<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bush Needs Potty Break</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.longren.org/bush-needs-potty-break/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.longren.org/bush-needs-potty-break/</link>
	<description>Certified &#38; Decorated</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 19:31:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: b-loombles</title>
		<link>http://www.longren.org/bush-needs-potty-break/comment-page-1/#comment-7049</link>
		<dc:creator>b-loombles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.longren.org/?p=2013#comment-7049</guid>
		<description>Frankly I dont see why you&#039;d request a bathroom break at all at a meeing of that magnitude.  Unless there was a ploblem with the fortitude of our presidents bladder shouldnt see why  would not be able to hold it.  If urination was truly a pressing issue however I could see him writing a note suggesting a bathroom break, which as Tyler argues would make sense given the magnitude of the meeting.Due to this fact I&#039;m really not so sure it&#039;s photoshopped, I wont rule out the possibility that it is, but is there any unequivocal proof to it&#039;s fallacy, if not I suggest you maybe should reamain open to the possibility as well</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frankly I dont see why you&#8217;d request a bathroom break at all at a meeing of that magnitude.  Unless there was a ploblem with the fortitude of our presidents bladder shouldnt see why  would not be able to hold it.  If urination was truly a pressing issue however I could see him writing a note suggesting a bathroom break, which as Tyler argues would make sense given the magnitude of the meeting.Due to this fact I&#8217;m really not so sure it&#8217;s photoshopped, I wont rule out the possibility that it is, but is there any unequivocal proof to it&#8217;s fallacy, if not I suggest you maybe should reamain open to the possibility as well</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyler</title>
		<link>http://www.longren.org/bush-needs-potty-break/comment-page-1/#comment-7012</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.longren.org/?p=2013#comment-7012</guid>
		<description>Well, there&#039;s no question it was photoshopped.  Could have been photoshopped to enhance the original text to make it more clearly visible or the original text was completely replaced.

Either way I don&#039;t think it&#039;s OK for huge news outlets to do stuff like this.  It&#039;s like having fake boobies.  It&#039;s just fake no matter what.  If they are going to photoshop images to make them clearer, they should at least do a good job.  I could have photoshopped a note better than that...

Also Lucius, the photo was snapped during a UN meeting.  Choosing the right time to get up to go take a bathroom break is probably very important.  You wouldn&#039;t just get up and go whenever you felt like you had to take a piss.  If anything the note just shows that President Bush has a great deal of diplomacy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, there&#8217;s no question it was photoshopped.  Could have been photoshopped to enhance the original text to make it more clearly visible or the original text was completely replaced.</p>
<p>Either way I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s OK for huge news outlets to do stuff like this.  It&#8217;s like having fake boobies.  It&#8217;s just fake no matter what.  If they are going to photoshop images to make them clearer, they should at least do a good job.  I could have photoshopped a note better than that&#8230;</p>
<p>Also Lucius, the photo was snapped during a UN meeting.  Choosing the right time to get up to go take a bathroom break is probably very important.  You wouldn&#8217;t just get up and go whenever you felt like you had to take a piss.  If anything the note just shows that President Bush has a great deal of diplomacy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lucius S. Drosian</title>
		<link>http://www.longren.org/bush-needs-potty-break/comment-page-1/#comment-7004</link>
		<dc:creator>Lucius S. Drosian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:37:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.longren.org/?p=2013#comment-7004</guid>
		<description>What evidence do you have that the image is &#039;photoshopped&#039;?  Are you that insecure and desperate to attack the left that you need to harp on about something you can&#039;t really believe is true?  

I&#039;m an graphics professional, and I can tell you that the image isn&#039;t altered beyond color adjustment for clarity.  So you can stop with the ridiculous foul-calling.

