By-Tor.com

sometimes he is a little to right for me.

Soup4Rush wrote:sometimes he is a little to right for me.

As opposed to a little to wrong?

I don't always agree with him either, but he sure puts up one helluva argument....and backs it up too!

Did you read the "9/11 Conspiracy" transcript I posted from his show? That was a good read...See the 9/11 thread...Laters brah

there are people that are to far left and to some that are to far right. I consider myself more of a moderate. and I think OReilly is a smart guy sometimes, but sometimes he gets a bit wacko. I agreed with a lot of things Bill Clinton did and sometimes I think W has a screw loose. I am a middle ground kind of guy.

CygnusX1 wrote:yeah Soups, I watched it and agree that he didn't.....but he didn't have an opportunity to...

at least Bill will present both sides of an issue...not just spew HIS view the whole show...

he even televises the e-mails that slam him...how up-front can a guy be?

But is that before, or after O'Reilly sexually herasses a black woman?

Both?

Devil's Advocate wrote: 9/11 conspiracy theories are not in the mainstream, whatever your politics.

You're probably more correct than I thought (I'm sure that happens a lot more than I'd care to admit, my friend...). In Georgia, at least, democrat voters yesterday added some weight to your statement above.

DECATUR, Ga. (AP) -- Cynthia McKinney, the fiery Georgia congresswoman known for her conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks and the scuffle she had earlier this year with a U.S. Capitol police officer, lost a runoff election Tuesday for her district's Democratic nomination.

Attorney Hank Johnson, a former county commissioner, won the nomination with 59 percent of the vote, surpassing McKinney by more than 11,000 votes.

McKinney, her state's first black congresswoman, has long been controversial. Her suggestion that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks helped galvanize opposition and she lost her seat in 2002, but won it again two years ago.

ElfDude wrote:So... it's okay for a news agency to try to deceive the public ...?

Unless you can prove that Reuters published the pic knowing that it had been doctored, your best bet is to drop this. It's going nowhere.

When they discovered that they'd published a doctored image, Reuters withdrew it, admitted it was what it was, and fired the photographer.

Why do you persist in trying to blame the agency?

CygnusX1 wrote:I couldn't open your link DA....damn...

Try clicking it.

Devil's Advocate wrote: Why do you persist in trying to blame the agency?

Because the photographer was not the one who decided whether or not the image would be published. It's people higher up the ladder who make decisions like that. And again, no actions were taken until they got caught.

Did they know the picture was doctored? Well... we're talking about two pictures. The one of the missle was a fairly subtle forgery. However, the one of all the smoke was a blatant Photoshop job. In other threads I've seen accusations from you of Photoshopping of pictures that look quite natural to me. So for an eye like yours, and certainly for the eyes of professional news people like Reuters, that blatant smoke one should have been pronounced DOA. But it wasn't.

So, it was either incompetence or it was "This'll fool 'em!" Given the bent of Reuters in the past combined with the death threat coming out of their offices to the pro-Israel blogger, I'll pick the latter.

And I persist because I'm a conspiracy kook. You know that!

Devil's Advocate wrote:

ElfDude wrote:So... it's okay for a news agency to try to deceive the public ...?

Unless you can prove that Reuters published the pic knowing that it had been doctored, your best bet is to drop this. It's going nowhere.

When they discovered that they'd published a doctored image, Reuters withdrew it, admitted it was what it was, and fired the photographer.

Why do you persist in trying to blame the agency?

CygnusX1 wrote:I couldn't open your link DA....damn...

Try clicking it.

...you should move up to amateur comedy

Devil's Advocate wrote:Unless you can prove that Reuters published the pic knowing that it had been doctored, your best bet is to drop this.

Wait a sec... was that a threat?

ElfDude wrote:

Devil's Advocate wrote:Unless you can prove that Reuters published the pic knowing that it had been doctored, your best bet is to drop this.

Wait a sec... was that a threat?

he's (DA) got spunk I-tell-ya-what, but with some folks it's better to just drop back ten yards and PUNT....

Does it remind you of the southbound-end-of-a-northbound-mule?

Call me crazy, but for some unbeknownst reason it does to me....

never mind....it was my boss...he just showed up

ElfDude wrote:

Devil's Advocate wrote:Unless you can prove that Reuters published the pic knowing that it had been doctored, your best bet is to drop this.

Wait a sec... was that a threat?

Nope. Just a little friendly advice: if you don't have the evidence to back up your claims and allegations, you won't win the argument and you're wasting your time trying to.

Devil's Advocate wrote:

ElfDude wrote:

Devil's Advocate wrote:Unless you can prove that Reuters published the pic knowing that it had been doctored, your best bet is to drop this.

Wait a sec... was that a threat?

Nope. Just a little friendly advice: if you don't have the evidence to back up your claims and allegations, you won't win the argument and you're wasting your time trying to.

I smell SPIN OHHHHHHH BOYEEEEE!!!!

Devil's Advocate wrote:

ElfDude wrote:

Devil's Advocate wrote:Unless you can prove that Reuters published the pic knowing that it had been doctored, your best bet is to drop this.

Wait a sec... was that a threat?

Nope. Just a little friendly advice: if you don't have the evidence to back up your claims and allegations, you won't win the argument and you're wasting your time trying to.

Ah. You're trying to help prevent me making a fool of myself. Too late for that, mate!!!