whitehouse. His Attorney General was another.
> 
> Oh, a map doesn't prove which party a voter is. There is no way of telling exactly which party a voter belongs to because it's a blind ballot. You can suggest trends but nothing specific. Sometimes a Republican will vote for a Democrat and vice-verse, but the polarization of the electorate is making that less and less common.
Click to expand...


Robert Byrd quit the Klan before he ever even ran for office, let alone held one, so that's more of the same guilt-by-association generalization malarkey at the wheel of a time machine.  David Vitter paid a call girl to dress him up in diapers -- does that mean all "Republicans" -- or all "Louisianans" or all "Metairieans" or all "guys named David" do it?  I don't think it does but you go ahead and make that case.

As far as these maps and the party shift, I'm talking there about behavior -- not party _registration_.  Party registration is meaningless.  You can register for a party (as many do) so that they can vote in their state's primary for that party or so that  they can have a voice in the local government structure.  But voting trends show where the _support_ lies.

As do these -- 1948:




(Yellow = Strom Thurmond, after walking out of the DP convention and starting his own party)

1968:




(Yellow = George Wallace, after tiring of "liberals" and starting _his_ own party)

1860:





(The Democrat Douglas is here represented in *dark blue*.  One state, Missouri.  The *medium blue* is Breckenridge and the yellow, Bell -- after the South completely disrupted the DP convention and started _two_ other parties)

Stop me when you see  pattern...

Your turning point is here -- 1964, two months after Thurmond went to the RP and four months after Goldwater voted against the CRA:






A picture says a thousand words -- this from July 12, 1964:



(from the Library of Congress)

"I like Barry Goldwater.  I believe what he believes in.  I think the same way he thinks." _-- Robert Creel, Alabama KKK Grand Dragon, 1964_

But there's no party shift going on.  Riiight.  Did you know George Wallace wanted to be his running mate and Goldwater had to talk him out of running on his own in '64 (as he did on the next two rounds)?

I think the reason summa y'all object to this being pointed out is somehow you imagine your reader is going to traffic in the same fallacies of Composition and Guilt by Association that you tried to ride in on.  That's not the case; a fallacy is a fallacy, period.  The fact that KKK and/or racists may be attracted to the RP in 1964 and beyond no more makes the RP "racist" than their gravitation to the DP before that point made _that _a "racist" organization.  You're just going to have to abandon  those fallacies.  That's all there is to it.

Nor, I should add, does it make Goldwater a racist.  BG had his own reasons, truly conservative in spirit, for opposing the CRA that had nothing to do with race, and to his eternal credit rejected playing up the race issue, even declaring the CRA, which he had voted against, should be given a chance to work once it was the law of the land.  There's no indication, as far as I know, that Goldwater was a racist or anything less than a man of solid principle, and the simple fact of support _from_ racists -- who may desire a common goal for completely different reasons-- doesn't change that.  It would be just as fallacious to infer that through the logical back door, and I mean 'back door' in both senses.

So this point was about behavior patterns -- illustrated by vote.  My grandfather used to tell this story of counting votes in the 1940 election, in southern Mississippi:

"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie -- aw shoot, we gotta throw the ballot out.  Some damn fool voted twice!"

As always the humor is based on a reality -- that being that voting for or associating with the party of Lincoln in the South was, for 99 years, unthinkable.  The maps above clearly show exactly when that reversed itself.

And yet that anecdote took place in *Lincoln *County, Mississippi.

It is not a simple, straightforward, dichotomous cops-and-robbers, good guys vs. bad guys world we live in.  Those who try to portray it as such ::Lush:: cough ::Rimjob: are using Eliminationist tactics to polarize the gullible.  History is complex, Political parties are _not _some kind of static fixed point in space, and they are _not_ defined by anyone associated with them that we cherrypick for the occasion.  That kind of bullshit is not argument.  It's cheapass rhetorical fluff, verbal cotton candy -- all air and no substance.

