Former President Bush Convieniently Left Out Of NY Times Selma Photo

http://twitchy.com/2015/03/08/pravda...t-selma-photo/

I guess you could chalk it up as, "not enough room on page", but after all of the hullabaloo about no prominent Republicans attending this week ends Selma March, the NY Times leaves out proof that indeed a very prominent Republican was right there on the front row.

This is the kind of stuff that feeds the media bias fires, and that most major news outlets are nothing but sounding boards for the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive agenda.

Really. Would it have been that difficult to present the historic photo so that people could indeed see Former President Bush?

Or does the Agenda of race baiting and keeping the fires of racism stoked trump everything when it comes to Liberals.?

I guess you could chalk it up as, "not enough room on page", but after all of the hullabaloo about no prominent Republicans attending this week ends Selma March, the NY Times leaves out proof that indeed a very prominent Republican was right there on the front row. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Perhaps it is because no one (still) believes that The Wilted Shrub is "indeed a very prominent Republican."

In 2000 the Republican Party put all of their eggs in the incompetent Shrubbie's Easter Basket, only to realize 8 years later their hand-picked Shrub would soon become "The Most Unpopular President in Modern History."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...odern-history/

Not only the NYTs photo; but most broadcast tv video footage reporting on the Selma event, didn't show Bush.

Too many Republicans hold out false hope that if they "go all in" with Democrats on important issues (taxes, immigration, amnesty, debt), then they will be liked by the liberal elites.

Not True.

I saw him and Laura on the news the other night. At Selma.

but most broadcast tv video footage reporting on the Selma event, didn't show Bush. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I saw him and Laura on the news the other night. At Selma. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

So did I and quite frankly, I was glad to see Shrubbie there! Kudo's to him and Laura!

Perhaps FAUX News did not show Shrubbie and Laura in their "tv video footage."

It stands to reason that TrendingIdiot would have no first hand knowledge of anything but FAUX "tv video footage."

I would think that the gist of the story would be, "why did the NY Times choose to crop the photo so President Bush was not included".?

Perhaps it is because no one (still) believes that The Wilted Shrub is "indeed a very prominent Republican."

In 2000 the Republican Party put all of their eggs in the incompetent Shrubbie's Easter Basket, only to realize 8 years later their hand-picked Shrub would soon become "The Most Unpopular President in Modern History."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...odern-history/ Originally Posted by bigtex

Did you notice that you let your blind fanaticism get in the way of common sense that Bush was not a prominent Republican. You must be a journalist.

Got the same response from some idiot when I mentioned that white people marched at Selma. Not true! they said and I posted a photo with a white cleric marching next to MLK. Photoshop! they said.

I would think that the gist of the story would be, "why did the NY Times choose to crop the photo so President Bush was not included".? Originally Posted by Jackie S

That is a legitimate question!

Perhaps it is because no one (still) believes that The Wilted Shrub is "indeed a very prominent Republican."

In 2000 the Republican Party put all of their eggs in the incompetent Shrubbie's Easter Basket, only to realize 8 years later their hand-picked Shrub would soon become "The Most Unpopular President in Modern History."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...odern-history/ Originally Posted by bigtex

How could a former US President NOT be considered "prominent"?
Try convincing the Secret Service that he isn't.

I doubt you'd say the same about your precious Bill (impeached perjurer) Clinton or Jimma (former worst President ever) Caca.

BTW, your link is over three years old. Here's one from less than a year ago...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-new-poll.html

Looks like the current occupant of the White House has taken the lead in the "worst" category.

This is just one more example of MSM (New York Times) bias. A pretty substantial one at that!

How could a former US President NOT be considered "prominent"?
Try convincing the Secret Service that he isn't. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

bfejunkie, I realize that your reading compression skills are minimal, at best.

I merely stated that "perhaps" (emphasis on perhaps) they (not necessarily me) might not believe The Wilted Shrub is still "a very prominent Republican."

Next time, pay closer attention prior to opening mouth and inserting foot!

Just sayin'

Foot? Mouth?

Ass and other guy's JUNK is more like it!

http://twitchy.com/2015/03/08/pravda...t-selma-photo/

I guess you could chalk it up as, "not enough room on page", but after all of the hullabaloo about no prominent Republicans attending this week ends Selma March, the NY Times leaves out proof that indeed a very prominent Republican was right there on the front row.

This is the kind of stuff that feeds the media bias fires, and that most major news outlets are nothing but sounding boards for the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive agenda.

Really. Would it have been that difficult to present the historic photo so that people could indeed see Former President Bush?

Or does the Agenda of race baiting and keeping the fires of racism stoked trump everything when it comes to Liberals.? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Completely bogus story. In case you did not notice these are two entirely different photos. The photo with Bush in it was taken further back and higher up with a wider angle lens. There is no proof that they had this shot. Plus the shot with Budh in it would never have been used. Bad composition and angle with no focal point. Every newspaper photo editor in the world would have choose the photo that ran

the much bigger story and "news" is Bush at the Selma commemoration

not because of truth and history, but due to the false narratives of the liberals and dims down through the years

every newspaper photo editor in the world, not biased or liberal and not given to keeping up the false narrative, would have chosen to have not clipped bush out of the photo

Completely bogus story. In case you did not notice these are two entirely different photos. The photo with Bush in it was taken further back and higher up with a wider angle lens. There is no proof that they had this shot. Plus the shot with Budh in it would never have been used. Bad composition and angle with no focal point. Every newspaper photo editor in the world would have choose the photo that ran Originally Posted by BigLouie

Really? EVERY newspaper editor in the world? I am amazed by your circle of friends.

I merely stated that "perhaps" Originally Posted by bigtex

I don't deal in "perhaps". "Perhaps" is nothing more than idle speculation.