[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

The "photoshop genius" that snaked her eyes should be fired.

There is no way that was not an intentional racial besmirchment of Ms. Rice.

Pulleeeeeze! Get out in the sun more; it's good for the brain.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Here it starts. Many Photoshop "experts" will submit testimony on: 1) how it was deliberately manipulated; or 2) how it was inadvertantly manipulated.

Any takers on how this will turn out?

Well it looks like #2 is in the lead.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

What would have your reaction had been had the same thing been done to a liberal Democrat?

you'd be whining and moaning. your side got caught doing something really disgusting. obviously a raw exposed nerve has been hit here or you'd have not even commented.

It's quite possible this image manipulation was politically motivated but simply because Condi Rice is black in no way implies the photochopping was a racial attack.

I imgaine the point of the image was too make her look demonic, as such you want to draw a contract between the eyes and the surrounding face. Well, the surrounding face is caramel-colored so you need to make the eyes lighter to stand out. If this were a white person they would have simply made the eyes darker and shadowed to contract with the lighter skin of a white person. But, it would still achive the same effect, making the subject of the photograph appear ominous and evil.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

What would have your reaction had been had the same thing been done to a liberal Democrat?

you'd be whining and moaning. your side got caught doing something really disgusting. obviously a raw exposed nerve has been hit here or you'd have not even commented.

It's quite possible this image manipulation was politically motivated but simply because Condi Rice is black in no way implies the photochopping was a racial attack.

I imgaine the point of the image was too make her look demonic, as such you want to draw a contract between the eyes and the surrounding face. Well, the surrounding face is caramel-colored so you need to make the eyes lighter to stand out. If this were a white person they would have simply made the eyes darker and shadowed to contract with the lighter skin of a white person. But, it would still achive the same effect, making the subject of the photograph appear ominous and evil.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

The "photoshop genius" that snaked her eyes should be fired.

There is no way that was not an intentional racial besmirchment of Ms. Rice.

I already demonstrated how it could be done unintentionally through a fairly common trick to whiten dark eyes in a picture. I wasn't attempting to snake her eyes in my experiment — it was just a side effect of how blurry her eyes were, as I suspected. So there is unquestionably a way it was not intentional.

[IceBreaker]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I already demonstrated how it could be done unintentionally through a fairly common trick to whiten dark eyes in a picture. I wasn't attempting to snake her eyes in my experiment — it was just a side effect of how blurry her eyes were, as I suspected. So there is unquestionably a way it was not intentional.

as someone posted earlier...


O B V I O U S L Y :

Why would you do that? Why just the eyes?

It was childish & politically motivated.

[dcmacdaddy]

double-postinated.

[Monique]

It is very very funny. After all the stupid photos you used of Mrs. Clinton; it is kind of funny that you are reacting in such a way.


Most people I am sure did not even notice. Also, I love the part when one of you said that she does such a good job in demonizing herself.

[besson3c]

In case you've missed any of the previous plays, here's a game summary:

- Republicans claim Liberals are trying to make Condi look bad with picture. Some even say this is a result of racial intolerance.

- Liberals claim that Republicans are being too paranoid and digging up conspiracy which doesn't exist.

- Republicans stick to their guns and turn up the volume.

- Liberals mock Republicans, point out inconsistencies.

- Non-issue gets blown out of proportion.

- Partisan bickering.

[besson3c]

In case you've missed any of the previous plays, here's a game summary:

- Republicans claim Liberals are trying to make Condi look bad with picture. Some even say this is a result of racial intolerance.

- Liberals claim that Republicans are being too paranoid and digging up conspiracy which doesn't exist.

- Republicans stick to their guns and turn up the volume.

- Liberals mock Republicans, point out inconsistencies.

- Non-issue gets blown out of proportion.

- Partisan bickering.

- Besson3c brilliantly points out the absurdity of this thread, entertains and delights!

[besson3c]

In case you've missed any of the previous plays, here's a game summary:

- Republicans claim Liberals are trying to make Condi look bad with picture. Some even say this is a result of racial intolerance.

- Liberals claim that Republicans are being too paranoid and digging up conspiracy which doesn't exist.

- Republicans stick to their guns and turn up the volume.

- Liberals mock Republicans, point out inconsistencies.

- Non-issue gets blown out of proportion.

- Partisan bickering.

- Besson3c brilliantly points out the absurdity of this thread, entertains and delights!

[besson3c]

In case you've missed any of the previous plays, here's a game summary:

- Republicans claim Liberals are trying to make Condi look bad with picture. Some even say this is a result of racial intolerance.

