Why do pictures of Bush and his nominees, taken on various days, look the same--exactly the same. It happened with photographs of Bush with nominees Condi Rice, Al Gonzalez, Ann Veneman, Christine Todd Whitman, and Paul O'Neil. Same exact look, different days, different newspapers. Inquiring reporters want to know. We've been told that Bush plans to have others do his work for him while he sleeps, does photo-ops, and makes decisions that only the President can make on the basis of uninformed whims and prejudices, but is he planning to even streamline his photo-ops so he'll have more sleep time to cover his ADA symptoms? There must be an explanation, but it may not be pretty. Cardboard cutout? Robot?
posted on December 28, 2000 04:52:47 PM new
No, there different. Your top pics, if you look at the mouth (on Bush) it differs just ever so slightly, you have to look very close, and have an open mind to this too,
har..
posted on December 28, 2000 05:43:25 PM new
The bottom pic is different than the first two. His eyes are open much more, and the shirt color is completely different.
Someone in the PR department is releasing pictures that have been "fixed", probably due to lack of good actual pics taken at the time.
Considering how many photogs are normally hanging around, it seems really unecessary.
posted on December 28, 2000 06:00:22 PM new
You are assuming that it is important that the pic reflect reality? They would say there was no statement that the people depicted actually were meeting as shown - that it is just a "depiction" of the two people talked about - not ment to represent any reality.
I would not bet on Bush being anywhere near where they are showing him to be on vacation either, because no one is saying ANYTHING about those seven convicts who are loose in Texas. Remember how many Dear GW killed as governor? Maybe those boys are on a mission for some retribution. Freshly funded and re-armed.
posted on December 28, 2000 07:05:25 PM new
I didn't realize that Americans gave their governors so that they could replace a jury in deciding who was to be killed.
posted on December 28, 2000 07:22:25 PM new
Fry all those worthless murderers, too bad they could not be killed twice for what they have done. Bush did not kill them, they killed themselves by leading the kind of lives they did, with a little help from the juries and judges. Funny you blame Bush for what our Court systems have done. Lemme guess, you are one of thoe bleeding hearts who believes that all these fine child molestors and killers can be rehabilitated or that they deserve to live a good life laying up on our tax dollars in prison? I hope it hurts like hell when they go, just like their victims suffered.
posted on December 28, 2000 07:39:19 PM new
snowydays, maybe Irene was just trying to get clarification on who was responsible for the execution of the prisoners, at least IMHO that's how I read it...
Irene, in my limited understanding the governor of the state has the power to pardon the prisoner or on the other hand to approve the execution. This is after all the legal trials and appeals have already occurred and been decided.
I believe there was a request to pardon a female prisoner who was executed in the last year or two in Texas, and Bush did not pardon her.
I think her name might have been Carla, and apparently had a genuine conversion to Christianity in prison after committing some horrific crimes for which she was sentenced to death. That case got a lot of media attention.
posted on December 28, 2000 07:45:33 PM new
It was not directed at Irene. jamesoblivion, yes, they are always "changed" once they know death is not far away. I don't think God is fooled by it. Some may be truly repentant, but it is too little too late.
posted on December 28, 2000 07:54:49 PM new
No, I didn't think it was directed at Irene. I thought it was a response to this line; "Remember how many Dear GW killed as governor?", posted by Gravid.
posted on December 28, 2000 08:00:24 PM new
Oh I get it now. The governor can choose to let a jury death sentence be carried out but he doesn't have the authority to condemn to death someone who a jury has decided not to condemn death. So, how does this make a governor a killer?
posted on December 28, 2000 08:01:28 PM new
OK, sometimes I think I read too fast, sorry I misunderstood.
oh, no doubt many of the conversions are not genuine. They may *seem* genuine to the individual at the time but I have my doubts.
although apparently this woman who was executed spoke to many outside individuals who confirmed that in their opinion her conversion was genuine. I saw her talk in an interview on TV and I also believed the conversion was genuine. I was prepared to think it was a fake, and came away with a changed opinion after hearing her speak.