We can do better than that.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I *just did *name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end.  And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat?  Generalize much?  And... 'you guys'?  Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me?  Some kind of committee?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where did I say anything like this then?
> Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what?  Do you have any idea what debate is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"
> 
> You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.
> 
> So let's see, your homework would be...
> 
> Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party.  Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cherrypicking.  If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes.  The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region.  That's still true; only the chosen party has changed.  Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology.  And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when _it_ gets results.  As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts.  And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.
> 
> So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.
> 
> And that, sir, is insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to lump the KKK in with a segregationist like Stromberg Thurmond is a bit of a stretch. Robert Byrd was an official member of the KKK but Democrats accepted him and kept him around even when he began babbling like a retard. I believe there are racists in the Democratic Party today. One of them sits in the Whitehouse. His Attorney General was another.
> 
> Oh, a map doesn't prove which party a voter is. There is no way of telling exactly which party a voter belongs to because it's a blind ballot. You can suggest trends but nothing specific. Sometimes a Republican will vote for a Democrat and vice-verse, but the polarization of the electorate is making that less and less common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd quit the Klan before he ever even ran for office, let alone held one, so that's more of the same guilt-by-association generalization malarkey at the wheel of a time machine.  David Vitter paid a call girl to dress him up in diapers -- does that mean all "Republicans" -- or all "Louisianans" or all "Metairieans" or all "guys named David" do it?  I don't think it does but you go ahead and make that case.
> 
> As far as these maps and the party shift, I'm talking there about behavior -- not party _registration_.  Party registration is meaningless.  You can register for a party (as many do) so that they can vote in their state's primary for that party or so that  they can have a voice in the local government structure.  But voting trends show where the _support_ lies.
> 
> As do these -- 1948:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Yellow = Strom Thurmond, after walking out of the DP convention and starting his own party)
> 
> 1968:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Yellow = George Wallace, after tiring of "liberals" and starting _his_ own party)
> 
> 1860:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (The Democrat Douglas is here represented in *dark blue*.  One state, Missouri.  The *medium blue* is Breckenridge and the yellow, Bell -- after the South completely disrupted the DP convention and started _two_ other parties)
> 
> Stop me when you see  pattern...
> 
> Your turning point is here -- 1964, two months after Thurmond went to the RP and four months after Goldwater voted against the CRA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A picture says a thousand words -- this from July 12, 1964:
> 
> 
> 
> (from the Library of Congress)
> 
> "I like Barry Goldwater.  I believe what he believes in.  I think the same way he thinks." _-- Robert Creel, Alabama KKK Grand Dragon, 1964_
> 
> But there's no party shift going on.  Riiight.  Did you know George Wallace wanted to be his running mate and Goldwater had to talk him out of running on his own in '64 (as he did on the next two rounds)?
> 
> I think the reason summa y'all object to this being pointed out is somehow you imagine your reader is going to traffic in the same fallacies of Composition and Guilt by Association that you tried to ride in on.  That's not the case; a fallacy is a fallacy, period.  The fact that KKK and/or racists may be attracted to the RP in 1964 and beyond no more makes the RP "racist" than their gravitation to the DP before that point made _that _a "racist" organization.  You're just going to have to abandon  those fallacies.  That's all there is to it.
> 
> Nor, I should add, does it make Goldwater a racist.  BG had his own reasons, truly conservative in spirit, for opposing the CRA that had nothing to do with race, and to his eternal credit rejected playing up the race issue, even declaring the CRA, which he had voted against, should be given a chance to work once it was the law of the land.  There's no indication, as far as I know, that Goldwater was a racist or anything less than a man of solid principle, and the simple fact of support _from_ racists -- who may desire a common goal for completely different reasons-- doesn't change that.  It would be just as fallacious to infer that through the logical back door, and I mean 'back door' in both senses.
> 
> So this point was about behavior patterns -- illustrated by vote.  My grandfather used to tell this story of counting votes in the 1940 election, in southern Mississippi:
> 
> "Roosevelt"...
> "Roosevelt"...
> "Roosevelt"...
> "Wilkie"...
> "Roosevelt"...
> "Wilkie -- aw shoot, we gotta throw the ballot out.  Some damn fool voted twice!"
> 
> As always the humor is based on a reality -- that being that voting for or associating with the party of Lincoln in the South was, for 99 years, unthinkable.  The maps above clearly show exactly when that reversed itself.
> 
> And yet that anecdote took place in *Lincoln *County, Mississippi.
> 
> It is not a simple, straightforward, dichotomous cops-and-robbers, good guys vs. bad guys world we live in.  Those who try to portray it as such ::Lush:: cough ::Rimjob: are using Eliminationist tactics to polarize the gullible.  History is complex, Political parties are _not _some kind of static fixed point in space, and they are _not_ defined by anyone associated with them that we cherrypick for the occasion.  That kind of bullshit is not argument.  It's cheapass rhetorical fluff, verbal cotton candy -- all air and no substance.
> 
> We can do better than that.
Click to expand...

