Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fraud in the U.S.A.: FactCheck swaps high-res photos with crappy low-res ones!
FactCheck ^ | 09/20/2008 | Polarik

Posted on 09/20/2008 9:19:30 AM PDT by Polarik

That's right. They replaced all of their high-res, image files with lo-res image files that are 90% smaller than their originals.

BUT, they have the gall to leave their original file sizes listed on their links. So, like instead of getting a 2 MB image file, you now get a 200K image file.

In FactCheck's original story, posted, August 21, they made specific references to a few of my discoveries I made about the COLB forgery in an attempt to dismiss them out of hand:

Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

* No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.

* In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.

And, they devoted an entire paragraph to dissing my most important finding:

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

As everyone who has read my report should know by now that the pixel anomalies, that they call "haloes," are absolutely not scanner artifacts.

Well, on Thursday, the first part of my report made the front page of PHil Berg's website, ObamaCrimes.com, with my promise to show how the forgery was made, and to throughly debunk the FactCheck photos in Part Two.

Last night, I got a call from his legal assistant telling me that FactCheck had done this switch. I thought that she was talking about the thumbnails of the images, and not the downloadable ones.

Then, I saw it for myself -- and you should, too.

If I was on the wrong track, and my research was not valid and of no concern to them, then why else would they pull the switch?

Anyone else think they're running scared???


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: barrydunham; barrysoetoro; birthcertificate; certifigate; citizenship; colb; colbaquiddic; dunham; factcheck; fraud; hawaii; indonesia; kenya; obama; obamacolb; obamafamily; obamatruth; obamatruthfile; soetoro
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last
Check out FactCheck's deception
1 posted on 09/20/2008 9:19:31 AM PDT by Polarik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; pissant

Ping!


2 posted on 09/20/2008 9:20:08 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Fact Check is run by the Annenberg Foundation, they can’t be trusted. I saw the guy from Fact Check on Greta’s show, he was there to do a fact check on the book ban and firing of the librarian. He neither confirmed nor denied the facts, he seemed to take both sides and ended up sounding like John Kerry in a debate.


3 posted on 09/20/2008 9:25:43 AM PDT by Eva (CHANGE- the post modern euphemism for Marxist revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

One reason is it cost money to serve data. 2mb is big. Just saying, you know, there are valid reasons for the swap. Carry on.


4 posted on 09/20/2008 9:40:58 AM PDT by itsPatAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

The COLB is meaningless.

I want to see a certified copy of his 1961 Birth Certificate.


5 posted on 09/20/2008 9:42:42 AM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite
The COLB is meaningless.

I want to see a certified copy of his 1961 Birth Certificate.

Forget the 1961 part, I'd like to see a certified copy of his original long-form, birth certificate, which may be dated the year before!

6 posted on 09/20/2008 10:23:38 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: itsPatAmerican
One reason is it cost money to serve data. 2mb is big. Just saying, you know, there are valid reasons for the swap. Carry on.

Aw, c'mon.You cannot really believe that. That, after a month of having them proudly posted (FactCheck made a really big deal about posting the big pictures), they suddenly pull off all of them and swap them for ones 1/10th the size??

It's like going in to buy a 20oz bottle of Coke, and all they have are 2oz bottles because they want to save money.

7 posted on 09/20/2008 10:32:23 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Speaking about Annenberg:

Fraud in the U.S.A.: FactCheck swaps high-res photos with crappy low-res ones!

Posted by Polarik on Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:42:42 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2086586/posts

8 posted on 09/20/2008 10:34:33 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Have you ever run a popular website? Serving out a popular 2mb image is expensive. I know you want to see this as a tactic to discredit your hard work (which I think is flawed in that it discounts the effects of jepg compression)—and I’m not saying it’s not. I’m just saying that there are other reasons they’d pull the high res image. Have you called them out on this? I’d be interested in hearing their ‘reasons’. You definitely have a point to make with them. I just don’t think your explanation is the only viable one, and I hate jumping to conclusions. I believe in “truth” over “what I want to hear.”