- Liberals claim that Republicans are being too paranoid and digging up conspiracy which doesn't exist.

- Republicans stick to their guns and turn up the volume.

- Liberals mock Republicans, point out inconsistencies.

- Non-issue gets blown out of proportion.

- Partisan bickering.

- Besson3c brilliantly points out the absurdity of this thread, entertains and delights!

[besson3c]

In case you've missed any of the previous plays, here's a game summary:

- Republicans claim Liberals are trying to make Condi look bad with picture. Some even say this is a result of racial intolerance.

- Liberals claim that Republicans are being too paranoid and digging up conspiracy which doesn't exist.

- Republicans stick to their guns and turn up the volume.

- Liberals mock Republicans, point out inconsistencies.

- Non-issue gets blown out of proportion.

- Partisan bickering.

- Besson3c brilliantly points out the absurdity of this thread, entertains and delights!

[besson3c]

In case you've missed any of the previous plays, here's a game summary:

- Republicans claim Liberals are trying to make Condi look bad with picture. Some even say this is a result of racial intolerance.

- Liberals claim that Republicans are being too paranoid and digging up conspiracy which doesn't exist.

- Republicans stick to their guns and turn up the volume.

- Liberals mock Republicans, point out inconsistencies.

- Non-issue gets blown out of proportion.

- Partisan bickering.

- Besson3c brilliantly points out the absurdity of this thread, entertains and delights!

[besson3c]

In case you've missed any of the previous plays, here's a game summary:

- Republicans claim Liberals are trying to make Condi look bad with picture. Some even say this is a result of racial intolerance.

- Liberals claim that Republicans are being too paranoid and digging up conspiracy which doesn't exist.

- Republicans stick to their guns and turn up the volume.

- Liberals mock Republicans, point out inconsistencies.

- Non-issue gets blown out of proportion.

- Partisan bickering.

- Besson3c brilliantly points out the absurdity of this thread, entertains and delights!

[besson3c]

- Besson3c's awesome post gets posted several times.

I guess I should check the thread to see if my post made it instead of taking the error message at face value.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

as someone posted earlier...


O B V I O U S L Y :

Why would you do that? Why just the eyes?

The reason you would whiten just the eyes is because they are the only part that needed to be whitened in that picture. Whitening the rest of her would certainly be racist.

[IceBreaker]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The reason you would whiten just the eyes is because they are the only part that needed to be whitened in that picture. Whitening the rest of her would certainly be racist.

seriously.?

Just why in your opinion did the eyes needed whitened on Ms. Rice?

the photo looks quite nice without any whitening in my opinion.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

seriously.?

Just why in your opinion did the eyes needed whitened on Ms. Rice?

the photo looks quite nice without any whitening in my opinion.

I think she would like nicer if somebody drew on a mustache, and maybe one of those toy knives you can stick on your head that look like somebody stabbed you with a knife.

[hyteckit]

Auto-sharpen, auto-balance.

If she looks like a demon, blame it on her makeup.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

seriously.?

Just why in your opinion did the eyes needed whitened on Ms. Rice?

In my opinion, they should not have been. It was unethical. But it's clear to see that they have a murky and blurry look in the original picture. Lots of amateur photo editors feel this need to try improving pictures like this. I know this because I teach photojournalism students and see them try crap like this all the time, usually with equally disastrous results.

[gadster]

OK so the designer doesn't like the right, send 'em to gitmo. That'll get the GOP back in again. Fat chance.

[Spliffdaddy]

The GOP is *in*. Local, State, and Federal.

It's the Dems that are losing elections.

[gadster]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The GOP is *in*. Local, State, and Federal.

It's the Dems that are losing elections.

The GOP is a goner. Your turn to gnash whatever teeth you have left. Go brew some moonshine, or something.

[besson3c]

I'd be surprised if the Left doesn't win back some control during the Midterm elections.

In my opinion, it is always better when the power is split this way. I'm sure Spliffdaddy would prefer a non-democratic run Right-wing dictatorship (sort of like how we have now), but this really goes against the idea of democracy.

The idea of winner-takes-all is a narrow interpretation of what a representative democracy is about. It was designed to... represent people. Right now, the right is holding their cards tightly against their chest, and primarily representing the wealthy and pro-Iraq war, despite the fact that most people are now against the war and are thirsty for answers.

Answers are what we lack, a reason to trust the government. What does it really stand for? God, completing the mission in Iraq? What is the mission? What about our health care? How are we going to pay for stuff? Why are there areas in New Orleans that still are without running water and electricity, yet we are capable of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan? With oil companies reporting record profits, why do we need to give them tax breaks again?

