PDA

View Full Version : See What Cnn Thinks Of Bush



The Dude
11-04-2004, 03:29 AM
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/election2...re=ne_election5 (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/election2004.jsp?feature=ne_election5)

Look at the image of Bush and his wife, right click on it and select 'Properties'.

Look at the images filename. http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/biggrin_upper.gif

Guest
11-04-2004, 09:04 AM
Unfortunetly it was corrected :D

Heres what was there:
http://img116.exs.cx/img116/8152/cnnowned.jpg http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/biggrin_upper.gif

Other Guest
11-04-2004, 11:42 AM
HAHA! That was hilarious!

chester_ting
11-07-2004, 11:51 PM
:lol:

Buddah
11-13-2004, 10:34 PM
Hahaha

Guest
11-14-2004, 09:35 AM
extremely surprising a site such as the quality of this one and based in the USA allows such matter to be posted. the guy is your pm do you have no respect for the leader of your country or are the ones replying not intellectual enough to understand what politics and things are.

103rd
11-19-2004, 07:07 PM
Oh Dear - looks like you upset a Democrat!

Who respects their government anyway? - I certainly don't respect Tony Blair here in the UK

Tomb
11-20-2004, 06:30 AM
I think you meant a Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist sorry I meant Republican.

Guest
11-20-2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by 103rd@Nov 19 2004, 07:07 PM
Oh Dear - looks like you upset a Democrat!

Who respects their government anyway? - I certainly don't respect Tony Blair here in the UK
i wouldnt expect an R.L.T to respect anyone

OldVersion.com Admin
11-21-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Guest@Nov 14 2004, 09:35 AM
extremely surprising a site such as the quality of this one and based in the USA allows such matter to be posted. the guy is your pm do you have no respect for the leader of your country or are the ones replying not intellectual enough to understand what politics and things are.
Why wouldn't we allow something like this to be posted? If someone wanted to say something about a democrat, or whoever - it'd be allowed.

Freedom of Speech is something we value.

Guest
11-21-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by ABlix+Nov 21 2004, 04:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ABlix @ Nov 21 2004, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Guest@Nov 14 2004, 09:35 AM
extremely surprising a site such as the quality of this one and based in the USA allows such matter to be posted. the guy is your pm do you have no respect for the leader of your country or are the ones replying not intellectual enough to understand what politics and things are.
Why wouldn&#39;t we allow something like this to be posted? If someone wanted to say something about a democrat, or whoever - it&#39;d be allowed.

Freedom of Speech is something we value. [/b][/quote]
ok blue your site your call, just seemed kinda out of place with the clean cut image the site portrays, if ya value freedom of speech to that extent thats fine, i just dont see the point in being blatantly disrespectful to someone you dont even know.

OldVersion.com Admin
11-21-2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Guest+Nov 21 2004, 05:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Guest @ Nov 21 2004, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -ABlix@Nov 21 2004, 04:04 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Guest@Nov 14 2004, 09:35 AM
extremely surprising a site such as the quality of this one and based in the USA allows such matter to be posted. the guy is your pm do you have no respect for the leader of your country or are the ones replying not intellectual enough to understand what politics and things are.
Why wouldn&#39;t we allow something like this to be posted? If someone wanted to say something about a democrat, or whoever - it&#39;d be allowed.

Freedom of Speech is something we value.
ok blue your site your call, just seemed kinda out of place with the clean cut image the site portrays, if ya value freedom of speech to that extent thats fine, i just dont see the point in being blatantly disrespectful to someone you dont even know. [/b][/quote]
It&#39;s not illegal. We enforce the law, and also our Bill of Rights on this forum.

Pete
11-21-2004, 06:42 PM
Actually, I didn&#39;t see the post as being either pro-Bush nor anti-Bush.