9 posted on 09/20/2008 10:37:53 AM PDT by itsPatAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

That might be kinda what I meant, but I’ll go with your idea too.


10 posted on 09/20/2008 10:45:00 AM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Hmmmmmm.


11 posted on 09/20/2008 11:01:15 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: itsPatAmerican
Have you ever run a popular website? Serving out a popular 2mb image is expensive. I know you want to see this as a tactic to discredit your hard work (which I think is flawed in that it discounts the effects of jepg compression)—and I’m not saying it’s not. I’m just saying that there are other reasons they’d pull the high res image. Have you called them out on this? I’d be interested in hearing their ‘reasons’. You definitely have a point to make with them. I just don’t think your explanation is the only viable one, and I hate jumping to conclusions. I believe in “truth” over “what I want to hear.”

I've called them four times and emailed them seven times when their first story (June 16) and second stort (August 21) came out. When they heard the name, "Polarik," on the phone, they declined to comment and said that, "All the information you need is on our website. Forget about the emails -- they've been trashed long ago.

There are no other reasons to change a 2 MB file into a 200K file, except to make it impossible to analyze. Fight the Smears did the exact, same thing, goping from a 1025 x 1000 px to a 585 x 575 px, which isn't even a proportional change (different aspect ratio).

Here's what is still in their article:

You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

They said that they have not changed a thing. Besides the obvious 90% reduction in quality, there's lots of other "edits."

To paraphrase Emily Barrett Browning, "How have I Photoshopped there? Let me count the ways." At last count, I was up to a dozen deliberate Photoshop manipulations."

What would be their excuse for leaving the same links posted, the ones that still have the original size? Didn't get around to it? Forgot to change it?

It fails the "Stink" test.

12 posted on 09/20/2008 1:23:18 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
There are no other reasons to change a 2 MB file into a 200K file, except to make it impossible to analyze.

You are a man of faith, not investigation. You can see no other possibility than the one that fits squarely into your preconceived notion of how things happened. I wish I had your faith, but I don't.

If you think the only reason possible for choosing to serve out a smaller file size--but still pretty high res (the res is the same it's just compressed more)--is to foil the truth, then you aren't trying to find out the truth--you're pretty sure you know it. Nothing anyone can say can make you now look at this thing critically. You're too far gone down your path. You are only looking for things that back up your view.
13 posted on 09/20/2008 1:44:25 PM PDT by itsPatAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

As the smartest person in this forum, I’ll just leave you kids to your continued stupidity. If I do continue to say brilliant things regarding this issue, I will just have a few more retards try to tell me I was never in the Marine Corps despite my offers to allow them to come view my dd214, a few more retards will tell me I’m not a conservative disregarding my very conservative blog, a few more retards will tell me that Obama owns factcheck despite the fact that this isn’t true, and a few more retards will tell me that their investigative team has proven a scan to not be an original despite the fact that if something is scanned that means it isn’t an original and it can’t be used to verify if the document that was scanned is real or forgery.

Don’t invite me into these things if you don’t want me to continue to make fun of you.


14 posted on 09/20/2008 2:56:22 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

As the smartest person in this forum, I’ll just leave you kids to your continued stupidity.
***Well, that settles it. TheNewPundit has spoken. Now we must bow down. For the benefit of us unwashed masses, please show us your “invitation” to join in this discussion.


15 posted on 09/20/2008 5:07:24 PM PDT by Kevmo (Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery. http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/certifigate/index?tab=articles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“For the benefit of us unwashed masses, please show us your “invitation” to join in this discussion.”

Making people look silly is fun. Follow this fun little link http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2067130/posts?q=1&;page=87#87 and you will see that the author of this thread decided he wanted me here.


16 posted on 09/20/2008 6:23:01 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

I think I would rather stay on this thread and make fun of you. But thanks anyways.