Moving right along, the reason this is news is because it is a clear indicator of Bush&#039;s character as our leader.  A man so indecisive that without his pantheon of puppetmasters&#039; input he has to *ASK* if he can urinate.  THAT is why this image is telling, and to choose to interpret it as &#039;juvenile&#039; is either:

a) deliberately obfuscatory (that means hiding stuff you know is bad)
b) stone stupid
c) completely nuts</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What evidence do you have that the image is &#8216;photoshopped&#8217;?  Are you that insecure and desperate to attack the left that you need to harp on about something you can&#8217;t really believe is true?  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m an graphics professional, and I can tell you that the image isn&#8217;t altered beyond color adjustment for clarity.  So you can stop with the ridiculous foul-calling.</p>
<p>Moving right along, the reason this is news is because it is a clear indicator of Bush&#8217;s character as our leader.  A man so indecisive that without his pantheon of puppetmasters&#8217; input he has to *ASK* if he can urinate.  THAT is why this image is telling, and to choose to interpret it as &#8216;juvenile&#8217; is either:</p>
<p>a) deliberately obfuscatory (that means hiding stuff you know is bad)<br />
b) stone stupid<br />
c) completely nuts</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyler</title>
		<link>http://www.longren.org/bush-needs-potty-break/comment-page-1/#comment-7002</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.longren.org/?p=2013#comment-7002</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve got no beef with individuals working for the mainstream news outlets.  It&#039;s the news outlets themselves that I dislike.  I realize that the people are  usually just there to bring home a paycheck.  I don&#039;t blame them for that.

The companies themselves have an agenda and they push that agenda upon an audience that knows no other means of getting news.  It&#039;s the publics fault for being so damn stupid and gullible sometimes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve got no beef with individuals working for the mainstream news outlets.  It&#8217;s the news outlets themselves that I dislike.  I realize that the people are  usually just there to bring home a paycheck.  I don&#8217;t blame them for that.</p>
<p>The companies themselves have an agenda and they push that agenda upon an audience that knows no other means of getting news.  It&#8217;s the publics fault for being so damn stupid and gullible sometimes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Franscell</title>
		<link>http://www.longren.org/bush-needs-potty-break/comment-page-1/#comment-7001</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Franscell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.longren.org/?p=2013#comment-7001</guid>
		<description>From http://underthenews.blogspot.com ...

I&#039;ve been a newspaperman since I co-founded my junior high paper at the tender age of 12, about 36 years ago. My final decision to become an ink-stained wretch was made in the heady post-Watergate days, the apex of journalism&#039;s nobility and the calm before the anti-&quot;Media&quot; storm. Back then, it was still possible for a young reporter to think of himself as a kind of knight who could change the world with his typewriter.

Clearly, things have changed. The idealism of young journalists has lost its edge, the world doesn&#039;t care too much what we say anymore, and the typewriter is a dusty decoration on my credenza.

And now I -- and many like me -- have been demoted from &quot;knight&quot; to &quot;MSM.&quot; This blogging acronym for &quot;mainstream media&quot; oozes a certain flippant disrespect, as if a life in journalism is not merely the least qualification for a blogger, but might even connote to Blogospherians an intolerable cowardice, arrogance or treachery. Many -- maybe most -- bloggers might just as well hang out a sign: &quot;We don&#039;t want your kind &#039;round here.&quot;

I&#039;m too new at blogging to understand the nuances. The blogosphere is certainly not a utopian society, free of prejudice, deception, crime, or other sins. It&#039;s merely an extension of the old-model society, like a neighborhood on the other side of the Monorail tracks. So I&#039;m not particularly surprised that the &quot;Old Guard&quot; of the Information Age (the so-called MSMers) are held suspect by the New Guard (bloggers.)

But I&#039;m curious about why. I hear regularly how the MSM lacks fairness (OK, and balance) but increasingly I believe that aggressive news-consumers aren&#039;t truly seeking reporting without bias ... they want reporting that reflects their own bias. &quot;Fair&quot; is a report that generally supports the reader/viewer&#039;s established opinions ... &quot;unfair&quot; is a report that allows for divergent viewpoints. Thus, the mainstream media, in striving to allow for differing views, cannot avoid being labeled as &quot;unfair&quot; ... and thus is demonized in the blogosphere (and apparently everywhere else that a person would be jealous of his opinions.) And in the Blogosphere, we are allowed to seek out the &quot;fairest&quot; opinions/reporting, i.e., the ones that fit our biases.