There are so many unanswered questions, I think people are turning around and starting to wonder what is going on...

[NYCFarmboy]

<doublepost>

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

what would your solution to these "problems" be?

This is why the left does not win elections.

There are some smart people in the Left, just like there are smart people in the Right. It's a shame that political machines have to be built to win elections, but I agree, if the Left wants to win they are going to have to start rebuilding.

To begin: full disclosure and accountability. Bush is going for trickle-down economics, okay. I think he needs to make it clear that this is his economic policy, and let the poor decide between whether they want to elect somebody who *says* he believes in God (I think he has duped people into thinking that he is a model Christian) but will siphon money towards the rich, or somebody that will try to reduce the growing gap between the extreme rich and poor.

The right mistakenly thinks that the poor are poor because they are lazy. With the costs of health care so high, particularly individual health plans, it would be easy for somebody like me, a recently graduated College student working in a smallish College town to be considered poor or become poor at this time in my life. I'm far from lazy. I'm sure I'll quickly move out of this income bracket, I don't expect handouts, but I also fail to understand how trickle-down economics is going to help, and how the rich are going to actually "trickle-down" in today's technological age, rather than just automating or sending overseas.

The point is, it's unfair to paint with a wide brush assume that everybody affected by the widening gap is poor or lazy. The middle class, for instance, are also greatly affected by this gap. First of all, we need an economic policy that isn't about trickle-down. Trickle-down just doesn't work, IMHO.

The WoT: we need to draw lines, and we need to draw them NOW. What is our "mission", and when has it been accomplished? All we have gotten so far is vague answers. What mistakes have been made? Can this war ever be "won"? This is an extremely secretive administration, and there are countless questions that remain unanswered. Instead, Bush hits us repeatedly with the same old propaganda that he has been hitting us with since day one.

Whether you are pro-war or anti-war, we need disclosure and accountability so that we can help draw these lines. These lines are the same sorts of questions I asked in another thread: when does the death toll trump any benefits we'd reap from this mission? Just how big is the Iraqi security now (the numbers always seem all over the place)? Are the people fighting us actual terrorist organizations, or just frustrated people? Are they fighting us, or each other? This administration seems to eager to throw around the word "terrorist" in a way that spreads FUD. Where is Bin Laden? You can pick apart these points, I'm sure, but I shouldn't be this confused about so many things. Really, the reason why we debate so much in this forum is because we lack official information.

We don't need tactical information, we need information that suggests a sense of direction and long-term plan for Iraq.

We need elected officials who are not cronies of the administration

We need to improve our health care

We need to start talking about the environment again

etc.

Since I'm not sure whether the question was hypothetical or not, I'll leave it there. I'm sure you guys will happily tear this apart like wild dogs being thrown a hunk of red meat.

[Spliffdaddy]

Just as I was saying...the Dems will continue to lose elections. The majority of voters aren't interested in freely available abortions, government-funded healthcare, sympathy for terrorists, or saving the whales.

See, most people don't have abortions, they have their own health insurance, they want America to straighten out the Middle East, and they've never given any thought to whales.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Just as I was saying...the Dems will continue to lose elections. The majority of voters aren't interested in freely available abortions, government-funded healthcare, sympathy for terrorists, or saving the whales.

SHHHHHHH.... don't give away the secret!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Just as I was saying...the Dems will continue to lose elections. The majority of voters aren't interested in freely available abortions, government-funded healthcare, sympathy for terrorists, or saving the whales.

See, most people don't have abortions, they have their own health insurance, they want America to straighten out the Middle East, and they've never given any thought to whales.

You better hope that most voters also like to make huge jumps like you did here in interpreting my post.

[besson3c]

You also better hope that they are naive enough to think that it is possible to straighten out the Middle East. You also better hope that they don't care about the economy (which has always been the number one issue among people, according to the polls)

[Spliffdaddy]

I was being 100% serious.

The Dems focus on little niche groups. The radical pro-abortion niche which encompasses maybe 5% of the population, the 15% of Americans that don't have medical insurance, the 40% of voters who think we need to pull troops out of Iraq, and the .005% of Americans that have actually seen a whale.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You better hope that most voters also like to make huge jumps like you did here in interpreting my post.

Everything you said was said by John Kerry...

thats not an attack, its just I don't think the left gets it... it does not get votes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I was being 100% serious.

