Sept 18, 2010: Hosni Jumps Ahead

This is a picture of the major players at the Mid-East Peace talks, taken at the White House.
Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, is on your left.



But when the picture was published in Al Ahram, owned by the Egyptian government, Hosni Mubarak has jumped ahead.



The jig is up...

I Call HAGGIS !!!

Its Shoped , Thus its SHIT !!!!

Not necessarily shopped.
Except for Netanyahu, the arm positions of each man has changed.
They could have simply changed positions between two pics.

Did you read the fucking link?
Did you read the op?

No, I didn't know I was supposed to.
Again, I'll try to do better next time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippyt I Call HAGGIS !!! Thus its SHIT !!!!

Bruce, temper! Tsk, tsk.
I think it is obvious that a photograph was modified (is Photoshop the only way?) to place Mubarak in a more attactive light.
It just wasn't the top photo that was changed, but another one a step away.

this is a horrible parody of a "free" press.

the arm positions aren't the same, because everyone has been reversed. look at the angle of the ties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloud the arm positions aren't the same, because everyone has been reversed. look at the angle of the ties.

that's what it looks like to me; several of the guys are definitely reversed

Are we looking at the same thing ???

perhaps not; unimportant, really anyhow

I demand several more posts on this specific subject! You go next.

several more posts on this specific subject!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diaphone Jim Bruce, temper! Tsk, tsk. I think it is obvious that a photograph was modified (is Photoshop the only way?) to place Mubarak in a more attactive light. It just wasn't the top photo that was changed, but another one a step away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloud this is a horrible parody of a "free" press.

sigh

yes, I realize it's a state-owned and controlled publication. And to Flint:

LOOK!

(Flint looks around. Cloud gooses Flint and dances away!)

I let you do that on purpose.

<fun!>

and you're right, btw

I think this should never have come up. I think our Prez was being a callous a-hole, a clueless noob, or an egotistical dork, in the first picture.

The entire negotiations are about people working together to solve very tough issues. Him parading along like the "leader" with a bunch of servants following along was a very poor way to reinforce the entire "working together" aspect. It was bound to cause exactly these types of petty distractions.

You don't herd cats, you have to lead them.

Spuck, it's actually orchestrated to be that way! They figure out who will walk where so there won't be any confusion if Mubarak walks first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUCK I think this should never have come up. I think our Prez was being a callous a-hole, a clueless noob, or an egotistical dork, in the first picture. The entire negotiations are about people working together to solve very tough issues. Him parading along like the "leader" with a bunch of servants following along was a very poor way to reinforce the entire "working together" aspect. It was bound to cause exactly these types of petty distractions.

This is far from being a new phenomenon. Been going on for decades.

Oh, its ok then. To me its another subtle way the media shapes the information we get.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUCK I think this should never have come up. I think our Prez was being a callous a-hole, a clueless noob, or an egotistical dork, in the first picture. The entire negotiations are about people working together to solve very tough issues. Him parading along like the "leader" with a bunch of servants following along was a very poor way to reinforce the entire "working together" aspect. It was bound to cause exactly these types of petty distractions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman Oh, its ok then. To me its another subtle way the media shapes the information we get.

The subconscious perception is that the person in front is more important than everyone else...after all, *they* aren't first. That's going to be pretty unacceptable in many countries.

Actually, who cares? They all look like a bag of crooks anyway. Damn politicians.

lol...that was funny

Doesn't host country always go first?

I can't see everyone walking abreast. It would look like a chorus line.

Is this even worth discussing? really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman Is this even worth discussing? really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUCK I think this should never have come up. I think our Prez was being a callous a-hole, a clueless noob, or an egotistical dork, in the first picture. The entire negotiations are about people working together to solve very tough issues. Him parading along like the "leader" with a bunch of servants following along was a very poor way to reinforce the entire "working together" aspect. It was bound to cause exactly these types of petty distractions.

Ah good. We got the "Blame Bush" argument in there. I was afraid that would get missed.

Do you really think the Republican and Democrat party is different? How has Obama given us "Hope and Change"? By spending us out of debt? Has he done anything better than Bush?

Gah, vote 'em all out. We need a clean sweep in all of Washington. Just make sure you are voting for someone who has a record of fixing things. People voted for Obama because he preached change without looking at his history and we ended up with another political puppet that made things worse.

Damn, relax a little.

He just put Bush in there as counter example to show that all presidents do it.

sheesh



(Course the way Spud backpedaled was priceless.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pico and ME (Course the way Spud backpedaled was priceless.)

This isnt the word association thread.