In my short blogging experience, I have sensed not just disdain for each other by both bloggers and MSMers, but a mutual paranoia that either might be the death of honest, accurate, important, genuine and noble information exchange. Personally, I believe more information is better than less, so I am not threatened by the Blogosphere, and I see its value in transmitting information that transcends the basic restrictions of mainstream media, namely space, time and mass audience.

I worry a little about the blogosphere&#039;s &quot;Tower of Babel&quot; and information-anxiety, but they don&#039;t keep me awake at night. Will the whole world soon turn to bloggers (and away from MSM) for information? It&#039;s doubtful. But to supplement their minimum daily requirement of knowledge and entertainment? Absolutely.

I really want to know, from non-MSM bloggers and MSMers alike, is the blogosphere a community that is made better or worse by your co-existence? Why should one side be viewed more or less skeptically than the other? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses in this diverse community, vis a vis MSM?

Talk to me, bloggers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From <a href="http://underthenews.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://underthenews.blogspot.com</a> &#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been a newspaperman since I co-founded my junior high paper at the tender age of 12, about 36 years ago. My final decision to become an ink-stained wretch was made in the heady post-Watergate days, the apex of journalism&#8217;s nobility and the calm before the anti-&#8221;Media&#8221; storm. Back then, it was still possible for a young reporter to think of himself as a kind of knight who could change the world with his typewriter.</p>
<p>Clearly, things have changed. The idealism of young journalists has lost its edge, the world doesn&#8217;t care too much what we say anymore, and the typewriter is a dusty decoration on my credenza.</p>
<p>And now I &#8212; and many like me &#8212; have been demoted from &#8220;knight&#8221; to &#8220;MSM.&#8221; This blogging acronym for &#8220;mainstream media&#8221; oozes a certain flippant disrespect, as if a life in journalism is not merely the least qualification for a blogger, but might even connote to Blogospherians an intolerable cowardice, arrogance or treachery. Many &#8212; maybe most &#8212; bloggers might just as well hang out a sign: &#8220;We don&#8217;t want your kind &#8217;round here.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m too new at blogging to understand the nuances. The blogosphere is certainly not a utopian society, free of prejudice, deception, crime, or other sins. It&#8217;s merely an extension of the old-model society, like a neighborhood on the other side of the Monorail tracks. So I&#8217;m not particularly surprised that the &#8220;Old Guard&#8221; of the Information Age (the so-called MSMers) are held suspect by the New Guard (bloggers.)</p>
<p>But I&#8217;m curious about why. I hear regularly how the MSM lacks fairness (OK, and balance) but increasingly I believe that aggressive news-consumers aren&#8217;t truly seeking reporting without bias &#8230; they want reporting that reflects their own bias. &#8220;Fair&#8221; is a report that generally supports the reader/viewer&#8217;s established opinions &#8230; &#8220;unfair&#8221; is a report that allows for divergent viewpoints. Thus, the mainstream media, in striving to allow for differing views, cannot avoid being labeled as &#8220;unfair&#8221; &#8230; and thus is demonized in the blogosphere (and apparently everywhere else that a person would be jealous of his opinions.) And in the Blogosphere, we are allowed to seek out the &#8220;fairest&#8221; opinions/reporting, i.e., the ones that fit our biases.</p>
<p>In my short blogging experience, I have sensed not just disdain for each other by both bloggers and MSMers, but a mutual paranoia that either might be the death of honest, accurate, important, genuine and noble information exchange. Personally, I believe more information is better than less, so I am not threatened by the Blogosphere, and I see its value in transmitting information that transcends the basic restrictions of mainstream media, namely space, time and mass audience.</p>
<p>I worry a little about the blogosphere&#8217;s &#8220;Tower of Babel&#8221; and information-anxiety, but they don&#8217;t keep me awake at night. Will the whole world soon turn to bloggers (and away from MSM) for information? It&#8217;s doubtful. But to supplement their minimum daily requirement of knowledge and entertainment? Absolutely.</p>
<p>I really want to know, from non-MSM bloggers and MSMers alike, is the blogosphere a community that is made better or worse by your co-existence? Why should one side be viewed more or less skeptically than the other? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses in this diverse community, vis a vis MSM?</p>
<p>Talk to me, bloggers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