BTW, remember Charles Colson? converted to Christianity in prison and I believe he wrote several Christian books after converting. [email protected]
posted on December 28, 2000 08:03:23 PM new
hehe jamesoblivion, I was not referring to your post either, was referring to enchanted's who thought this was directed at stockticker. stockticker, you are 100% correct on your last statement. A governor can pardon a prisoner, but is not the one who decides to put them to death.
posted on December 28, 2000 08:05:38 PM new
Ultimate forgiveness and justice is God's business. The laws here don't make exceptions for conversions, real or otherwise, and they sholdn't.
posted on December 28, 2000 08:05:53 PM new
enchanted: I would like to add I saw the interview with her also, 20/20 or something? She did seem genuinely sincere, but didn't she whack them to death with an ax, or some such very gruesome death? Conversion or not, she still deserved the death penalty.
posted on December 28, 2000 08:10:44 PM new
yes that's the one, snowydays. That was the big issue that brought so much media attention, her killings were truly vicious and yet she truly had remorse and had converted. Some people also seemed bothered that a woman had been executed. That doesn't seem to make any difference to me, the real question is whether having a death penalty at all is appropriate or is it barbaric.
I personally believe there is some deterrent value to society as a whole. Some killers will never be deterred but as a whole I think there is some deterrent value.
James, so true God is the ultimate judge, all I have is a human opinion. God knows the truth of a conversion in someone's soul. [email protected]
posted on December 28, 2000 08:37:47 PM new
It would be much more of a deterrent if they would get rid of some of these appeals. Ridiculous that one can go for 20 or 30 years or more merrily filing appeals. I think that if you are proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt they should get on with it, especially if there is DNA evidence. Convict them one day, kill them the next...works for me. I have NO sympathy for murderers. I don't buy into the "this is how I was raised and it is not my fault." Many people grew up in much more adverse conditions than what they are claiming and still managed to make great successes of their lives. You choose your own destiny beyond a certain age, it is ignorant to blame the past on what you are doing now.
Here is something else that will make me unpopular. I believe that a Great Wall of America should be built around the ghettos. Take out the good people and let the gangs shoot at each other until they are all dead, that would be a blessing to us all. JMO
posted on December 28, 2000 08:45:20 PM new
Hhmmmm Snowydays, Interesting idea but how are you going to get the killers that live in the upper class areas and the suburbs to stay in the ghetto long enough for you to put a wall around it?
Those kind of "blessings" I can do without thank you. There are good people in the ghettos you know.
posted on December 28, 2000 08:53:14 PM new
Guess the "good" people in the ghettos would be SOL, Robin. That and I hope it hurts like hell when they go, doesn't make me think that snowy has much compassion these days. Hope this isn't an example of a "compassionate conservative". I really do. Ugh.
posted on December 28, 2000 08:53:55 PM new
rawbunzel, I must have missed all those newsreports about the shootouts that happen every single night in suburbia and the wealthy neighborhoods, would you please direct me to some news articles about all this crime going on there?
You must have trouble reading and missed this part of my post "Take out the good people...."
posted on December 28, 2000 08:57:15 PM new
Yep, I hope it hurt them really bad as they were going, just like their victims suffered. But, I forget, aren't you one of those that believes it is okay to murder the innocent with abortion, but murderers should not suffer for their crimes?
edited to add: "Ugh" right back at ya.
[ edited by snowydays on Dec 28, 2000 08:58 PM ]
posted on December 28, 2000 08:59:24 PM new
Katy, The compassonate part is building a wall around it so no one who is "pure" has to see the mess.
Snowydays, I saw the part about taking out the good people, but who gets to chose who those people are? There is some good in most people, sometimes you just have to look for it. Good grief! Don't you read the newspaper or watch the news? Lets see 7 people killed on the job just a couple days ago, they were not in the ghetto. Here in the Pacific NW, maybe it is different than where you live, we have crime in every part of the cities and suburbs. Heck I live not too far from the "Ghetto" and I can tell you it is much improved over a few years ago and now the burbs are bad.
