Fucking liberals forced me to fucking defend George W. Bush.
I will never forgive them.
But facts are facts.
For my 200th post, I thought I’d take a break
from bashing Republicans. Most people think I’m a Liberal because I’m always
pointing out that Republicans are either wrong, liars or straight-up scumbags.
No. I just point out facts. Or, at least, I try to. I can’t help it if
Republicans are wildly more wrong about facts (intentional or otherwise) than
Liberals.
There was a satirical article about the things that
hypocritical FOX-watchers think. It was good. I had one issue – there was a
photo of President Bush kissing King Abdullah. You know the one. Photoshopped.
I pointed out this fact in the comments section. Someone said I was wrong.
Words happened. Lots of insanely stupid, circular logic, evidence-denying
words. All in the name of being correct.
Oh, and I was blamed several times of doing what they were
doing, which is called ‘projection.’ Left or Right, blind obedience makes you
stupid.
Side note: I’ve decided not to call Republicans
“Conservative” anymore because none of their policies are conservative, so I
would be lying if I called them Conservative. When they call themselves
“Conservative,” they are lying.
Enjoy…
Bill Mancuso · Top Commenter · Sculptor at Me
Excellent [article]. You might want to remove the pic of
Bush kissing King Abdullah, though. It's a photoshop. No need to taint the rest
of the article with manufactured nonsense. [I said
“taint.” Mheh-heh.]
Mark · Top Commenter · Works at Retired
Bill, it's on you-tube, and lots of photographer took it
from diff angles, just google "Bush kisses" and see for
yourself.............sorry man.
Bill Mancuso · Top Commenter · Sculptor at Me
Mark, it's not on Youtube. They kissed on the cheek. That
photoshopped picture has them mouth kissing. At no point and at no angle has
any photographer taken a picture or video of them mouth-kissing. There exists
exactly one photoshopped picture of them kissing on the mouth.............sorry
man. [It is on Youtube. Sort of. It’s that same Photoshopped
picture in a video montage of other photographs. I guess if the Photoshopped
picture is sliding across the screen, that proves it’s real?]
Mark · Top Commenter · Works at Retired
Bill Mancuso - Yes, its even on FOX they caled it the
"Traditional Saudi Double Kiss " Google this " Bush kissing
Saudis" it's got several networks CBS FOX showing and commenting about it.
Sorry you lose this, but just Google Bush kissing Saudis BTW it's not just one
guy either, hard for a Bushie to accept I guess..
Jonathan · Top Commenter · Database Specialist at Bell
Canada
Bill Mancuso - When I saw that pic I assumed a cheek kiss,
though looking back on it, yeah it does look like on the mouth. Bad angle. [Yes, Johnathan, it looks like a mouth kiss because it’s
Photoshopped to look that way.]
Bill Mancuso · Top Commenter · Sculptor at Me
Mark: Traditional Saudi Kiss - On the cheeks. For a fact,
Bush did not kiss him on the mouth. Did you really just use FOX
"News" to try and prove facts wrong? I am in no way a
"Bushie." Why is it that whenever facts disprove someone's wishes,
they call the person giving them the facts names? Bush was a tool. Why must
people stoop to lying to prove this already easily provable fact? If the one
and only photo of Bush and Abdullah is not photoshopped, then why is there a
clear and distinct photoshop halo around Bush's nose and Abdullah's mustache
& beard? Why is there no shadow between them? And why is there a perpendicular
photoshopped crop-line at the bottom of the photo cutting off Bush's tie and
arm - and the windshield wipers in the background? Also, the original picture
is just the two of them face-to-face. The "kissing" one is their same
exact faces just mashed together. Also, if they weren't photoshopped, then
their positions would change in relation to the background of the original
picture and not just be closer together.
Here is a larger example of this clearly photoshopped
picture for you to enjoy. Please note the photoshop halo between their faces
and Bush's cut-off arm & tie. [The photo in the
article is a small picture in a cluster of other pictures of Bush &
Abdullah holding hands.]
As for the traditional Saudi Kiss...
No lips.
It doesn't matter if you and every network disagrees with
facts. They're still facts.
You are dismissed.
Mark · Top Commenter · Works at Retired
Bill Mancuso Yahoo/ answers even says he did Newsbusters
said he did. GOOGLE BUSH KISSING SAUDIS you are behaving like BUSH, never
wrong, he's also kissing a Prince, you may want to read a book House of Bush
House of Saud tto learn about that clans
relationship.