Oh, so he quit the Klan. That means because he quit he wasn't ever in the Klan.

Well Cheney quit Halliburton and you dipshits never let that fly. Amazing the constant double-standards coming from the left. 

Course Halliburton was evil...evil.....evil.....even though they still have contracts under Obama and they had the contract over in Somalia under Clinton while I was there. But that's just a clerical error......


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I *just did *name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end.  And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat?  Generalize much?  And... 'you guys'?  Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me?  Some kind of committee?
> 
> 
> And where did I say anything like this then?
> Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what?  Do you have any idea what debate is?
> 
> 
> Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.
> 
> So let's see, your homework would be...
> 
> Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
> Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?
> 
> Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party.  Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cherrypicking.  If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes.  The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region.  That's still true; only the chosen party has changed.  Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology.  And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when _it_ gets results.  As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts.  And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.
> 
> So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.
> 
> And that, sir, is insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to lump the KKK in with a segregationist like Stromberg Thurmond is a bit of a stretch. Robert Byrd was an official member of the KKK but Democrats accepted him and kept him around even when he began babbling like a retard. I believe there are racists in the Democratic Party today. One of them sits in the Whitehouse. His Attorney General was another.
> 
> Oh, a map doesn't prove which party a voter is. There is no way of telling exactly which party a voter belongs to because it's a blind ballot. You can suggest trends but nothing specific. Sometimes a Republican will vote for a Democrat and vice-verse, but the polarization of the electorate is making that less and less common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd quit the Klan before he ever even ran for office, let alone held one, so that's more of the same guilt-by-association generalization malarkey at the wheel of a time machine.  David Vitter paid a call girl to dress him up in diapers -- does that mean all "Republicans" -- or all "Louisianans" or all "Metairieans" or all "guys named David" do it?  I don't think it does but you go ahead and make that case.
> 
> As far as these maps and the party shift, I'm talking there about behavior -- not party _registration_.  Party registration is meaningless.  You can register for a party (as many do) so that they can vote in their state's primary for that party or so that  they can have a voice in the local government structure.  But voting trends show where the _support_ lies.
> 
> As do these -- 1948:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Yellow = Strom Thurmond, after walking out of the DP convention and starting his own party)
> 
> 1968:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Yellow = George Wallace, after tiring of "liberals" and starting _his_ own party)
> 
> 1860:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (The Democrat Douglas is here represented in *dark blue*.  One state, Missouri.  The *medium blue* is Breckenridge and the yellow, Bell -- after the South completely disrupted the DP convention and started _two_ other parties)
> 
> Stop me when you see  pattern...
> 
> Your turning point is here -- 1964, two months after Thurmond went to the RP and four months after Goldwater voted against the CRA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A picture says a thousand words -- this from July 12, 1964:
> 
> 
> 
> (from the Library of Congress)
> 
> "I like Barry Goldwater.  I believe what he believes in.  I think the same way he thinks." _-- Robert Creel, Alabama KKK Grand Dragon, 1964_
> 
> But there's no party shift going on.  Riiight.  Did you know George Wallace wanted to be his running mate and Goldwater had to talk him out of running on his own in '64 (as he did on the next two rounds)?