You're right - those words really don't associate with reality.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Have a blessed day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman Yeh kinda like how every democrat is backpedaling on the healthcare reform they voted for

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pico and ME lol...that was funny

"When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way,
From your first cigarette, to your last dying day."

P.S. I wasn't back pedalling. I still say Yes. A very partisan statement for all you Obama sycophants out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon P.S. I wasn't back pedalling. I still say Yes. A very partisan statement for all you Obama sycophants out there.

Sycophant isn't inflamatory if you ain't one. Having said that, anyone who defends a conservative or a republican is bound to be called hateful, intolerant. bigoted, homophobic, or in bed with big business. Here in the cellar I've been called worse. That's what happens when you don't follow the tolerant politically correct crowd. Try saying something good about Sarah Palin running for President, and watch the hate and scorn pour down on you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon Having said that, anyone who defends a conservative or a republican is bound to be called hateful, intolerant. bigoted, homophobic, or in bed with big business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon when you don't follow the tolerant politically correct crowd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet With all due respect, isn't that what conservatives are. You, yourself, say Aren't conservatives apposed to DADT and same gender marriage? Don't you support a person's right to refuse to treat minorities the same as s/he treats whites? Don't you endorse subjugating workers and trashing the environment in the name of expanded profits?

What's the point of calling yourself a conservative if you don't adhere to conservative values?

If it doesn't walk like a duck and doesn't quack like a duck, then it's not a duck.

I'm going to start calling myself conservative. I'm against the death penalty, I'm for rights for women, rights for minorities, I think our health care system needs reformed. I'm pro-choice. I'm agnostic. I'm a hippy.

BUT I'm a conservative, dammit.

Maybe you need another word, or fall off the fence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman Not all conservatives - not at all. You consistently confuse "republican" with "conservative" THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 conservative values?

*shrugs*

You're Mr Conservative, you tell me.

Or are you a moderate today? I can't remember the schedule.

Regardless, I hear a lot from republicans about conservative values and my very favorite "it doesn't even freaking mean anything" word regurgitation about things being 'unamerican.' There was a lot of 'unamerican' being thrown around about the mosque debate.

WTF is 'unamerican'? I need a definition for that one! Disamerican? Nonamerican? Inamerican?

I need the official unabridged Rush dictionary. The entry for 'unamerican' probably follows 'ampersand.'

I've always wondered, what are conservatives conserving?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 What's the point of calling yourself a conservative if you don't adhere to conservative values?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 *shrugs*

Quote:

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus I've always wondered, what are conservatives conserving?

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman Good discourse.

I think the problem is that most of us don't really fit in one category.

I don't think there is a fence.

I don't belong to either party, I'm an independent.
Hence all your immature arrogant comments, as usual, don't apply.

You made the accusation, now back it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus I think the problem is that most of us don't really fit in one category. I don't think there is a fence.

So I'm asking you, the expert, what about you makes you conservative? You can't answer the question. You're looking for the right thing to say, but you don't know. My comment came from your party, the king of regurgitation: conservative american values. I don't know what they are, but I bet I don't have them. So what are they? You purport to know of them. You use conservatism when it's convenient, when it backs up whatever you have a problem with at the time, then you turn your back on it when you're faced with defining the truth about conservatism, and the truth about who you are. Be honest. Be who you are. Give me an honest statement about what makes you conservative, or whatever you're backing today. Believe me, I'm not the biggest sheep around here, not by a long shot.

YOU HAVE A UNIQUE CHANCE TO, ONCE AND FOR ALL, TELL US WHAT IT IS YOU REALLY STAND FOR. If I'm wrong, you're not conservative, tell me now and let's end it, once and for all.

btw "sheep" and "immature, arrogant comments" sounds like insult to me.

You're not insulting me, are you? I'll cry and get you banned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 I don't know what they are

Typical.

Business as usual for the c-man.

Typical for you too. Nice re-edit of your post after I already responded. Guess you learned that trick from redux.

Ha, I re-edited about 5 times as I was writing it. The thoughts were coming so fast and furiously. I have trouble keeping up with my own brain. You need to give me more time before leaving me such gems as "gee was that so hard to admit" and "I never claimed to be."

You should consider leaving Redux out of it since, thanks to you, he has no recourse here. That's cowardly even for you.

Once you get rid of me and tw and spexx and HM, you shall cut and paste and weeble and wobble to your heart's content, won't you?

Going tit-for-tat with classic is really boring and a waste of time. He simply reverts to passive/aggressive deflection. Thats why he seems like such a wishy-washy fence sitter.

It would have been nice if he would have just explained how his conservative values are different from being a republican. That could have been quite interesting.

Sigh, yeah, I know. I was pretty clear about what makes me identify with my "label."

I'm shutting up now.

