You sure you aren't working for Reuters now right ;)http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html
Lots more fun with Reuters "journalists" here: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005671.htm
You guys must be wetting your pants over the Reuters photoshopping incident. So much so, in fact, that I'm beginning to suspect that this person did it on purpose, in order to trivialize the impact of the conflict there. After all, once this photo (which is very obviously photoshopped) has been dismissed, then people can say, "Hey! You can't say Lebanon is in bad shape! That photo was fake!" Beats the truth, I guess.
Of course, I'm referring to the Reuters photo being fake. Mine is real and unretouched, aside from my date notation.
Wetting my pants? Sorry, it's not quite that exciting. However, if you would actually go to the link I provided you would find that the picture in question isn't a trivial, singular incident as you assumed; it's one of six separate doctored photographs that have surfaced lately. But that's ok; feel free to keep your head firmly buried in the sand. Beats the truth, I guess.
If it's a systematic set of events, then it actually proves my point further. Thanks, Jess!
So...someone in the media photoshoped these photos in order to help the pro-Israel crowd in America, because even though the photos would create anger towards Israel, they knew that once these photos were exposed as fake, people would side more with the Bush Administration's support for Israel?Quite a conspiracy.
I don't put anything past people anymore.
because there is no such thing as a vast left wing conspiracy, but a vast right wing conspiray is alive and well.Ian, get the dick out of your ass
On what illiterate right-wing hatemonger message board am I prominently featured?I got nothing.
Wow...really ruffled some feathers with my joke.Nick...of course it has to be a conspiracy of the right...no way the left would ever try to manipulate the news.
OGM!\That it. what you say now is that BUSH nuke Mexico? like it aint bad enuff thAT iSRAEL USE WDM on civilian's. next hink, BUSH nuke Mexico? because a few undocument immigrant? oh..that PISS ME OFF. WIth hillary clinton for president she will make shure he goto JALE four war crime's. what that I hope any ways.
Ian, jumping to the assumption that this is just a Bush conspiracy makes you look like more of a leftist kook than you already do.
Hey Ian, was it all an EVIL ROVIAN PLOT? was Diebold involved in this case of bad photoshoppery? Haliburton?
All I'm saying is that, in this day and age, anything's possible. I don't honestly care one way or another what this guy did, because it doesn't affect my views on the war. I'm not a conspiracy buff.I would, however, appreciate if you guys could have a serious discussion instead of resorting to mockery every time I say something. It makes you guys look even stupider than usual.
So you ruminate that you're "beginning to suspect" it's all an elaborate ruse...yet you're not a "conspiracy buff"? It's doubly funny considering you believe the idiotic conspiracy that Bush stole the election in 2000.
Nice try at backpedaling, Ian. You've already shown your conspiracy theory colors, so we're just responding to your absurdity by being absurd. Personally, I think that Bush resurrected Hitler's ghost in the Haliburton labs and is using HIM to doctor the photos!!By the way, I make cool tinfoil hats that I can sell to you to protect you from the evil Bu$hitlerburtonuklear mindwaves. They come in bowler, beret, engineer, propeller beanie, and cowboy. Which one would you like?
Tom, enough with the straw men. The 2000 election has long been disputed and was decided under such dubious circumstances. No matter how it would have turned out, the other side would have cried foul. It's no conspiracy.And I'm not saying necessarily that I really think the photographer doctored them on purpose so that he could get caught and no one would believe subsequent images of future destruction. I said that because I noticed how joyful right-wingers were taking the news of his departure. It was a hypothetical, and a half-sarcastic one at that. I think the reason you're harping on it is because you'd rather attack me than address the war.Jester, you're too pointless to merit a response.
What strawman? Only conspiracy buffs believe the election was stolen. You believe the election was stolen. You're a conspiracy buff. This is like that one time you tried to claim you're an "Independent" but your attitude and comments, and stances showed otherwise.And what do you mean "you'd rather attack me than address the war"? I'll talk about the war all day. You'd rather posit half thought out and moronic conspiracy theories than accept the fact that the media is doing their best to portray Israel in a bad light.