Bill Mancuso · Top Commenter · Sculptor at Me
Mark - Once again: yes. Once again: on the cheek. Once
again: not on the lips. I can't help that the facts prove me correct. You are
behaving like a Republican and ignoring blatant facts and indisputable evidence
in order to perpetuate your nonsensical wishes. You went from Roger Ailes' FOX
"News" to Media Research Center's
Newsbusters to prove a point?
Yikes. I don't know which of those far right-wing propaganda machines are less
grounded in reality. Nowhere in House of Bush, House of Saud does it say they kiss on the lips, so I don't know
how that proves your misinformed point. Hint: It doesn't. You may want to look
at the obviously photoshopped picture and the link I included in my last post
that describes traditional Saudi kisses as on the cheek and sometimes
nose-to-nose - never on the lips. Why do you fear the truth? Is it painful for
you?
Brian · Top Commenter · Boise State University
[Uh, oh. A college-educated
person. I’m in for it now.]
Bill Mancuso You don't get to "dismiss" people.
You're not our professor or our drill sergeant. Sorry, bud. We don't even know
you. And how are you going to prove that the "photoshop halo" wasn't
added to a legit picture of Dubya kissing the king of Saud? I mean, the link
you posted has absolutely zero context. Its not part of a news story. Its just
a picture floating in the internet. For all I know, you took a picture of Bush
& Saud kissing and added a photoshop halo to make it look less legitimate.
You claim that you have the "facts" but all you've provided is a
picture with no context and a story about how to kiss, Saudi style. What you've
provided is called "evidence". [Yes. Yes,
I have.] Facts require more rigor. [?]
So don't act like you own the facts and are the only one who can discern truth.
[This is what a college education does to brains
these days?]
Brian · Top Commenter · Boise State University
Bill Mancuso I don't think anyone here "fears" the
truth. I think there is exactly ONE person being very arrogant and pretending
that his own views represent the only "truth" that is possible. So.
How does it feel to be the grand master of facts? What is it like to be the one
dispenser of reality in the entire universe? You must feel a great pressure of
responsibility for holding such high esteem of yourself.
Bill Mancuso · Top Commenter · Sculptor at Me
Brian - We don't even know you, either. [Seriously. What does that have to do with anything? It’s
a comments section of an online article. Nobody knows anybody. But, I guess if
someone disagrees with you, you can point that out as if supports your case in
some way. Or something.]
I provided the one and only picture of Bush and Abdullah
"kissing" that has been floating around the internet for over half a
decade. It has been a blatant fake for over half a decade. The context is the
fake photo itself, which is fake. You'd have to be pretty dense to not realize
you can search the internet and find that exact picture in any number of places
dating back over half a decade. [Pay attention to
how he ignores this fact.] You have invented a fake scenario of me
adding things to it in order to obfuscate the truth. Much like Republicans
invented Obama's birth certificate scandal or the Solyndra scandal or the IRS
scandal or the Fast & Furious scandal or the ACORN scandal or the Benghazi
scandal in order to obfuscate his legitimacy. That would be some serious
time-traveling for me to do if I wanted to go back and fake all those fake
photos just for this inconsequential comments section.
Also, Saudi's kiss on the cheek or touch noses.
These are not my "views." They are facts. You are
correct, though. I do not own facts. However, they seem to have owned you.
For future reference, if you're going to complain that
someone is being arrogant, you might not want to lay on the arrogant sarcasm so
thick yourself.
You, too, are dismissed. [That was fun to say.]
Wendy · Top Commenter · Florida International University
[Uh, oh. Another college educated
person. How ever will I survive?]
Bill Mancuso Why are you so determined that it was a cheek
kiss rather than a kiss on the mouth?. If Obama held hands with anybody the
right would have him crucified at dawn. GWB is a mouth kisser, accept it.
Brian · Top Commenter · Boise State University
Bill Mancuso Call me arrogant all you want. [You’re arrogant.] I didn't "dismiss"
you. I didn't appoint myself to the head of the class and assume dictatorial
powers to determine who is and who is not allowed to comment further.