My responses were dumbed-down so that you could relate to them. Since that was your posting style, I responded in kind.

I have no banning powers. I wasn't even here when redux was banned.
I'm sorry - where are all the posts of mine calling for his banning?
Oh thats right THERE WERE NONE.

I don't even consider such things as getting someone banned - You really should see someone about those delusional thoughts.
By the way, I asked for tw to be reinstated when I found out he was banned, you stupid fuck.
No run along and bother someone else.

There there, don't blow a gasket.

Call me dumb, call me a stupid fuck. That's tolerably non-irritating.

You can always be counted on to be the same as always. Consistency is a nice trait. I applaud you for it.

Now I'll run along. I have a lot of blow jobs to catch up on around here.

Oh dont ever shut up!

Quote:

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus I've always wondered, what are conservatives conserving?

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman I don't belong to either party, I'm an independent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman You consistently confuse "republican" with "conservative" THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Even I get it.

I don't get it.

I never said I was a conservative. All I did was reaffirm my position - I'm an independent.

Soooooo....are you conservative/independent or liberal/independent?

D'oh, I know, you're a right-in-the-middle moderate independent.

At least for now.

Fiscally I lean more conservative and socially I tend to be more liberal.

Okay, I'll chime in here. Conservatives conserve the values written in the Constitution. Conservatives don't try to change the Constitution by asking some guy in a black robe to change it by fiat. Conservatives don't believe in anarchy, legalized murder and theft, or distribution of wealth. Conservatives believe in private property rights, and the freedom to enjoy your own possessions without interference from some bureaucrat who has never held down a real job, or owned his own business. Conservatives believe this country was founded on Judeo-Christion principals, and that the constitution does not allow a state religion, but it does allow freedom of religion, not from religion. Conservatives believe if you earn money, it's yours, not some hobo's. I'll shut up now. I'm sure I haven't fully defined conservatism, and I'm also sure my grammar and spelling aren't correct, but hopefully some of you will understand that conservatives aren't monsters, and Republicans aren't automatically conservatives.

Thanks spudcon.

Can you explain a little about legalized murder? You mean like war and capital punishment?

Abortion.

Ah, thanks.

Interesting.

I would add to spudcon's nice summary a missed but important conservative principal:

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility as apposed to 'they made me do it, it wasn't my fault, etc., and the flip side, the government owes me x or y'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUCK I would add to spudcon's nice summary a missed but important conservative principal: Conservatives believe in personal responsibility as apposed to 'they made me do it, it wasn't my fault, etc., and the flip side, the government owes me x or y'.

Can Conservatives write what they believe in without couching it in angry code?

To add:

My dear older brother, who is really my best friend on earth, as we grew up a year and a half apart, highly identifies himself as conservative. We don't agree on a lot, for sure.

But he is one of the smartest and most caring people I know. I don't have to pigeonhole him, because he is clear on what he stands for and what he stands against.

And he works to change things that he sees as wrong. I have the utmost respect for him, even though we rarely agree on anything political.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon Okay, I'll chime in here. Conservatives conserve the values written in the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon Conservatives don't try to change the Constitution by asking some guy in a black robe to change it by fiat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon Conservatives don't believe in anarchy,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon legalized murder and

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon theft, or

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon distribution of wealth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon Conservatives believe in private property rights, and the freedom to enjoy your own possessions without interference from some bureaucrat who has never held down a real job, or owned his own business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon Conservatives believe this country was founded on Judeo-Christion principals,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon and that the constitution does not allow a state religion, but it does allow freedom of religion, not from religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet Ok, but is that good? The Constitution allowed slavery and held women in such low esteem that they were forbidden to vote. A blanket statement to conserve the values written in the constitution may not be the best philosophy to have. Of course conservatives don't try to change the Constitution - you don't want it changed. But when laws are made that conservatives don't like, or a presidential election is in question, they use the court system like everyone else does. There is a clause or two in the constitution that allows for change, and it has been used many times to eliminate slavery, allow women's sufferage etc. In fact, the Bill of Rights is an example of legal change. But it takes the will of the people and time to do that, and Conservatives would like to follow that rule of law. They want limited regulation. Conservatives are often heard saying "keep government out of my life". Where does lawful society end and anarchy start? Capital punishment? Anarchy doesn't start with removing capital criminals from society. It starts by letting them go free to commit their crimes again. Nobody does. A balance of law and freedom prevents anarchy. That's why we need government. But government is not the source of all answers or wisdom. It's a necessary evil. Distribution of wealth. Distribution of wealth. Is that when taxes are collected from everyone who can afford to pay taxes and used to pay for our miltary, police, teachers, etc.? Sure, it also goes to help those who cannot help themselves - the old, infirm, young - but a society is measured by how well they take care of the weakest among them. And yes, some of those who get help aren't the ones who should be getting it, but do you allow some in need to fall through the cracks because of a few bad apples? FWIW, I'm a liberal who believes in workfare. I view taxes as an investment. I don't mind paying taxes if I get a return on my investment, even if it's streets that are swept clean. Paying taxes to fund government is an obligation of citizenship. Paying taxes to fund research into the sex life of possums is not. Nor is funding special programs for illegal activities. Again, the constitution delineates specifically what the Federal Government has charge over, and what powers belong to the states. Sweeping streets is not something the feds are in charge of. Neither is paying for teachers. That is left to the states. And taxes are not an investment. Savings bonds are. Taxes are mandatory, investment is not. I'll choose my own investments every time. The financial geniuses in Washington have us in debt far beyond our ability to repay for the forseeable future. If you're objecting to emminent domain, it was a supreme court with a conservative majority who upheld that ruling. I disagree. The founding fathers were deists, not theists Do you think the constitution defends a preference for one religion over another, or defends one religion in it's goal to dominate American society?

