Sorry, why is whether Obama bowed to the Saudi King an issue again?
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, May 22, 2017 08:37
VIEWED: 24967
PAGE 16 of 20
Sigh.
Have you proved it's photoshopped ? No.
Have you proved Bush doesn't do that kind of thing ? No.
Have you deflected the argument ? Yes.
Bully for you.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sigh.
Have you proved it's photoshopped ? No.
Have you proved Bush doesn't do that kind of thing ? No.
Have you deflected the argument ? Yes.
Bully for you.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Hello Rue,
I suppose we are equally disappointed with one another. I am sitting here sighing that you don't acknowledge this (to me) obvious sticking point. It is to my mind this entrenched refusal to admit an error that deflects the entire issue and keeps the discussion from moving forward.
The very article you posted in support of the picture describes something very different than the provided photo. Your own evidence describes cheek kisses, not mouth kisses.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Edited to add:
My conclusions so far:
1) Obama Bowed.
2) No evidence that bow was insidious.
3) Presidents often honor luminaries according to their culture.
4) Mouth kissing photo is a fake.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I found sequences of Bush kissing the Saudi Prince. Unfortunately, all I can post are those from google caches, like this:
They are not 'obviously' photoshopped to me.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Rue,
You are then arguing that the photo is correct, and that the article about the photographed event is mistaken?
You can make that argument. But since we know the provenance of the article and not of the photo, I think my skepticism is warranted.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think this is all Dodd's fault.
Or Saddam's.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think this is all Dodd's fault.
Or Saddam's.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
Hello,
I have a picture proving that it is not.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Have you proved it's photoshopped ? No.
YES!
I can't claim expertise in a lot of things. I haven't deeply studied politics, protocol, history, physics, mechanics, etc etc etc. At best I have passable knowledge on such things. At worst I have only vague ideas. My area of study is GRAPHIC DESIGN. My most-used and most-studied program is PHOTOSHOP. This is ONE THING that I can speak about with vast knowledge and expertise. I have already pointed out the flaws in the image; just LOOK at it.
Dammit, Rue, I respect you for the most part, but you are damaging your credibility, at least with me, by clinging to a photo that I KNOW is faked. The video of kissing on each cheek is legit, the photo of holding hands is legit, the face-to-face photo is legit and is obviously the source for the lip-lock photoshop, which is NOT legit.
It's vastly important to use legitimate, unedited photos in order to keep credibility. I don't trust any "news" outlet that I have seen use clearly photoshopped images, I'm not going to trust yours any more than theirs. While I'm sure you didn't do the 'shopping yourself, and clearly weren't intending to post a falsified image, your bullheaded refusal to admit that one image isn't legitimate truly irritates me. Your point is supported by other sources you've posted, but undermined by a false one that you need to acknowledge, please.
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think articles are sometimes worded diplomatically. It then says "Then the pair were photographed holding hands while walking through a field of bluebonnets", implying (though not saying) that they had not been photographed earlier.
I think MSM can be biased by what they publish and what they withhold. Note that though photographs of the two kissing were available, they did not run them (also further supporting the implication that no 'greeting' pictures were available).
It doesn't prove the picture was either real or fake. It doesn't prove the article was accurate or inaccurate. But I can point to intentional bias in the article. I'm not sure I can point to anything in the photo that would make me think twice.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Please don't take this the wrong way, Rue, because normally I respect your opinion.
But your behavior over this photo is reminiscent of what you guys claim AURaptor of doing. Clinging to something that others are telling you is not true (the photo).
I won't say "clearly" or "obviously" to avoid getting myself in trouble with Kwicko 
, but c'mon Rue! There were several photographers there. When two dignitaries meet, it's a photo opp and there are photographers galore. And do photographers at events like this take one picture and then move on? No. They take a rapid succession of pictures. So any other differences in Bush's appearance may have been because it was a second later. But regardless of your take on it, the picture of the lip-lock definately looks fake to more than one person on this thread - like someone photoshopped the two by moving them closer together to make it appear as if they were kissing on the lips. The video doesn't show this action taking place at all. You can cling to the belief that it's untouched, but I really don't think so.
Aside from that, the kissing on the cheeks is not that big of a deal. I beleive it's common practice in Europe and in other countries. It was a minor issue at the time because that simply isn't done in American culture. It's not the norm, so it was questioned. As was the hand holding. That sure does look strange, but if it's a common custom elsewhere, it's harmless, so no biggie. Guys hugging comes to mind for some reason. It wasn't acceptable for men to show their feelings like that many years ago, but it's becoming more and more acceptable and is not uncommon anymore. It doesn't shock people. Just my take on it.
The Obama bow, as I stated before, looks awkward and clumsy. Something happened there and it would be better for someone at the White House or even Obama himself to say, "Look, it was a slip, I was tired, I saw something on the floor . . ." whatever. Don't just deny it, explain it if people are making a big deal out of nothing. Again, just my take on it.
Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Bush had been described by reputable news sources as having kissed Crown Prince Abdullah and then going for a walk hand in hand:
"Plenty of eyebrows were raised by the body language Monday between President Bush and the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah. When the crown prince arrived, half an hour late, Mr. Bush greeted him with what the Associated Press described as "a warm embrace and a kiss on both cheeks." Then the pair were photographed holding hands while walking through a field of bluebonnets."
Hello Rue,
Your quote from your source about your photographed event.
Now, the picture always looked wrong to me, but the very article you posted in defense of the picture calls it a lie.
It seems, though, that I will never convince you. I suspect that your pride is keeping you from seeing the truth. It is not unusual to see people who are usually right take a lot of pride in the correctness of their stance.
You are usually right, Rue. You have a reason to take pride in your accuracy and moral superiority in most instances.
This isn't one of them. If I find I am wrong, I will tell you so, Rue. But I think you're wrong, and I think a desire to be right is keeping you from seeing it.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME