CNN vs Foxnews Condi picture Edit: CNN darkens picture?

[DealMonkey]

Ahhh Alchemize, AT P&N's own version of Robert Novak. What would we ever do without you?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Ahhh Alchemize, AT P&N's own version of Robert Novak. What would we ever do without you?

Speaking of Novak,
here's a good article about why Clarke turned into a partisan bush-basher.

 

[Zephyr106]

Here's the kind of beast I had in mind:

Condi

Zephyr

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: alchemize


I think she is quite attractive for a 50 year old politician. But if she is ugly or not isn't the point. The point is, what form of Beast does she look like?

I would say she wouldn't need any makeup in order to play an extra for the siege of Helmsdeep in Lord of the Rings, in other words- she looks like a Peter Jackson interpretation of an Orc.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Ahhh Alchemize, AT P&N's own version of Robert Novak. What would we ever do without you?

Speaking of Novak,
here's a good article about why Clarke turned into a partisan bush-basher.

That's right, Clarke must indeed have some serious personality disorder to want to expose the inner workings of the White House. Is he a deviant? A sociopath? Perhaps just anti-social? Certainly we need to talk about Clarke personally and not just about his message.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Here's the kind of beast I had in mind:

Condi

Zephyr

Hehehehe! Galt will hit it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Ahhh Alchemize, AT P&N's own version of Robert Novak. What would we ever do without you?

Speaking of Novak,
here's a good article about why Clarke turned into a partisan bush-basher.

Nokak completely discredits himself with that last paragraph:

While Clarke testified under oath last week that he would not join a Kerry administration, he is now, in effect, part of the Kerry campaign. His book's publication was timed to coincide with his testimony, and his transformed posture is one of political partisan.

 

[Gravity]

Can't see her eyes in the cnn thread. That makes her look inhuman and out of touch.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Ahhh Alchemize, AT P&N's own version of Robert Novak. What would we ever do without you?

Speaking of Novak,
here's a good article about why Clarke turned into a partisan bush-basher.

Nokak completely discredits himself with that last paragraph:

While Clarke testified under oath last week that he would not join a Kerry administration, he is now, in effect, part of the Kerry campaign. His book's publication was timed to coincide with his testimony, and his transformed posture is one of political partisan.

Oh really? Does he completely discredit himself with these?

Clarke had complained to friends about the Clinton administration's weakness on terrorism

Miniter for the first time revealed, directly quoting Clarke, the meeting of Cabinet-level officials on Oct. 12, 2000, after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. The vote was 7-1 against an attack on Osama bin Laden. Only Clarke wanted action.

Whereas he had briefed Clinton, Bush was briefed by CIA Director George Tenet. Clarke found himself at ''deputies'' rather than ''principals'' meetings. The final indignity was his rejection by Secretary Tom Ridge for a high-ranking Homeland Security post.

Clarke since he left the government is described by friends as becoming much closer to Rand Beers, who succeeded him as chief terrorist official in the Bush administration. Beers quit his high-ranking post to become Sen. John Kerry's foreign policy adviser. Since then, Clarke and Beers have been collaborating.

Clarke's only political contributions in 2002 and 2004 were to two former colleagues on the Clinton National Security Council staff who are running for Congress as Democrats.

 

[XZeroII]

So? being biased works both ways as we can see.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur
Nokak completely discredits himself with that last paragraph:

While Clarke testified under oath last week that he would not join a Kerry administration, he is now, in effect, part of the Kerry campaign. His book's publication was timed to coincide with his testimony, and his transformed posture is one of political partisan.

Oh really? Does he completely discredit himself with these?

Clarke had complained to friends about the Clinton administration's weakness on terrorism

That's nothing new.

Miniter for the first time revealed, directly quoting Clarke, the meeting of Cabinet-level officials on Oct. 12, 2000, after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. The vote was 7-1 against an attack on Osama bin Laden. Only Clarke wanted action.

Again, nothing new.

Whereas he had briefed Clinton, Bush was briefed by CIA Director George Tenet. Clarke found himself at ''deputies'' rather than ''principals'' meetings. The final indignity was his rejection by Secretary Tom Ridge for a high-ranking Homeland Security post.

Nothing new. We all know Bush was more worried about his vacations and finding a way to go to war on Iraq.

Clarke since he left the government is described by friends as becoming much closer to Rand Beers, who succeeded him as chief terrorist official in the Bush administration. Beers quit his high-ranking post to become Sen. John Kerry's foreign policy adviser. Since then, Clarke and Beers have been collaborating.

Collaborating on what? Pure conjecture.

Clarke's only political contributions in 2002 and 2004 were to two former colleagues on the Clinton National Security Council staff who are running for Congress as Democrats.

And that means?? The people to whom Clarke donated money were people he'd known during the Clinton Administration. It has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand. Well, it does go to show Novak is trying to point the finger of implication toward to Clarke.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

you know you wanna hit dat!

 

[DealMonkey]

Somebody's seeing latent racism practically everywhere today, eh Alchemize? You workin' for Al Sharpton now?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Somebody's seeing latent racism practically everywhere today, eh Alchemize? You workin' for Al Sharpton now?

Am I having vision problems? You don't see a difference between the 2 photos?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Somebody's seeing latent racism practically everywhere today, eh Alchemize? You workin' for Al Sharpton now?

Am I having vision problems? You don't see a difference between the 2 photos?

OMG THE HORROR!!! NOW THE HAVE A LIGHT VERSION OF THE SAME SCENE ON THIER FRONT PAGE!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/


You have absolutely no case here.

 

[tnitsuj]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/rice.testimony/top.rice.monday2.ap.jpg

how about this one, does this meet your approval??

 

[alchemize]

Is nobody going to answer the question? Was the original CNN one darkened or not? It's a simple question, really.

 

[Gand1]

To me it most likely looks as when is was cropped and enlarged to fit the image size they wanted the contrast darkens a bit. No biggie.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Is nobody going to answer the question? Was the original CNN one darkened or not? It's a simple question, really.

It is darker. But you think they deliberatly did that to make her look worse?

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: alchemize
Is nobody going to answer the question? Was the original CNN one darkened or not? It's a simple question, really.

It is darker. But you think they deliberatly did that to make her look worse?

Yeah, because alchemize thinks darker skin tone is "worse." Who's really the racist around here?

Zephyr

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: alchemize
Is nobody going to answer the question? Was the original CNN one darkened or not? It's a simple question, really.

It is darker. But you think they deliberatly did that to make her look worse?

Yeah, because alchemize thinks darker skin tone is "worse." Who's really the racist around here?

Zephyr

So Al thinks people of color look worse than palefaces?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: alchemize
Is nobody going to answer the question? Was the original CNN one darkened or not? It's a simple question, really.

It is darker. But you think they deliberatly did that to make her look worse?

Yeah, because alchemize thinks darker skin tone is "worse." Who's really the racist around here?

Zephyr

What did you think when Time magazine darkened OJ's face on it's cover?

Oh, and care to back up that statement? Feel free to quote me. Or is that dark poopie running down your chin?

 

[XZeroII]

wow, she looks evil

 

[DealMonkey]

I don't know Al, Condi looks pretty dark on this week's Time Mag. You better lodge a formal complaint.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

No one else thinks she is hot?