> 
> I think the reason summa y'all object to this being pointed out is somehow you imagine your reader is going to traffic in the same fallacies of Composition and Guilt by Association that you tried to ride in on.  That's not the case; a fallacy is a fallacy, period.  The fact that KKK and/or racists may be attracted to the RP in 1964 and beyond no more makes the RP "racist" than their gravitation to the DP before that point made _that _a "racist" organization.  You're just going to have to abandon  those fallacies.  That's all there is to it.
> 
> Nor, I should add, does it make Goldwater a racist.  BG had his own reasons, truly conservative in spirit, for opposing the CRA that had nothing to do with race, and to his eternal credit rejected playing up the race issue, even declaring the CRA, which he had voted against, should be given a chance to work once it was the law of the land.  There's no indication, as far as I know, that Goldwater was a racist or anything less than a man of solid principle, and the simple fact of support _from_ racists -- who may desire a common goal for completely different reasons-- doesn't change that.  It would be just as fallacious to infer that through the logical back door, and I mean 'back door' in both senses.
> 
> So this point was about behavior patterns -- illustrated by vote.  My grandfather used to tell this story of counting votes in the 1940 election, in southern Mississippi:
> 
> "Roosevelt"...
> "Roosevelt"...
> "Roosevelt"...
> "Wilkie"...
> "Roosevelt"...
> "Wilkie -- aw shoot, we gotta throw the ballot out.  Some damn fool voted twice!"
> 
> As always the humor is based on a reality -- that being that voting for or associating with the party of Lincoln in the South was, for 99 years, unthinkable.  The maps above clearly show exactly when that reversed itself.
> 
> And yet that anecdote took place in *Lincoln *County, Mississippi.
> 
> It is not a simple, straightforward, dichotomous cops-and-robbers, good guys vs. bad guys world we live in.  Those who try to portray it as such ::Lush:: cough ::Rimjob: are using Eliminationist tactics to polarize the gullible.  History is complex, Political parties are _not _some kind of static fixed point in space, and they are _not_ defined by anyone associated with them that we cherrypick for the occasion.  That kind of bullshit is not argument.  It's cheapass rhetorical fluff, verbal cotton candy -- all air and no substance.
> 
> We can do better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so he quit the Klan. That means because he quit he wasn't ever in the Klan.
> 
> Well Cheney quit Halliburton and you dipshits never let that fly.
> 
> Course the Halliburton was evil...evil.....evil.....even though they still have contracts under Obama and they had the contract over in Somalia under Clinton while I was there. But that's just a clerical error......
Click to expand...


Who in the blue fuck brought up _Halliburton_?
Which reminds us, how's that search coming along for those other strawmen?  You know, my posts about Hillary, my posts about the Tea Party, my posts about Republicans being racist...

Taking a while, innit?
Wonder why.

Btw you completely ignored my question about Vitter that demonstrates the folly of such blatant fallacy.

Wonder why.


----------



## Redfish

Statistikhengst said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
Click to expand...

 

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.


----------



## jon_berzerk

PoliticalChic said:


> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*




it was an accident so they say 

what a bunch of frikkin losers


----------



## Pogo

jon_berzerk said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?
> 
> We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....
> 
> 
> 
> *1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo*
> 
> *2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.
> 
> *The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.*
> *Discrimination still exists in America.*
> 
> 
> *4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.*
> *Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it was an accident so they say
> 
> what a bunch of frikkin losers
Click to expand...


Where did anybody say it was an "accident"?

It was neither accident nor a "crop".  You cannot "crop" what isn't there in the first place.
We did this.  Read the thread.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Has someone already posted the reason for this? 

