: : : I saw the morning papers this morning all carried a picture of a young lady with a cut over her right eye. A trickle of blood appeared, nearly reaching the the bottom of her nose, an inch and a half, possibly two inches. Insignificant, yet deserving a quarter panel in some papers.
: : I thought that pic summed up the human emotions and intensity of the situation. Would you have preferred a gunshot wound?
: LOL! Intensity?? She got a scratch for God's sake! She may have gotten it buy tripping on her shoelaces, or even from one of the other demonstrators.
You're a tough guy, eh? Cut on your forehead with blood flowing down your face is like a hangnail, huh? Most people would disagree, killer.
: Ever see a gunshot wound?
Yes. Have you?
: : : Tell me again the mass media isn't liberal.
: : It's not liberal, it's corporatist. The handful of giant corporations which own most of the media will publicize that which furthers their corporate agendas, ignore (or try to bury) that which opposes their agendas, and publish all the rest without a care.
: OK, I'll give you that, their corporatist. But they hire very liberal columnists; Ivins, Cockburn, Matthews, Germond, Rowan etc. Sure, there are some conservative ones, but their in the minority.
They seem like the majority to me: Will, Novak, Kelly, Safire, Pinkerton, Krauthammer, Samuelson...the whole putrid lot.
And besides, I'm sure that your well read enough to know that a high per centage, approx. 80-90%, of reporters consider themselves as Liberal.
Maybe, but you know, the thing about being a reporter is, they're usually well-informed, and when one is well-informed, one chooses the liberal/left position on most issues. Anyway, while the reporters might be liberal, their editors and owners are not.
: : : Rx; wipe of the blood and apply a band-aid. Don't use your head for a baton stop, it's not what God had in mind for it.
: : That's idiotic.
: What part is idiotic?