17 posted on 09/20/2008 6:32:29 PM PDT by Kevmo (Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery. http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/certifigate/index?tab=articles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Have fun trying, but remember that when you asked a stupid question, I gave you your answer.


18 posted on 09/20/2008 6:33:30 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

You don’t find it a teensie bit odd that after hosting the larger photos, Factcheck makes this change onde day after Polarik’s latest info is posted to Berg’s site?


19 posted on 09/20/2008 6:33:59 PM PDT by Velveeta (Go Cubs!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

I’d say you’re over the target.
Well done.


20 posted on 09/20/2008 6:34:53 PM PDT by Velveeta (Go Cubs!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

Eventually you’ll get zotted for the troll you are. You have far too big of a mouth for such a newbie. So yeah, I will have fun trying.


21 posted on 09/20/2008 6:41:37 PM PDT by Kevmo (Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery. http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/certifigate/index?tab=articles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Of course he doesn’t. He’s here to provoke. That’s the definition of provocateur.


22 posted on 09/20/2008 6:42:33 PM PDT by Kevmo (Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery. http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/certifigate/index?tab=articles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

s/b “one day” typo sorry.


23 posted on 09/20/2008 6:47:27 PM PDT by Velveeta (Go Cubs!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I think given it’s *one day* after the posting - ya gotta at least wonder.


24 posted on 09/20/2008 6:48:54 PM PDT by Velveeta (Go Cubs!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Wondering is beneath him; after all, he’s the self-proclaimed “smartest person in this forum”, so he has it all figured out.


25 posted on 09/20/2008 6:52:21 PM PDT by Kevmo (Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery. http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/certifigate/index?tab=articles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

obumpa


26 posted on 09/20/2008 7:01:51 PM PDT by Dajjal (Visit Ann Coulter's getdrunkandvote4mccain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

You sound like a child in diapers. Ya haven’t been around as this has developed and you don’t appear to recognize the hypocracy of an anti-smear Obama operation that refuses to diffuse the entire issue by simply providing normal documentation.

Alot of good hearted intelligent folks have worked on this issue and you aren’t one. My 2 cents sez you need to get back to your milk and oreos. Leave the heavy work to the adults.


27 posted on 09/20/2008 8:19:42 PM PDT by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; pissant; et al

Need a major ping on this one. For immediate release.

FactCheck's virtual admission of fraud!

First of all, I want to let everyone know that I have uploaded ALL of FactCheck's original high quality, large file size photos that they secretly and swiftly swapped with crappy, puny file size ones. Click on this album link to see the original photos

Next, take a look at the list of FactCheck's photos in the upper left-hand corner of their web page, Born in the U.S.A., and take notice of their original file sizes and hyperlinks that they have not rewritten.



Shown below is a spreadsheet that lists, for each of FactCheck's photo files, the original file name and size, the current file size, the dates that I downloaded each of them, and the percentage of file compression applied to each of the original files.



By subjecting the original set of COLB photos to these extreme percentages of file compression, without also reducing the image sizes, what you get are photos that look as large as the original ones, but are blurry, fuzzy, and totally useless for detecting any detail in them,

detail, that someone like myself, just might use to prove that FactCheck intentionally altered their photos and scan image to perpetuate a fraud on the American public.

I'd like to point out THE most important statement that FactCheck made, and that still exists, in their "Born in the USA" story:

You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

On the basis of this statement alone, FactCheck has just shot themselves right in the head. This is not an "inconsistently" in their story, but a death blow to it.

Your Honor, the Prosecution has just begun to rest its case.
28 posted on 09/20/2008 9:43:16 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polarik; Calpernia; Kevmo; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Beckwith; David; FARS; ...

Thanks for the ping, Polarik, and thank you for your diligence in pursuing 0bama’s fraudulent birth certificate(s).