The photo that included a figure that sorta looked like the shrub didn't belong to the NYT. It wasn't theirs to publish.

Its a non-issue, BUT I do think we should give the shrub credit for showing up. That's more than the Big Tent Repubs could manage.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Has someone already posted the reason for this?
> 
> The photo that included a figure that sorta looked like the shrub didn't belong to the NYT. It wasn't theirs to publish.
> 
> Its a non-issue, BUT I do think we should give the shrub credit for showing up. That's more than the Big Tent Repubs could manage.




You don't really believe that ......do you?

You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept th........

....never mind.


----------



## Pogo

Redfish said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.
Click to expand...


I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC).  He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination.  Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone.  And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.


----------



## Redfish

Pogo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
> Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC).  He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination.  Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone.  And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.
Click to expand...

 

I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that.   The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.

But just think,  LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam  for absolutely nothing.   Goldwater may have been right.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Redfish said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
> 
> 
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
> Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC).  He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination.  Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone.  And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that.   The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.
> 
> But just think,  LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam  for absolutely nothing.   Goldwater may have been right.
Click to expand...


Don't lie.

Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The 'bomb' ad aired in September

Daisy advertisement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Don't lie.  And don't ever claim you never lie, lol, I'm saving this post.


----------



## Redfish

NYcarbineer said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
> Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC).  He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination.  Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone.  And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that.   The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.
> 
> But just think,  LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam  for absolutely nothing.   Goldwater may have been right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't lie.
> 
> Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The 'bomb' ad aired in September
> 
> Daisy advertisement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Don't lie.  And don't ever claim you never lie, lol, I'm saving this post.
Click to expand...

 

I guess my memory was off.  I remembered it as closer than that.  

your second cite did confirm the positive affect that the ad had for Johnson, even though it only ran for a short time. 

I don't lie,  so no need to save that post.   When I am wrong I admit it,  unlike 99% of liberals.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Redfish said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
> 
> 
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
> Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC).  He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination.  Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone.  And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that.   The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.
> 
> But just think,  LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam  for absolutely nothing.   Goldwater may have been right.
Click to expand...



That is a stupid lie. LBJ was up more than 60 points on Goldwater in May, and still 37 to 40 points or so up on him BEFORE the ad aired in September, 1964. The election was never close, not even for one single day.

Go fuck yourself, you stupid POS.


----------



## Redfish

Statistikhengst said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
> Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC).  He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination.  Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone.  And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that.   The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.
> 
> But just think,  LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam  for absolutely nothing.   Goldwater may have been right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid lie. LBJ was up more than 60 points on Goldwater in May, and still 37 to 40 points or so up on him BEFORE the ad aired in September, 1964. The election was never close, not even for one single day.
> 
> Go fuck yourself, you stupid POS.
Click to expand...

 

see post #293 then go fuck yourself you stupid arrogant piece of dog shit.


----------



## Statistikhengst

I love it when facts hit RWNJs squarely in the ass.


----------



## Redfish

Statistikhengst said:


> I love it when facts hit RWNJs squarely in the ass.


 

99% of the time the facts are rammed up your arrogant ass.   when we are wrong 1% of the time we admit it.   its the difference between being honest and being a libtardian democrat.


----------



## Pogo

Redfish said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?
> 
> 
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
> Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC).  He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination.  Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone.  And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that.   The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.
> 
> But just think,  LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam  for absolutely nothing.   Goldwater may have been right.
Click to expand...


I lived through it too.  It was never close. Goldwater's candidacy was a matter of going through the motions -- he said himself he realized that once Kennedy's assassination tore the nation emotionally.  It's in one of my previous links.  But no, there was never a time when that election was "very close"  At all.

And as I said, the bomb ad ran a total of one time IIRC.  It's more famous now for its tactics than it was then as a campaign influence.  The ad didn't do squat for the electorate.

You are correct about LBJ and Vietnam.  We made that point repeatedly at the time and drove him to abandon any re-election bid.  You may remember the chant, "hey hey LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?"