Are you arguing that the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court are kooks? Actually, you might have a point with that one.I only seem like a conspiracy buff to you because I am willing to ask various questions and have a desire to understand what's going on with major events. You seem more interested in dismissing me offhand than even mulling the kinds of things that I ask. Hey, if you think what I say is dumb, fine. But tell me why you think so! Don't just say, "Ian's a conspiracy buff." I question what I think all the time. It's what's known as intellectual growth. Look it up.While you're looking that up, maybe you should check into what it means to be independent. It means you're not officially affiliated with any political party. That's not the same as being neutral in what you believe. If I seem tight with Democrats, it's because today's GOP is something I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot cliche. But you'll notice that I don't do campaigns and don't blindly toe partisan lines. If today's electorate wasn't "with us or against us," that would reflect better in my choices.
Well, when BUSH nuke Mexico and nobody accept Ian reprot on it. Why no FOX news? what they hide? What is a NEOCON conspire. Only reeson Ian saw is he was fling. I meen, that is a bigger conspiricy then that?
Did I miss something?
Don't toe party lines? Ian, this post election diatribe by you is practicually every DNC talking point available condensed into a single post!
Way to go, Tom! You had to go back two years to find a post I wrote in great sadness and fear. That's a lot of effort to not prove your point.How ironic that you chose one of the only unedited posts I've ever written--virtually a stream of consciousness written with a dropped jaw--to prove that I parrot talking points. Let it go. You've beaten that point repeatedly to death without proving anything.
I went there specifically because I knew that a post election post by you would have offer the greatest opportunity to show you as a liar. Before he rode off to Brokeback Mountain, Zac admitted his "independent" facade was a lie, will you?
I admit I wrote it in a fit of passion (and thus isn't close to my best work), but what exactly did I lie about? And what's your point with this anyway?And no, there's no lie to admit. I am not a registered Democrat; I am a liberal-leaning voter with no formal party affiliation. What part of that extremely simple concept do you not understand?
You sound just like Zac did, he denied it to the end until he slipped up and admitted it.
There's nothing to admit, tomass. If you're trying to crack me into admitting that I have liberal tendencies, then pat yourself on the back. Try not to break your arm in the process.I honestly don't understand where you're going with this or why it's important. Maybe if you can refer me to what Zac said? And why THAT matters?
YES! Release your anger! Strike down your Independent facade and join fully with the dark side!
You obviously have no answers to my questions about your motivations. I'm disappointed. This is Jester-level dialogue.
My motivation is I want you to not be ashamed of being a Democrat.
I wouldn't be ashamed to be a Democrat, if I were actually a Democrat. But I'm not. My voter-registration card clearly states under "party" that I'm "NON." That mean that I pick and choose my candidates based on how I feel about their respective stances rather than necessarily vote a straight ticket. Isn't that what all voters should do?I support politicians, not parties. It just so happens that, at this time, one party better represents what I believe in and the other dreams of Armageddon. And there isn't a whole lot in between.
What was that you were saying about strawmen?"dreams of Armageddon"? Are you really that fucking retarded?
Young Young Ian,Why dont you just admit that the only reason your voter card says none is because the National Socialist American Workers Party does not have many candidates on the ballot yet, though I am sure you are working to see that change.
TomAss, I don't see how inciting religious war in the Middle East--as well as GOP calls for further action-- in any way constitutes a straw man.BeerLame, your comment makes no sense. The Nazi party was fascist, which is very far removed from socialism. Almost the complete opposite, actually. Which is why the Nazi Party used the NSDAP moniker in the first place--to attract members where a more honest name would scare them off. Kind of like any Bush-era law.I assure you, my friend, that no one considers me an extremist except a true far-righty with no sense of political perspective.