The photo in this video does not include any photoshop halo:
[He posted the video montage I was talking about…]
Nor does this rather affectionate photo:
My point isn't that you in particular added a photoshop haze. [Yes. It was. That’s what you said.] You
might have. [Make up your mind, college boy. Did I
or didn’t I?] Someone else might have. [It
wasn’t me. It was me. It wasn’t me… that added special effects to a real
picture five years ago to make it seem fake so it appears like I’m right in the
comments section after a satirical article. If there are any parents reading
this, you might not want to let your kids go to college. At least not Boise
State University, anyway.] Regardless, you found ONE picture on the
internet that clearly contains a halo and are pretending that is PROOF that
Dubya never kissed the Saudi king. [No evidence
exists, but I can’t prove that the complete lack of evidence doesn’t support
idea that the thing that didn’t happen didn’t happen? *slow clap for
stupidity*]
Brian · Top Commenter · Boise State University
Those links I posted were, by the way, found after about 35
seconds of searching. I didn't have to dig very far to find them. You might
want to do a search yourself instead of putting your credibility on the line
over ONE doctored photo that has zero context. For all we know, that photo was
doctored by a parody site or one trying rewrite the kiss as a falsehood. [So, first you believed it was real. Then you claimed I
changed it so it looked fake. Now, you know it is fake, but you still believe
it’s real anyway? I guess you’d have to since this whole thing is an exercise
in how someone goes way the fuck out of their way to prove that they’re right –
instead of trying to learn and accept the truth of the situation. Is this
seriously what they do to people in college, now?]
Bill Mancuso · Top Commenter · Sculptor at Me
Wendy - I am not determined it was a cheek kiss. The fact
that it was a cheek kiss has determined that it was a cheek kiss. And I'm not
comparing Bush's actions to Obama's and the hypocrisy of right-wingers. Just
the simple fact that Bush didn't kiss Abdullah on the mouth.
Brian - That's the same photoshopped picture, just in a
blurry video. It doesn't change the fact that it's photoshopped. Unless you
believe I traveled back in time to change that video, too. I already saw it. As
for the second link - which I also have already seen - I'm happy for you that
you wasted no more than 35 seconds to find a SECOND photoshopped picture. You
will notice, if you actually look at the picture, that there is a shadow on
Bush's shoulder between him and the King. Where is the magic light coming from
that is lighting the entire King's face and torso between them, but still
leaving Bush in shadow? Bush's nostrils? Also, whomever that floral-like
pattern originally belonged to at the end of Bush's shoulder was abruptly cut
off, making his shoulder really short. You may also notice, if you care to
look, that on the back of Bush's head, his hair pattern repeats, as does the
pattern in the background. That's from the photoshop Clone tool being used.
My credibility stands. Yours is, well, there still is none.
A parody site? Again, please stop introducing ludicrous
alternatives to try to obfuscate the facts so it seems like your fiction is
plausible. Your ludicrous argument is now bordering insanity.
Look what only took me 5 seconds to find. And it's true!
Or, if you don't believe that, then try to disprove this...
And please stop saying it's "ONE doctored photo that
has zero context." It is the same fake photo that was photoshopped with
Bush's tie and arm cut off to fit them closer together. Also the halo between
them. Also the lighting doesn't match up.
Seriously. Your notion that it was a real photo made to look
fake for a parody site makes absolutely no sense, is ridiculous and speaks of
desperation.
Brian · Top Commenter · Boise State University
Bill Mancuso I never accused you of going back in time and
doctoring a photo. [You clearly accused me of
potentially doctoring a photo. That doctored photo has been being used for the
past five years on every website that posted that doctored photo. Your claim
that I doctored it for this comments section means I would have had to travel
back in time to have it used in all the other articles for the past five
years.] What I'm saying is that the one you posted is clearly
doctored. Is that the ORIGINAL photo that was passed around the internet years
ago, or is that a DOCTORED one that you found on a search? [It’s the doctored one in the fucking article, college
boy. I had nothing to do with it.] I SUGGESTED that you may have
doctored it. I used a qualifier "for all I know, you did x". That's
called SPECULATION. Derp. I also suggested other ways this doctored version of
a famous photo was presented. Here's another one: someone ELSE doctored a
famous photo and posted it on the internet with zero context, and YOU FELL FOR
IT. [The photo is fake and I fell for it. But you
know that the fake photo doesn’t prove that what didn’t happen didn’t happen.
Double Derp.]
I don't know where the light is coming from. Off-camera,
perhaps? That is where light usually comes from unless the light is part of the
picture. There are only two ways that light can enter a picture, really.
On-camera or off-camera. In this case I would say it was off-camera. [No matter where it’s coming from, light can’t
simultaneously be and not be in the same place, college boy.]
I don't know what conspiracy is contained in Bush's
nostrils. They look appropriately smooshed up against the king's face to me. I
don't see any photoshop halo between them. [Intentionally
ignoring it and not seeing it are two different things, Captain Education.]
