WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

Hillary's not a candidate - yet.

A boo is an expression, if and when it is cutout in its natural circumstance - it is censorship. The fact that they cut it meant they were prepared for it to happen, ie, they knew it was a probability. Therefore, it was predetermined censorship. You are correct that it was entertainment, but even it is was Jr, it would have been censored.

At the time Hillary was booed, she was a candidate for the Senate.

quote from trespasser will:



Not that it makes that much difference. The boos started coming from the firefighters and then spread. Boos can become infectous, and then some boos are boos booing the booers, and then there is a lot of noise that gets caught up - but, anyway - life does go on!

You are right. She'd just won her Senate seat.
My bad.

My point was between active politicians and retired politicians, but you're right.

Little personal nuances of right and wrong in situations like this aren't that important.

I promise not to beat this point to a bloody pulp, BUT regarding the Hillary Black Van vs. JC Watts parking ticket stories. One was about the actions of the subject individual the other was about the subject individual being in a vehicle.
JC Watts, who I like btw, shoved a parking ticket under the cop's badge.
Hillary was along for the ride.

That's the difference I would see as an editor. And if the individuals were reversed with Hillary doing the ticket shoving, I would see it the same way. Joe

tis my own bias for sure but i was just listening to Chris Mathews and he was talking to Sen Nickles about the "objects" found in Iraq today and Nickles said " i am very pleased". My immediate response was something along the lines of "OMG any reason to bomb makes him pleased" but of course there are other interpretations such as "i am very pleased the inspectors are being successful in finding those materials. As Paul Simon said "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" and i am as guilty of that as everyone else. Point being we are all biased and tis a far better thing to be cognizant than to deny.

I would think that anyone who cares to take the effort may sample a fairly broad spectrum of information sources and evaluate a reasonably accurate impression of things.


I doubt the number of folks who don't take the effort to do so is small. It is comforting, I suppose, for some to hear what they want to hear, or to convince themselves they have done so.



timber

dys, this is just my opinion, but here goes...

I believe the administration (Nickles included) know alot that we don't know.

I believe that for national security reasons and protection of our source, they are sitting on said info at present.

I believe none of them want war.

I believe when we know what they know, we'll be assured that something must be done, and will understand why Nickles was relieved to see that the UN had finally stumbled upon the tip of the iceburg they know exists in Iraq.

no argument from me lash, i was mostly talking about my own bias and how we all need to be aware of how easy it is to arrive at conclusions written on the wall that are really shadows from our minds.

Having only now reread the post regarding the Bush/AMA "censorship", I have to laugh.

It reads to me as if the sound source at that time in the broadcast was probably Bush's taped message alone. Having seen a few awards shows, it seems to me that any time they play a prerecorded message, the video and audio are 100% from that source. You would not hear or see the crowd because the source being broadcast is the tape, not the crowd.


If--as this suggests--the crowd booed while Bush's face was onscreen, viewers would not have heard the boos. If I am reading this right, that's not censorship, that's reality.

I was astonished last night while watching and taping Episode One and Two of "Freedom: The History of Us" where President George and Laura Bush introduced the series at the beginning of Episode One. The series is narrated by Katy Courick and featuring as voices a plethora of Hollywood stars not exactly endorsing the President and his administration (man, am I being diplomatic here). Just throwing this in as trying to interpret this is frankly baffling. Well, I was wondering if this was the last appearance before pulling the cord on the NEA.

Oh, if only Laura would have dressed like Barbarella for it.

She's too hippy to fit into the costume, blath... :wink:

Besides, it wouldn't fit her "Everything's-just-Father-knows-best-peachy"
image.

Yes, yes....but I would have fallen in love with her had she done it.

hmmmmm .... Barbarella as First Lady ... a "Formal" transparent cuirasse, I imagine, something with a high neckline and matching thigh-high stiletto-heel lace-up boots ... Plenty of good Photo Op there.

I think its getting late. I should probably drop this for the evening before I really embarass myself. I think I'll just put on one of my favorite Rush Limbaugh tapes and go to bed.


What color boots go with transparent cuirasses?



timber

Can't go wrong with black.

Still, that outfit was tailor made for the provocative Helen Thomas.
I'm sure Hillary Barbarella would be to die for.

Poor prim Laura.

Now, CONDY! Condy could wear it and CRACK THAT WHIP!!!

Lash

All three of them...a Washington chorus line of Barbarellas

Well, there goes any hope of pleasant dreams.
Gee, thanks a lot blatham


timber

I am so sorry I missed out on the fashion discussion last night, but I don't think I would have slept as well as I did. unfortunately, I did read that string of posts during my breakfast ..........

Joe