Fox did not cover it because the Fox
Posted By: Television Network on 2009-04-18
In Reply to: Nope, didn't think you'd read my message - me
did not have a news department then.
Yes, I read your message. Did read you mine?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
They cover the news they WANT to cover! Why are
nm
They only cover 2 candidates because
we don't demand that they do otherwise. Power to the people!!!!
Nice cover - but you know what the COS's job is, right?
Obama would not pick as his Chief of Staff a man who wasn't eye-to-eye on the majority of issues. It's basically the president's wing man. No one's going to buy the notion that Obama picked Emanuel as a counterbalance to his own ideas. He picked him because they share common beliefs, which some of us find a little frightening (like mandatory military-style training and/or service).
Ah, but Obama's cover....
...is that things are SO MUCH WORSE than he was lead to believe during the campaign. Much was concealed from him. He inherited such a big mess and he had absolutely no idea how much work there would be. And when his policies fail, as they are destined to do, he will have made a ruin of our entire way of life and can still blame the whole thing on Bush. It's a no-lose situation for Obama.
The Obama campaign became almost a cult experience. People wailing and crying and fainting. The promise of free stuff: *If I help him, he'll help me. I won't have to worry about filling my gas tank and paying my mortgage.* This is exactly what got Obama elected. Smooth, slick, TelePrompTer dependent without appearing to be, well packaged and carefully managed, lots of emotional appeal. Those who voted for him bought sizzle. The sizzle is starting to fizzle, and there will never be a steak.
Cover up the Prez!! Have you guys seen this?
link
The MSM did cover it, but all positive spin. sm
They said the troops were unarmed. No mention of FEMA thwarting relief efforts either.
Here is an article archived on Alex's page about some of it. Of course, since it did not come from Fox News it can't be believable.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mexican_dutch_troops_sent_biloxi.htm
I suppose they should cover the mirrors
and rend their clothes in grief instead? They are busting their butts to get things done. I think a little laughter, joy and goodwill is necessary as well as healthy. But, I suspect you would neither understand nor APPROVE of anything you deem "frivolous." The Dow has been up for 4 days running, at least 3 major banks are seeing profits and are stating they no longer require any bailout money.........Bringing in Congress and various insiders for a weekly get-together is a good way to inspire and promote goodwill.....but I guess the WH is something to look at - not live in.
This is inappropriate for a magazine cover
This should go in the National Enquire, Star or something. Sure he's in good physical shape, but whether you think he is nice looking or not is all a matter of opinion. My MIL thought Bill Clinton was "the bees knees" saying "I wouldn't kick him out of my bed, or he can park his shoes under my bed. I felt like throwing up every time I saw him. But, pics of shirtless leaders should should stay in the tabloids. he is supposed to be a leader. This goes to show more and more that he is not. As someone said he's acting like a "Hollywood wannabe". This is not the actions of someone who is supposed to be a stateman, the leader of a country. If you're going to put the pic of a country's leader on the front cover of a magazine they should be properly attired. Could be one of the reasons why most don't refer to him as President Obama, but rather as Mr. Obama.
I don't think he sent the picture to the magazine to be placed on the cover -
My goodness, ya'll would blame him no matter what. He does not decide what picture goes on the cover of a magazine - the Editor of the magazine decides.
And, I do not think that being President of the United States means you cannot go to the beach anymore or have a vacation with your family without covering yourself and if someone wants to take a picture of him in that way, then what can he do?
You want freedom of the press, freedom of speech, no censorship, etc., but then you are wanting to censor this magazine!
Better cover your eyes, if you're so squeamish.
Your pathetic attempt to try to cover up the fact...(sm)
that there is no basis for the comment above (that being that Obama is taking rights away) by trying to distract the conversation by attacking me personally does nothing but show the absolute absurdity of the republican party's talking points.
I think the vanity fair cover was not a smart thing for her to do...sm
even though she wore a scar and big glasses.
Correction: The cost to cover Montana kids.
.
McCain should draft Tammy to cover all his bases.
nm
Double standard doesn't cover Obama
@@
You're right. They cover their ears, close their eyes,
what they're taught in Bible School, I suppose.
They must figure that if they bore their opponents with their nonstop jabbering, that when that person finally gets fed up and walks away, they have somehow 'won'. WHAT they think they've 'won' is beyond me.
The booby-prize, perhaps?
Liberal news media won't cover it.... CNN did send a
xx
Shirtless Obama Makes Washingtonian Cover
The May cover of Washingtonian magazine features those paparazzi photos of a shirtless Barack Obama strolling the beach in Hawaii last year. The photo illustrates the magazine's "Reasons We Love Washington," the #2 reason for which is "Our new neighbor is hot."
Honey, your Bush derangement syndrome is showing...cover it up!
//
|
