By-Tor.com

EndlesslyRocking wrote: This picture may not be a fake or a set-up (how would I know?) But don't just dismiss the notion: we've seen it before with our own eyes. It's not crazy paranoia, it's fact.

Looks like a lot of dems are out there trying to say it was staged now...

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/Sep ... LNtop1.htm

The only thing I would question about the guy is why he would take his little kids into a situation like that. I know I wouldn't. I've seen videos of conservatives infiltrating liberal protest rallies. Once they're noticed it's surprising how abusive and violent those "peaceniks" become. I can't imagine taking small children into something like that. Heck, I wouldn't even dare go in alone.

Of course, this wasn't a protest rally. It was just a gathering of people excited to see John Edwards, and the guy in question just wanted to quietly wave some Bush/Cheney signs. According to witnesses that's all he did. No yelling or anything.

I'm not saying it was faked/staged. It probably wasn't.

I'm just saying you can't dismiss the possibility outright, given what happened before.

EndlesslyRocking wrote:I'm not saying it was faked/staged. It probably wasn't.

I'm just saying you can't dismiss the possibility outright, given what happened before.

Speaking of faked... we need to get that guy in Texas, Bill Burkett, a copy of MS Forger. It works much better than MS Word when you're trying to recreate documents what would have been made on a 70's IBM selectric typewriter...

Perhaps we should just assume everything is faked or a lie, since it has happened before.

awip2062 wrote:Perhaps we should just assume everything is faked or a lie, since it has happened before.

That's not even close to what I said.

Just taking your statement to its logical extreme, ER.

awip2062 wrote:Just taking your statement to its logical extreme, ER.

No you didn't.

You took my statement and twisted it around into something completely ridiculous.

So then what do you accept as not being possibly faked?

Look at the man..... he looks like Herman Fucking Munster......

awip2062 wrote:So then what do you accept as not being possibly faked?

That's easy. If it makes liberals look bad, it's faked. If it makes conservatives look bad, it's genuine.

At least that's how CBS makes their determinations...

ElfDude wrote:

D'Anconia wrote:Don't forget unshaved.

Or lice-infested!

and CBS employed....

ElfDude wrote:

awip2062 wrote:So then what do you accept as not being possibly faked?

That's easy. If it makes liberals look bad, it's faked. If it makes conservatives look bad, it's genuine.

More like: If it looks too "good" to be true, then it probably is.

Devil's Advocate wrote:

ElfDude wrote:

awip2062 wrote:So then what do you accept as not being possibly faked?

That's easy. If it makes liberals look bad, it's faked. If it makes conservatives look bad, it's genuine.

More like: If it looks too "good" to be true, then it probably is.

Good from whose perspective?

Well, that's why I put "good" in quotation marks.

The fake Kerry & Fonda photo was too good to be true from the anti-Kerry faction's perspective, and the fake military documents relating to Bush are too good to be true from the anti-Bush faction's perspective. The photo you posted last week would appear to fall into the former group.

ElfDude wrote:

awip2062 wrote:So then what do you accept as not being possibly faked?

That's easy. If it makes liberals look bad, it's faked. If it makes conservatives look bad, it's genuine.

At least that's how CBS makes their determinations...

Good grief...