Demon-eyes-ing Condi
Why did USA Today doctor this photo of Condi...
The media wants Condi to look like the evil Republican she is..
Why did USA Today doctor this photo of Condi...
The media wants Condi to look like the evil Republican she is..
Real Condi
super evil Republican Condi
Posts
13 comments:
Why? You need ask why?
The American media is nothing short of Pravda West.
You have two pictures here. What is the source of each? How do we know which one is retouched? What about either one implies evil? You have offered nothing here.
You must be running out of examples of the SCLM (so-called liberal media, for the uninitiated).
OK, its not uncommon to make fun of her cuz she really has the sourest puss in all of gov't(Jon Stwert does it all the time), but I agree with jim.
As usual Jim is going on and on about all the 'what if's'. Sighhhhhhhzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
SR,
This is no "what if?" It's "where's the beef?" Do you not understand the difference? There is no "if" in my post.
Please read past the "jim said" part and try to comprehend what is actually written here.
Jim, if you clicked on the title you would have seen the Michelle Malkin story...USA today retouched the picture to make her look evil...
it seems hopeless with the Left...you show them something and they act like a two year old and say "so"
even though I think someone in first grade could see how and which picture was altered, here is another link talking about it:
http://newsbusters.org/node/2499
USA todays spin:
The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally
accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA
TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly
adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size
and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance.
In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor
brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural
appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in
keeping with our editorial standards.
I'm glad to see you pointed out the obvious to Jim's 'what if the evil eyes photo is the original photo' baloney, Game. Apparently Jim's reading comprehension is similar to that of a first grader's, or he would have been able to decipher what I was saying about his usual 'what if' posts. Sighhhhhhhh. Liberalism IS a defective cognitive disorder.
Jim: I am not picking on you, just because you are "Jim". I 'short cut' comments at times for several reasons. Sometimes my doing so makes it very difficult for people without proficient reading abilities to comprehend my messages. I could read at a 5th grade level when I was 4 years old. I had the reading comprehension ability of a 4 year college graduate when I was in Junior High School. My SAT score was one of the highest in my home state. In college I never needed to study for hours, just to achieve honor roll grades as many of my classmates did. So the problem is not with my comprehension of your posts. I understand all too well what you are trying to say. The problem is that your ideas are silly.
Hey guys, I hear if you start drinking Absinthe now, then your paranoia should REALLY be churning in about 10-15 years. You point out the article a reason to denounce jim, and all it did was support us. Have you guys ever used a photo editor? Nobody did anything that isnt normal. She just has a terrible stinkface that doesnt hold up well in pictures. Deal with it. Oh, and stephanie, for claiming to be so intelligent, you really failed to impress on this one.
Thank you, Game for presenting some facts. Forgive me for forgetting that SOME of your titles link to content. It is not obvious that they do, so I looked for a link in the body of the post or on the pictures.
Your citation on this page explains perfectly reasonably what happened and does not indicate any bias whatsoever.
SR, your original post on this page makes no sense. My post has 47 words, hardly "going on and on." None of the words is "if". There is no hypothetical suggested. There is merely a questioning of the basis of Game's original assertion.
Your third post is not impressive. It does no good to have a genius level reading ability if you no longer read, and you have never provided any indication that you do. To you, my ideas are silly. You have none. You have nothing but baseless ridicule.
Game, I'll consider Malkin a reliable source when you consider Paul Krugman a reliable source. Malkin is as partisan as they come.
I wasn't trying to impress you or anyone else rhyno. I was just stating the facts about my reading comprehension abilities. Your thinking that I was trying to impress you or anyone else here is yet another example of the typical liberal's humungous ego at work.....believing that it is 'all about them'. Their egocentric thoughts that they are the center of the universe.
it doesn't matter what the source is if they are simply linking you or giving factual information...Malkin simply showed what happened...
This isn't a liberal site making up crap like Bush fixed all the voting machines so he would win the 2004 election....by the way, I know most of the idiots on Rons site believe that, and that is why they are lots puppies.
Post a Comment