I thought he was pointing out some bias and/or slipshod supervision at CNN.

zEr0n
11-29-2004, 11:51 AM
Actually the media is baised against anyone who they decide they should love or hate. Remember Howard Dean? He was doing quite well. One impassioned speech later they crucified the guy and John Kerry all of a sudden became the media darling. That was rather odd. He gained support in alot of ways he should not have. Dean also lost the Iowa Caucus as a result of those media broadcasts. All I saw for days after that were broadcasts of that 3 second yell. He got nailed for being enthusiastic. Not that I was for or against him mind you BUT he made an excellent example of why the media is biased.

CNN=Left Wing support all the way major bias AGAINST Bush
FOXnews= Right Wing suppport OF Bush.

Most other news shows are left wing as well. I get my news from international sources since the ones here are so biased and have intrests in making or breaking a president. The media at this point practically rules this country. If noone can see that then we are in alot of trouble in coming years. This becomes a repeat of medeival times in the way the religions of those days ruled the people and kept them in ignorance. Only this time it is the media (and the corporations that own them) creating that control. Flame me all you want but it is a reality and if you arent willing to see that now or at least try to find out then you will when it is too late.

What we should be doing is voting on media regulation. They get too involved in government and this creates problems. They should report facts not opinions. That is what was done before sensationalism and mud slinging. Anyone who knows american history will know what I am refering to.

pun
11-29-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by zEr0n@Nov 29 2004, 11:51 AM
What we should be doing is voting on media regulation. They get too involved in government and this creates problems. They should report facts not opinions. That is what was done before sensationalism and mud slinging. Anyone who knows american history will know what I am refering to.
This would be consided un-constitutional. Under US law there is freedom of the press. Libel (The slandering of a person in print) is still illegal. The candidate has the option to press charges or to let it stand.

Then we reach the second problem if media regulation gets voted in. Who&#39;s opinion becomes the deciding factor on what is the the facts and what is opinions? Yours? The governments? Maybe a panel of judges? A special police force?

Communists already went the root of censoring the media. Dis-agree with the government in print or word and worry then about the Russian Secret Police paying you a visit.

I know you didn&#39;t say we should go that far, but, it starts in steps, first you try to control a newspaper&#39;s opinion, then, what next, arresting someone speaking their mind at a political rally? And then? Arresting a 12 year old for a school paper that says things were better before all this control was brought in.

Good or bad. Right or wrong. We all have minds and opinions. The US Constitution is in place to protect the citizens of the US of A. This includes the Freedom of the Press and The Right to Free Speech. No-where does it give people the right to Slander or Libel another person.

If the candidate feels wronged by the newspapers or the TV media, let them fight it out in court. There are legal options already in place to deal with this kind of thing. Maybe if enough candidates went this root then the papers and the TV media wouldn&#39;t be as quick with their opinions.

locustfurnace
11-29-2004, 05:10 PM
"Public officials are held to a higher standard than private citizens when proving libel because the Constitution says people can speak out against government, whether true or false (unless the libel is seditious or treasonous). "

Bowling Ball
11-30-2004, 11:58 AM
Communists already went the root of censoring the media. Dis-agree with the government in print or word and worry then about the Russian Secret Police paying you a visit.


Looks like McCarthy is alive and well.

sum1
12-02-2004, 05:11 AM
hmm.. i didn&#39;t see the original image, but i&#39;m wondering something.. did any of you think about photoshop before making all your posts, cuz it&#39;d be pretty damn easy to do that using an imaging program. ;)

The Dude
12-06-2004, 03:46 AM
NO,i actually went to the site and saw the image named that&#33;&#33;

Then hours later it was corrected http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/biggrin_upper.gif

Apoorv
04-11-2006, 02:58 PM
hey i couldnt see the name of that image can some body pm me or give the name of the original image? the link given by the guest doesnt work.

The Dude
04-18-2006, 06:16 AM
That was posted by me (I wasnt logged in @ the time) -- It does work i just tried it now http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/thedude/biggrin.gif