That floral-like pattern could easily be the tip of a
garment possessed by a bystander or even the king. You don't know and I don't
know but only you see a conspiracy. [No. No
conspiracy. Just a fake picture. Also, I know that the flowers clearly belong
to neither the King nor are a part of Bush’s suit. Is Boise State University a
real college?]
You can call me desperate all you want. It makes you look
like a bully and does nothing to further your argument. [Your desperation is showing. Calling me names to hide it won’t hide
it.] But go ahead and mistake me for your personal punching bag. [You are your own punching bag. And doing a fine job of
it, I might add.] I wouldn't be so critical of you if you hadn't
arrogantly told people they were "dismissed". I would have just
ignored your comment as being just another ignorant fool on the internet. But
I'm the kind to stick up to bullies so here we are.
I just looked at your first link. You called it
"true". Are you trying to say that with all your supposed expertise
in detecting doctored photographs you really believe that Bush took a bite out
of a baby's head or are you just wasting my time with your drivel about
"totally true"? [This kid’s hilarious.]
In the second (waste of time) photo, Bush is found clowning
around with a kitten. The kitten was clearly not uncomfortable and did not
believe that it was being munched on....that was the thing he was best at,
clowning around. He'd have done better to stick to that and leave public policy
to the professionals. [Of course, I mean he’s
hilarious in an incompetently ignorant way.]
You're the one making a big deal out of a photo that is
clearly doctored. [What? We’ve circled around to it
being clearly a fake, now? Oh, boy.] So what if it was doctored.
Lots of photos are doctored. My contention is that just because you found one
fake photo that does not prove that Bush didn't kiss Saud. Do you even know
what logic means? [Do you know where you were the
day Spock died?]
Jerry · Top Commenter · Chaffey College
Bill is right, that one image of bush mouth kissing that
prince is Photoshopped. If you google the picture you can see the real photo is
a cheek kiss. Bill is trying to say that this article would be better served
without fake pictures but bill, most of this article is manufactured nonsense,
this is an opinion piece and is not entirely based on fact, therefore the
integrity is not diminished by a fake picture because opinion pieces don't have
much integrity to begin with. [Restoring the promise
of higher education being worth more than just a piece of paper after four
years. Although, Chaffey is a two-year public community college in California.
Hmmm…]
Bill Mancuso · Top Commenter · Sculptor at Me
Brian - You are suggesting someone may have taken a real
photo of Bush kissing Abdullah on the lips and doctored it to look like a fake
photo of Bush kissing Abdullah on the lips for the purpose of tricking me. You
are going out of your way to defy logic in order to attempt to prove yourself
correct. That is sad. (However, in doing so, you have accepted the photo is
fake.) I have bullied no one. This thread started with me addressing the author
and someone else chimed in and told me I "lose this" then called me a
"Bushie." Then I responded to the bullying of me. Then you appeared
out of nowhere and started in with your arrogant attack on me. Go ahead, scroll
up. You can see the sequence of events for yourself. You seem to have mixed up
who is bullying whom. I have been on the defense this whole time. Perchance
shall you now rush in to gallantly defend my honor, oh, White Knight of the
Article Comments Section?
The second photo you produced is just as bad a Photoshop job
as the first with its Clone tool usage, science-defying multiple light sources,
cut-off shoulder edits and abrupt pattern cuts. I do not see conspiracies - you
again are obfuscating. I see clear usage of Photoshop. And it is you who keeps
inventing conspiracy theories as to why these clearly Photoshopped pictures are
not Photoshopped. Your definition of 'conspiracy' seems to be different than
that of the dictionary.
I did not make a "big deal" out of the doctored
photo. I mentioned it to the author of this article. You and others have
mounted a campaign against me trying to prove the fake picture is real.
So what if it's doctored? Lots of photos are doctored? You
contend that the one fake photo (sorry, two fake photos) that show Bush kissing
Abdullah on the lips doesn't prove that they didn't kiss on the lips? You call that logic? There is absolutely NO evidence that they
kissed on the lips. There are two fake photos. You can't invent something out
of whole cloth then demand someone prove your fiction incorrect. Sorry, pal,
the burden of proof is on you. You want them to have kissed on the lips, you
present the proof. If you present the proof, THEN I'll acquiesce. THAT is
logic. There is as of yet not one scrap of proof and that's what I'm standing
by.
In the meantime, I'll accept that you admitted that the only
two photos of them kissing on the lips are fakes.
