22
   

Fox News: Palin's Newsweek cover "untouched" and "mortifying"

 
 
vmars2007
 
  4  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 01:15 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Are you ******* joking me about this? I mean, honestly. Are people really fighting about how she looks on a magazine? Isn't that what everyone has been saying all along- oh, look at Sarah Palin, she's beautiful. Now when people see her like this, they're like "oh it's a conspiracy against her, since she doesn't look beautiful she and McCain won't win the election". I mean, really? I am in no way a McCain/Palin supporter, HOWEVER, the fact that people are debating the fact that a MAGAZINE didn't retouch her is ridiculous. There are so many more important things in politics and that need to be discussed about this election and they're choosing to fight over a magazine's cover. I personally believe it's a good cover, because the fact that it is untouched is exactly a point. It's untouched, it's not fake, it's showing imperfections that everyone has but politicians and movie stars consistently cover up with their makeup. The media is ridiculous and have been torching this election with gasoline and matches since it began with their claims and their arguments about nothing worthy of the American people. What does her face have to do with politics? I could care less if she was the prettiest or ugliest person in the world, if she was right for the job and could do the job well then and only then would she in my mind be suited to take the Vice Presidential spot. But by basing it on looks? Our country is going to hell.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 02:57 pm
@vmars2007,
Thanks... we ... needed that insight.
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 03:49 pm
@vmars2007,
vmars2007 wrote:

Are you ******* joking me about this? I mean, honestly. Are people really fighting about how she looks on a magazine? Isn't that what everyone has been saying all along- oh, look at Sarah Palin, she's beautiful. Now when people see her like this, they're like "oh it's a conspiracy against her, since she doesn't look beautiful she and McCain won't win the election". I mean, really? I am in no way a McCain/Palin supporter, HOWEVER, the fact that people are debating the fact that a MAGAZINE didn't retouch her is ridiculous. There are so many more important things in politics and that need to be discussed about this election and they're choosing to fight over a magazine's cover. I personally believe it's a good cover, because the fact that it is untouched is exactly a point. It's untouched, it's not fake, it's showing imperfections that everyone has but politicians and movie stars consistently cover up with their makeup. The media is ridiculous and have been torching this election with gasoline and matches since it began with their claims and their arguments about nothing worthy of the American people. What does her face have to do with politics? I could care less if she was the prettiest or ugliest person in the world, if she was right for the job and could do the job well then and only then would she in my mind be suited to take the Vice Presidential spot. But by basing it on looks? Our country is going to hell.


I beg to differ. I believe the magazine cover has everything to do with the issues that concern most Americans. Namely, the economy.

In fact, Newsweek's "hands-off" approach to Palin's face might be read as a metaphor, symbolic of the laissez-faire economic policies that have led us to the present financial crisis.

So ******* obvious.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 06:51 pm
http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/thread.gif
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 07:40 pm
@nimh,
Love it Nimh. I'm traveling, so I stopped in the airport bookstore to see this cover for myself. I see absolutely nothing to complain about. It looked fine to me.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 08:42 pm
@RexRed,
village voice for you right rex?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 09:01 pm
@nimh,
I've a friend who sends me seemingly every tidbit he runs across against Palin. It's funny to me, in that he well knows he's sending all this to a non-Palin person, thus a useless effort. I don't like to stem the flow with quibbling since a) he clearly so enjoys doing this, and b) I like about 90% of the email stuff on a range of other subjects that he sends me.

We'll see what tomorrow's email brings.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 09:10 pm
Wait.... Sarah who?
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2008 10:07 pm
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Quote:
village voice for you right rex?


Who sleeps at night wearing a pair of tighty whiteys with " Drill , Baby Drill " printed on the posterior ?

I mean besides cj and gunga.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2008 07:49 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
wipe your chin
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2008 04:58 pm
Could someone tell me where this "unwanted hair" is supposed to be?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2008 05:43 pm
Hilarious! They make mountains out of mole hills every time; at least most times. They don't remember what's really important today in our country.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 10:45 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

They don't remember what's really important today in our country.

Yeah; what 's really important is fighting against liberalism
and to defend our personal freedom.





David
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 10:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I guess that explains why Fox News spent so much news time talking about Palin's picture on a magazine. We can't be personally free unless we prevent magazines from putting pictures of GOP candidates on their covers.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 10:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
What does "fighting against liberalism" mean? Don't you know that under democratic presidents, "most" Americans did much better than under republican presidents?

Curious how you reconcile this "fact" with your beliefs.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 10:59 am
@parados,
I believe in unlimited free press,
including the freedom to condemn anyone for bad taste,
or to address considerations of fairness.





David
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 12:00 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
That still doesn't explain how complaining about Palin's picture is a blow for freedom, especially in a time of economic crisis and war. Certainly it can't be the most important issue concerning American freedom.


When you consider an unretouched photo to be 'bad taste' one wonders what your meaning of "freedom" is.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 12:09 pm
@parados,
The conservatives question all the Constitutional and Bill of Rights to push their own agenda. They let Bush break both domestic and international laws, and cry about some picture on a magazine. A sorry bunch of Americans.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 12:13 pm
@parados,
Quote:

That still doesn't explain how complaining
about Palin's picture is a blow for freedom

Thay have the freedom to say whatever thay want.
Thay USED that freedom, and aimed it where
thay wanted to, the same as anyone.
This was a discussion of a blow AGAINST freedom
having been struck, in that it sought to depress n reduce
Gov. Palin 's vote.
In any case, when we engage in discussions,


Quote:

Certainly it can't be the most important issue
concerning American freedom.

Discussions in the press have never (so far) been limited
to only " the most important issue "; thay are free
to discuss whatever thay want. I mighta thought that u 'd know that.


parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 12:24 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


This was a discussion of a blow AGAINST freedom
having been struck, in that it sought to depress n reduce
Gov. Palin 's vote.



I am unclear how a picture of Palin on a magazine that has a circulation of a few million is going to depress votes when most people think it is a good picture.

I find it ironic that you claim the press can do whatever they want because they are free at the same time claiming their action is a blow against freedom. It seems an act of freedom is an act against freedom when you disagree with it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2021 at 01:32:33