Tell me Ian, what would us evil conservatives have to gain from Armageddon? I don't want to die, I'm sure Bush and his administration are in any hurry to die either, so what exactly makes you think igniting the end of the world is so attractive to us? and again, are you fucking retarded?
You know, Tom, I don't know what anyone gets out of it. But something must be involved, because everyone involved is pushing so hard for it. Maybe the reward's in the afterlife. Both the terrorists and the far-right Christians have written off this life, apparently. I don't understand religious insanity, because it's insane.All I know is, I've heard too much talk from religious extremists in my life to pretend that they aren't excited about what lies ahead once we're all dead. And these are the people running things now all over the world.
One of the typical tactics of extremists is they say things like, "I assure you, my friend, that no one considers me an extremist except a true far-righty with no sense of political perspective."The fact is, I am not a "far-righty" and I have a keen sense of political perspective. You are simply trying to marginalize everyone with rational views to advance your radical agenda. As a liberal and a registered democrat, I am telling you that you are a radical leftist, no question about it.
Awesome, so you have no idea what you're talking about. I always had you pegged as the stupid one of the Zac/Michael/Ian trio of idiot liberal bloggers. Thanks for proving it true. Your comments always had the aire of you not really knowing what you were talking about, so you just regurgitated whatever meme was floated out that day by liberal elite. By the way, throwing out half thought conspiracies about people in power wanting the end of the world for some undefined, nebulous reason, does in fact make you a "conspiracy buff"I've enjoyed making you look like a fool Ian, I think i'll stick around.
Oh, so you're a liberal, BeerMan? That reinforces my belief that you're skewed all the more. What exactly drives your intense hatred of me, then? And where can I read your take on any issues? Jeez, I can't stop laughing!Tom, what is your obsession with discrediting me? Am I really worth that much effort to you? Thanks. It's not mutual.You have an unhealthy obsession with talking points, Michael and Zac. Not sure if you've noticed, but Zac hasn't been around for awhile, and Michael comments only occasionally. I don't collaborate with anyone on this blog, and I certainly don't read talking points. Like I said, I'm not a registered Democrat. In fact, I used to regularly get talking-points e-mailed to me from various Democratic sources. I never did anything with them, because I like to choose my own topics and go my own way with them.Just imagine, accusations of partisan loyalty from a guy with "Republican Attack Squad" written all over his blog! Precious.
Ian,By any rational standard, I am a liberal. I am a registered democrat, and you are hurting our party. You are so radical in your views that you give democrats a horrible name.
Ian, I've never made any attempt, nor had any desire, to hide my partisanship, I know myself, unlike you who can't decide if he's a Democrat or not and claims he's not a "conspiracy buff" right before spouting wild conspiracies.Why are you so ashamed to be a Democrat?
Beerman, I know you're lying because a real liberal would not be turned off as severely as you are by my views. If you are indeed a Democrat, then that's just further proof that labels are meaningless. On the other hand, maybe I AM wrong about you. I just assumed you were a wingnut because of your rude manner and obsession with "dick up your ass"-style rebuttals. Tell you what...tell me where I went wrong on various issues and maybe I'll believe you. It would be a first at least, Beerman talking about issues instead of Ian! Wow!Tom, Democrats like Beerman are why I'm not a Democrat. In the south especially, it's a meaningless label. You could meet the most racist, miserly, sneering, government-fearing hick in the world, and they'll tell you they're a Democrat. And not even they will know why. I think for myself. You ought to try it sometime.
Ian thinks for himself and for all of us, whether we know it or want it or not. He's like a father to us all. Or a Big Brother. But watch out, leftists! Any liberal Democrat who doesn't march behind him in perfect ideological lock-step isn't a true liberal Democrat at all. They're just another white/bigot/racist/homophobe/uneducated/rich Republican for him to condemn with his seething hatred.
Wow, Jester! I had no idea I mattered that much. No wonder you and Beerman are so offended by me...I guess I should just follow textbook liberals like yourselves.
Post a Comment