And holy mackerel, I posted the Photoshopped Bush eating a
baby photo and called it 'true' to point out that you are saying the same silly
thing about the also obviously fake 'kissing' picture.
And holy moley mackerel, the Bush eating a kitten pic is
also a Photoshopped picture! It's not real! I posted that one to double down on
the 'baby-eating' picture. Here is the unPhotoshopped picture:
[It's actually a different picture from a different camera taken at the same time as the "kitten" picture. Which goes to prove my point (that I will make later) of corn-eating pictures from multiple cameras.]
I think I see the problem: You have no idea what Photoshop
is and like someone from 1860, have no idea that these magic, soul-stealing
daguerreotypes can be manipulated.
Jerry - I know this piece was just tongue-in-cheek. I
casually mentioned something to the author and some other people who obviously
dislike Bush (Really, who doesn't?) decided the truth doesn't matter and have
been trying to prove fake pictures are real ever since.
Opinion pieces do have merit if their opinions are based in
fact. Comparing the hypocrisy of accepting something from members of your own
Party but being angry when members of the other Party do the same thing is
fine. All the Bush hand-holding pictures, cheek-kissing pictures and
nose-touching pictures would have been fine to compare against Obama bowing to
King Abdullah. Adding the fake mouth-kissing diminishes the integrity of the
opinion and is the equivalent of this:
[Photoshopped photo by right-wing assholes to make it seem like Obama was molesting his daughter. Then tried to explain how the Photoshopped picture was not Photoshopped.]
...and these...
[Benetton ad.]
...and this...
[Obviously, a real picture.]
That aside, I'm glad you understand what Photoshop is.
Brian · Top Commenter · Boise State University
Bill Mancuso Telling someone they are "dismissed"
is a form of bullying. [Which was in response to my
being bullied first. Ignore it all you want – if that’s your “logic.” Still
doesn’t change reality.] But never mind that. You didn't bully
anyone. You were called a "Bushie" because you had said things that
right-wingers say. [No. I was called a “Bushie”
because I pointed out the fact that Bush never mouth-kissed Abdullah and didn’t
blindly jump on the “This makes Bush look stupid, so I will agree with it even
if it’s not true” bandwagon. Douchetard.] Since nobody here knows
you personally [And who the fuck are you?] ,
you should take that with a grain of salt and not be so offended that you
respond by bullying. You've been on the defense the whole time? Poor,
victimized bully. Nobody has "mounted a campaign" against you. I
haven't seen the commercials, in any case. The only photo that I said was a
fake was the one that you posted that contained zero context. [Which is the one from the article, which is the one you
said was real, but that I made to look fake. I guess somehow I went into the author's article and changed the photo he posted, too. Makes sense.] The one I posted, I
never acknowledged as a fake. [Even though it looks
even more fake than the other one.] It is true that I have no
evidence that they actually kissed on the lips. [Pulling
my hair out now.] Possibly the one I posted was also doctored, just
not in a way that is obvious. [1.) You never
acknowledged it was fake, until two sentences later when you admit it could be
fake. 2.) It is insanely obvious that it’s fake, numb-nutted college boy.]
Maybe they did a better job on that one. [If by
“better” you mean “worse.”] I don't know. [I
do. And so does anyone with eyes.] My point is that you also can't
prove that they never kissed. Showing a photo of me at home on my computer does
not prove that I have never left the house. [That
doesn’t- you don’t…I-] The only thing you have proven is that one
version of one photo of Bush kissing Saud was doctored. [I’m not the one who has to prove anything. You say they mouth-kissed.
Provide evidence of your claim.]
Your "holy mackerel" comment regarding your
posting a photo you knew was faked in order to prove that I'm full of it is
called a "straw man argument." You might want to look that one up.
Its a logical fallacy. Then you compounded the fallacy by presenting another
straw-man argument regarding a kitten being kissed by Bush. Really
proof-positive, there. [Does he truly not understand
what’s happening, or is he intentionally trying to confuse me in order to win
an argument – regardless of factual evidence? Guess which one I think it is.]
[A little bit of both.]
I know what photoshop is. I know that photos can be altered.
That does not mean that every single photo ever taken should be suspect. Are
you absolutely certain that the photo of Bush eating a corn cob was a real
picture? Maybe he was actually eating something else but then someone doctored
it because they preferred to see him eating corn. [What
the fuck is wrong with this kid? How does this make sense?]
