Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (8110)	3/2/2005 2:04:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"There is something in his ear." Against my better judgement, I looked at the site & clicked on the picture of the alleged ear piece. What a waste of time. What is in his ear? I see absolutely nothing. It's painfully obvious that the photo on the left shows absolutely nothing in his ear. Not a gal danged thing but Bush's ear! The photo on the right is alleged to be the exact same photo slightly enlarged. It is clear that someone drew an outline around a piece of flesh from Bush's ear in red. It is a pathetic attempt to falsely claim there is some crude antenna that loops around the outer ear (yet it never enters the ear canal - that too is painfully obvious). Look at that photo Suma. That alleged ear piece/antenna is HUGE. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Meanwhile, the opening to Bush's ear canal in the doctored photo (on the left) is just as empty as the photo on the right. What's up with that? But let's assume for a second that piece of flesh is really an ear piece. It is huge & would be easily spotted from a distance. Why aren't there hundreds of other pictures from the debates showing that same alleged antenna/ear piece? Why is there just this one obviously doctored photo showing something outside of his ear, but nothing in his ear canal? Why did Dan Rather run with obvious forged documents when he could have shown dozens of photos of this alleged ear piece? And yes Suma, it is a doctored picture. The photo on the right shows absolutely nothing is there, yet the photo on the left is alleged to be the same picture, only it is enlarged. Click on that photo Suma. And when the new page opens, click on it again. You don't even have to look closely. It's painfully obvious that they highlighted a piece of flesh.

To: Suma who wrote (8110)	3/2/2005 2:20:20 PM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35834

>> PICTURES DON'T LIE << They don't? How many bought this urban myth: blackbearheaven.com But your point is....?? That Bush won the election because he cheated in the debates? Do you know how absurd that is? It's not the messenger's ability to deliver his message, it's what the message is. Tell you what, If you could even answer wstera's questions add these: If W had a wireless receiver in his ear, why did he have to wear something under his jacket? ...after all the ear piece is wireless. Duh. If W was being feed answers, don't you think he would have done better in the debates? Jim