The Dems focus on little niche groups. The radical pro-abortion niche which encompasses maybe 5% of the population, the 15% of Americans that don't have medical insurance, the 40% of voters who think we need to pull troops out of Iraq, and the .005% of Americans that have actually seen a whale.

The 15% rate is not the only problem with medical insurance. High costs due to malpractice insurance, deductibles, etc. are also problems. I don't have any numbers to share with you, but I know that many Americans are not satisfied with aspects of the current health care system.

As far as Iraq, check out: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm. Polls indicate that a large number of people (the majority) are now not in support of the war.

However, this is besides the point I'd like to make. The Democrats (or any other party) need to offer an alternative platform. The fact that they didn't offer a great one that was appealing to people was probably why Kerry lost (although, in retrospect, I think it is somewhat impressive that he made it close knowing what I now know). The Democrats are not willing to offer an alternative platform to issues where such a stance would not be popular.

The Republicans have crafted a very tightly woven machine of FUD. People are afraid and grossly uninformed. Do you have any idea how many Americans think that Iraqis were aboard the plans that hijacked the 9/11 attacks? Do you have any idea how many Americans think that Sadaam was directly involved with the 9/11 attacks?

I'm not trying to go on the warpath by saying that anybody that votes Republican is naive and victim to FUD. I'm just saying that the Bush product is far more compelling than the Left product right now. This may or may not actually reflect upon what people are actually thinking and feeling, there are many variables here.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll vote for any party that I think will serve the best interests of the overall population. I couldn't care less what that party calls themselves, I'm not enamored with any particular politician or group of politicians. Frankly, I know I sound like a broken record, but I strongly believe that too many Americans are caught up in the horse-race aspect of politics. However, I suppose this is a digression.

Since the Democrats don't offer an alternative platform, they don't seem "competitive" with the Right on those issues that Bush has a monopoly over.

It really is a shame that so many people are so politically uninformed. Really, the poor and middle class represent so much more of America than the upper middle class and rich. It saddens me when poor people think that Republicans are looking out for their best interests, economically speaking. And yes, the economy is and probably will always be the number one issue in America. I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't really care about the situation in the Middle East, they just want to feel safe.

[Spliffdaddy]

The truth is that the government isn't looking out for anybody in particular. That's up to each individual. Much disappointment awaits the folks who believe the government is going to help them. To promise or imply that your political party is going to make any real difference in people's lives is to be disingenuous.

The most helpful government is the one that doesn't impact your daily life, doesn't interfere with your goals, and doesn't strive to. After all, you know what's best for you.

I used to write stories about Appalachia. About the poor folks. Most people would feel sorry for them because they don't have all the luxuries that inner-city poor people have. Running water and such. The average person is inclined to blame somebody for their plight - and seek to remedy what they see as a bad situation. Imagine that average person's surprise when they discover that those poor Appalachian folks don't want any 'help' - and are offended that somebody feels they need help. Hand 'em some cash and you'll get your ass kicked. Do you think they want the government to help them? Of course not. They are happy with their life. Happy being left alone. I think we can all understand that.

What you perceive, and what is real, are not always related. Look at that poor Appalachian guy...most will see a person that needs help. Few will see the real person - a person who couldn't be happier.

Be concerned with your own self. Your own family. Offer assistance to others based on need - not because you'll feel better. There are few things more selfish, and nothing more demeaning than to fancy yourself as being a better person because you have more money.

The "growing gap between the haves and have-nots" doesn't have a thing to do with government. It isn't a problem and by virtue of that fact, it doesn't need solved. Money can't buy any of the things that make a life worth living. Don't expect your government to make life worthwhile, else you'll die having never really lived.

The Democrats promise to make you happy and the Republicans promise to leave you alone. Both of them are liars.

Vote for me. I promise I won't do jackshit. And I'll keep my word.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The truth is that the government isn't looking out for anybody in particular. That's up to each individual. Much disappointment awaits the folks who believe the government is going to help them. To promise or imply that your political party is going to make any real difference in people's lives is to be disingenuous.

The most helpful government is the one that doesn't impact your daily life, doesn't interfere with your goals, and doesn't strive to. After all, you know what's best for you.

I used to write stories about Appalachia. About the poor folks. Most people would feel sorry for them because they don't have all the luxuries that inner-city poor people have. Running water and such. The average person is inclined to blame somebody for their plight - and seek to remedy what they see as a bad situation. Imagine that average person's surprise when they discover that those poor Appalachian folks don't want any 'help' - and are offended that somebody feels they need help. Hand 'em some cash and you'll get your ass kicked. Do you think they want the government to help them? Of course not. They are happy with their life. Happy being left alone. I think we can all understand that.

What you perceive, and what is real, are not always related. Look at that poor Appalachian guy...most will see a person that needs help. Few will see the real person - a person who couldn't be happier.

Be concerned with your own self. Your own family. Offer assistance to others based on need - not because you'll feel better. There are few things more selfish, and nothing more demeaning than to fancy yourself as being a better person because you have more money.

The "growing gap between the haves and have-nots" doesn't have a thing to do with government. It isn't a problem and by virtue of that fact, it doesn't need solved. Money can't buy any of the things that make a life worth living. Don't expect your government to make life worthwhile, else you'll die having never really lived.

The Democrats promise to make you happy and the Republicans promise to leave you alone. Both of them are liars.

Vote for me. I promise I won't do jackshit. And I'll keep my word.

Very well said!

Maybe the 70% apolitical population are smarter than all of us, smart for not caring. As you said, politicians are in it for themselves.

I can completely understand and resonate with the Right and the Libertarians when it comes to small government, and government that doesn't interfere with the lives of individuals. This has always been one of the core values of the Right.

I kind of have a theory that this is shifting though, and the parties are in the process of realignment.

The Right right now is using religious ideology to help shape social issues such as abortion, stem cell research, the definition of life (Terry Schiavo), etc. In my opinion, this is where the government should take a hands-off approach.

As far as small government goes, I can't help thinking that with things like the Patriot Act, projects like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. that the government must have a need for a greater quantity of resources, and therefore must grow in size. However, perhaps they aren't growing in size, but simply short-changing other areas of government, I don't know...

My ideas about government size are kind of shaky and unsubstantiated, but I do believe that the Right is definitely taking a more active role in the private lives of individuals with their social policies. Terry Schaivo was a great example, the freakin' federal government definitely did NOT need to become involved there.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Everything you said was said by John Kerry...

thats not an attack, its just I don't think the left gets it... it does not get votes.

Take a political science course and you'll learn that the political barometer of a nation shifts... there are phases where the population is very Liberal, there are periods where it is Conservative. Some people think of this as a pendulum.

The pendulum has swung to the Right, but not to the far right. If you look at the election results in 1996 (I believe), you'll see that Clinton absolutely CLEANED UP with a large margin victory. The victory margins in the 2000 and 2004 elections were nowhere near as wide. I'm sure there have been periods in history where the Right completely dominated politics.

The results of the 2008 election will indicate whether the pendulum will swing further Right, or back to the Left. If the people are aligning with the Right, it will be much harder for the Left to win votes regardless of the strength of their campaign (although the campaign is influential).

To say that the Left doesn't get votes is absurd. They aren't dominating right now. This will naturally change.


To me, the political barometer of the public is greatly influenced by these trends:


- Christian Coalition is very powerful right now. Something like 50% people feel that we were created in our current form, and evolution played no part in it. This is not common in the world. Most people feel that while God may have created man, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that evolution exists. This stat is very telling. Many voters are very passionate about these hot-button social issues, and will vote accordingly.

- People fear for their safety more than ever. Terrorism is in the minds of people, they are easily manipulated (by either party).

[IceBreaker]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Take a political science course and you'll learn that the political barometer of a nation shifts... there are phases where the population is very Liberal, there are periods where it is Conservative. Some people think of this as a pendulum.

The pendulum has swung to the Right, but not to the far right. If you look at the election results in 1996 (I believe), you'll see that Clinton absolutely CLEANED UP with a large margin victory. The victory margins in the 2000 and 2004 elections were nowhere near as wide. I'm sure there have been periods in history where the Right completely dominated politics.

The results of the 2008 election will indicate whether the pendulum will swing further Right, or back to the Left. If the people are aligning with the Right, it will be much harder for the Left to win votes regardless of the strength of their campaign (although the campaign is influential).

To say that the Left doesn't get votes is absurd. They aren't dominating right now. This will naturally change.


To me, the political barometer of the public is greatly influenced by these trends:


- Christian Coalition is very powerful right now. Something like 50% people feel that we were created in our current form, and evolution played no part in it. This is not common in the world. Most people feel that while God may have created man, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that evolution exists. This stat is very telling. Many voters are very passionate about these hot-button social issues, and will vote accordingly.

- People fear for their safety more than ever. Terrorism is in the minds of people, they are easily manipulated (by either party).

dream on!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

dream on!

Could you provide a little more substance to your post? Dream on to what? What do you mean?