As for Goldwater he may have been right, and reasonable, about a lot of stuff, and I respect his later views on what was happening with "social conservatives" taking over the RP.  But on the whole he was way too far right for America at the time, and again anyone running in the fumes of the horror of Assassination already had a huge advantage.  That had *way *more to do with Johnson's plurality than any bomb ad.


----------



## Redfish

Pogo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
> Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC).  He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination.  Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone.  And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that.   The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.
> 
> But just think,  LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam  for absolutely nothing.   Goldwater may have been right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived through it too.  It was never close. Goldwater's candidacy was a matter of going through the motions -- he said himself he realized that once Kennedy's assassination tore the nation emotionally.  It's in one of my previous links.  But no, there was never a time when that election was "very close"  At all.
> 
> And as I said, the bomb ad ran a total of one time IIRC.  It's more famous now for its tactics than it was then as a campaign influence.  The ad didn't do squat for the electorate.
> 
> You are correct about LBJ and Vietnam.  We made that point repeatedly at the time and drove him to abandon any re-election bid.  You may remember the chant, "hey hey LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?"
> 
> As for Goldwater he may have been right, and reasonable, about a lot of stuff, and I respect his later views on what was happening with "social conservatives" taking over the RP.  But on the whole he was way too far right for America at the time, and again anyone running in the fumes of the horror of Assassination already had a huge advantage.  That had *way *more to do with Johnson's plurality than any bomb ad.
Click to expand...

 

its funny how people who lived through that time have different memories of it.   I guess history depends on who is writing the book.  Oh well.


----------



## Pogo

Redfish said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad.   Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
> Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC).  He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination.  Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone.  And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that.   The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.
> 
> But just think,  LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam  for absolutely nothing.   Goldwater may have been right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived through it too.  It was never close. Goldwater's candidacy was a matter of going through the motions -- he said himself he realized that once Kennedy's assassination tore the nation emotionally.  It's in one of my previous links.  But no, there was never a time when that election was "very close"  At all.
> 
> And as I said, the bomb ad ran a total of one time IIRC.  It's more famous now for its tactics than it was then as a campaign influence.  The ad didn't do squat for the electorate.
> 
> You are correct about LBJ and Vietnam.  We made that point repeatedly at the time and drove him to abandon any re-election bid.  You may remember the chant, "hey hey LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?"
> 
> As for Goldwater he may have been right, and reasonable, about a lot of stuff, and I respect his later views on what was happening with "social conservatives" taking over the RP.  But on the whole he was way too far right for America at the time, and again anyone running in the fumes of the horror of Assassination already had a huge advantage.  That had *way *more to do with Johnson's plurality than any bomb ad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its funny how people who lived through that time have different memories of it.   I guess history depends on who is writing the book.  Oh well.
Click to expand...


Neurologists tell us that the way our memories work is a series of repeated stories that we tell ourselves over and over.  The more one tells oneself the same story, the more susceptible it is to embellishment from the context of the present.  I was a kid then and not political, but I understood emotion.  And it was definitely a deep palpable elephant in the room.  But if you look up polls through the campaign of that year you'll see the numbers (here)  -- LBJ consistently held a 2-to-1 lead.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Redfish said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when facts hit RWNJs squarely in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 99% of the time the facts are rammed up your arrogant ass.   when we are wrong 1% of the time we admit it.   its the difference between being honest and being a libtardian democrat.
Click to expand...



I love it whan RWNJs get all angry and puffed up like cheese balls.


----------



## Redfish

Statistikhengst said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when facts hit RWNJs squarely in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 99% of the time the facts are rammed up your arrogant ass.   when we are wrong 1% of the time we admit it.   its the difference between being honest and being a libtardian democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it whan RWNJs get all angry and puffed up like cheese balls.
Click to expand...

 

then get ready because more than half of the country is totally pissed off at the incompetents and liars occupying the whitehouse and congress.


----------