I'm not hypocrite. I recognize that you are not of the
"other" party. But I'm still telling you that you have no proof that
the photo we all saw years ago was doctored. All you have is a photo with zero
context that surely and obviously was doctored. [Let’s
recap those last two sentences, shall we? There is “no proof that the photo we
all saw years ago was doctored” but it “surely and obviously was doctored.”
There’s a special strain of stupidity that I don’t know about, isn’t there? And
this kid has it. Is it contagious? Are they working on a vaccine for it?]
You have no proof that this is the same version of that photo that was passed
around years ago. [Except for all the articles still
on line from years ago that prove it.] All you have is the version
you put forward. [No.] If you posted a
link containing that photo embedded in a story with a date from that era, THAT
would be proof. Just the photo by itself is not proof. Proof requires rigor.
Evidence is just a story with a visual aid. [Words
sentences make proof don’t sense together context rigor version evidence.
Right?]
Bill Mancuso · Top Commenter · Sculptor at Me
Brian - I did not say things right-wingers say. I pointed
out the truth, that the picture was fake. How does that equate to what
right-wingers say? I made a comment to the author of this article. Someone else
took it upon himself to tell me I "lose" and call me names first.
Then you joined in and added the first straw man argument by suggesting I took
a real picture and changed it to look fake. And now, YOU are doing what
right-wingers do and ignore the facts just to seem correct when at every turn
you have been proven to be incorrect. [And you’re
claiming I am doing what you are doing with straw man arguments.]
I am not poor, nor am I victimized, nor am I a bully. I have
easily defended myself from your bullying. Again, scroll up and see just who
attacked whom first. Go ahead, I'll wait....
**
**
Again, you seem to not understand who has to do the proving.
You produced fake photos and proclaimed I am the one who has to disprove what
they show. That is mentally deficient. Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to come up with evidence to back up YOUR claim. You can't invent something that doesn't exist
and dare me to disprove it. That's what Creationists do. You stated, "It
is true that I have no evidence that they actually kissed on the lips."
That is the beginning, middle and end of this story.
Holy mackerel. [I kept saying
“holy mackerel” because I was trying to be somewhat civil. I didn’t think
starting out my sentences with, “Holy fucking shit, you dumb motherfucker”
would help.] I did not use a straw man argument. I wasn't in any way
using the cat and baby pictures to prove you were wrong. I was using sarcasm to
point out how ridiculous your argument is. I was making fun of your argument.
Did you recently learn the term 'straw man argument' and just need to use it?
I never said every single photo ever taken was suspect of Photoshop manipulation. I merely am
pointing out the easily visible signs of Photoshop manipulation on the two
'Bush kissing' pictures. There's that straw man argument you wanted, provided
by you. And Bush was actually eating the corn. Not only are there no signs of
Photoshop manipulation, there are multiple shots by multiple cameras of him
eating corn. Another straw man argument by you. Congratulations. All this to
hide the fact you thought the Bush eating a kitten picture was real. [You fucking college-educated idiot.]
At no time did I ever call you a hypocrite or determine to
which Party you belonged. I was replying to Jerry and referring to the subject
matter of the author's article.
You say, "Just the photo by itself is not proof."
Yes, it is. The photo is fake. I'm not sure in what context other than 'it is
not real' you could be searching for. The rigor that the truth requires was
provided. I pointed out all the explicit Photoshop manipulations. Unless you
are blind and solely rely on someone audibly explaining the visuals, that is
the proof. The evidence of Photoshop manipulation is the proof of its forgery.
Seriously, your circular argument style almost broke my
brain. To quote you: "Do you even know what logic means?"
Oh, and here's the real photo before someone Photoshopped
them kissing...
***** ***** *****
Hey, where did everybody go?
Let this be a lesson. It is not important who is right. It
is important what is true. If you bend over so far beyond reality for the sole
purpose of being the “winner” of an argument, you will shove firmly your whole
entire head up your ass. If you didn’t make sense before, surely no one will
understand your bowel-muffled mumblings afterward.
It’s astonishing how many people “Liked” the comments of
Mark, the guy who told me I “lose” and called me a “Bushie.” Left-wingers can
be just as ignorant in their zeal to win as right-wingers. Bush is a
moron and guilty of war crimes. He still didn’t kiss Abdullah on the lips. No
matter how many people “Like” it.
I didn’t change their names, just removed their surnames,
because here’s a link to the original article…
Proof That Cats Are Better Than Dogs
This article gives us a good insight about. Highly appreciated, very thoughtful. Click Here
ReplyDelete