Wait, what?

The founding fathers were DENTISTS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 Wait, what? The founding fathers were DENTISTS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad Can Conservatives write what they believe in without couching it in angry code?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet But you said: Which I interpret to mean that you don't want to change tose values, regardless of any clauses that allow for change. When liberals use the rule of law, conservatives object, if the outcome does not fit their agenda. When did liberals use the rule of law? My comments about anarchy and capital punishment were independant. Agreed, they were. But the argument isn't. How is government evil? How does your response address my statement that nobody believes in "legalized theft"? Government is evil because it imposes limits on liberty. It is a neccessary evil, because there will always be people in any society that will use liberty without self control or discipline. Thus, limited government. Lots of people believe in legalized theft. When congress decides to take your money and gives it to someone or some organization that it is not authorized to give it to, is that not theft? Liberals were up in arms about Iran Contra, but the Democrat controlled congress disallowed paying for aid to the Contras, so North raised the money another way. He let the Iranians pay for it. "Fund the government" may very well mean funding "research into the sex life of possums". If understanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of the cure for cancer, would it be worth the funding? Or in your case, if undertanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of a weapon that would kill all non-christian capitalists, would it be worth the funding? Anything that makes America a better nation is worth funding. Who defines making America better? The ends seldom justifies the means. If the Constitution says it is illegal to fund a church, should we fund it anyway, because someone thinks it will be better for America? What are you talking about? Just because they're mandatory doesn't mean I can't demand a return on the taxes I pay. You're right, you should demand a return. But the return should be in those enumerated in the Constitution. If you want a return on your investment, buy theater tickets, not a politician. Thank GWB and Reagan for the debt. Do you think you have a better grasp on economic policy than both the Bush AND Obama administrations? No, but wait, probably more than Obama. Reagan was not the cause of our debt. His policies gave the foundation for the surplus Clinton was able to claim. As for Bush, his debt was caused by the war, and his appeasement attempts with liberals by supporting education reform and medicare prescription drug program. So you think our forefathers were anti-religion? Ok. That really contradicts your assertion that

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad Can Conservatives write what they believe in without couching it in angry code?

The real reason the founders chose a hands off policy, was because it was the only way to sell the revolution to a fractious bunch of colonies. After all, many if not most of the colonists had suffered shit from their previous nation because the rulers had chosen one religion over another. Now under English rule, the leaders were an ocean away and pretty much let these fractious groups do what the hell they wanted... as long as they paid taxes.

The real story of religion in the colonies and how the founding fathers dealt with it.

I only read the first page of the Smithsonian article, and all it is doing is chronicalling what the American dream was trying to escape. The French, British and Spanish were exporting their religious intolerance to the colonies. It reminds me of an Irishman who was speaking about his homeland, and someone asked him about the Christians who were fighting each other in Ireland. His reply was "There are no Christians fighting in Ireland."

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon I only read the first page of the Smithsonian article,...

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce That's the best way to remain ignorant.

“For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold to the clichés of our forebears….We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

John F Kennedy

and he thinks people laugh at Obama.

I don't think Kennedy ever heard of Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon Government is evil because it imposes limits on liberty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon I don't think Kennedy ever heard of Obama.

I think you're right. It's ok though, I come here to laugh.

Although I don't completely disagree on
DADT & Marriage versus Civil Unions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet not allowing a woman to choose to end a pregnancy

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman This one is a matter of perspective... To some this is akin to murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon No, the best way to remain ignorant is to read revisionist history promulgated by the Smithsonian, liberal college professors and the media.