Pinging everyone to #28.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2086586/posts?page=28#28


29 posted on 09/20/2008 10:04:56 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

What happened to the photo from photobucket?


30 posted on 09/20/2008 10:12:09 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: itsPatAmerican
Welcome to FR...


31 posted on 09/20/2008 10:15:20 PM PDT by null and void (0bama: One year's experience. Biden: One year's experience, thirty times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: LucyT

Sorry. I accidentally deleted the correct link.


33 posted on 09/20/2008 10:33:43 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“Eventually you’ll get zotted for the troll you are. You have far too big of a mouth for such a newbie. So yeah, I will have fun trying.”

You need to learn to read and stop acting like such a pathetic bitch. Disagreeing with you and a few stooges in here doesn’t make me a troll.

Try harder, it makes me laugh.


34 posted on 09/20/2008 10:36:34 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bossmechanic

“You sound like a child in diapers.”

Did you type that or your mother? I don’t know how many times I have to tell you people that insults don’t prove a point. And bad insults not only don’t prove a point, they also make you look incredibly unoriginal.


35 posted on 09/20/2008 10:38:42 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

“You don’t find it a teensie bit odd that after hosting the larger photos, Factcheck makes this change onde day after Polarik’s latest info is posted to Berg’s site?”

The silliness is much more than a day old. They probably assumed that this was a closed issue and switched to lower res that use less room on their servers. They probably assumed the issue closed because all of the intelligent people on the planet agree that it is closed.


36 posted on 09/20/2008 10:41:21 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“Of course he doesn’t. He’s here to provoke. That’s the definition of provocateur.”

In my absolute brilliance, I have stated on more than one occasion that I am here for the truth. I am here to focus on real issues, not internet rumor. I am here to discuss things like Obama’s stance on abortion, his desire to create a marxist state, his desire to chat and hug tyrannical dictators. It is difficult to do so when people are busy lying. I hold myself to a higher standard.

And if you, unlike others here, would do some research before you post, you would not have said that I am here to provoke. You would take a look at other articles that I have posted. But I guess you would much rather just lash out against anyone who disagrees with you. Keep telling me I’m here to provoke, it’s humorous. Jump on board the bandwagon and tell me that I hate the Constitution and I’m in bed with the Obama camp.


37 posted on 09/20/2008 10:47:21 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

“a look at other articles that I have posted”

Frankly, that’s not really necessary.
You are a loon - of some young age and/or addiction.

There’s a place called Huffington Post you might enjoy or perhaps dailyKos. Have fun, don’t stay up too late - you have school tomorrow.


38 posted on 09/20/2008 10:56:53 PM PDT by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bossmechanic

“Frankly, that’s not really necessary.
You are a loon - of some young age and/or addiction.
There’s a place called Huffington Post you might enjoy or perhaps dailyKos. Have fun, don’t stay up too late - you have school tomorrow.”

That is pretty much the response I expected from someone of such low standards.

If you had brain one, which you do not, you would even take the time to see the posts I have written against both of those web sites. But ridiculous insults are more important to you. If only you realized how stupid you look.


39 posted on 09/20/2008 10:59:24 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

OK smartperson...
I admit I’m ignorant of your prior posts in ANY forum.
Perhaps you would give me/us some links to something of substance. Your performance here is less than stellar.

In my short time with Freepers, I’ve not seen them very much off base or crass. And I do sense that you are an anomoly. So give me/us something to examine that demonstrates your position as all knowing.

Very few darn folks have the balls to take themselves above the discussion (clinton, obama, pelosi, reid, dean) and fewer yet can justify that contention (only Jesus Christ)

So share your insights.


40 posted on 09/20/2008 11:13:59 PM PDT by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bossmechanic

Huh

Everyone calls me the noobie troll, but I’m the only one who knows how to use the profile.

Here ya go

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:thenewpundit/index?tab=articles


41 posted on 09/20/2008 11:16:52 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

I’m busy reading...
Why did you change from “I’m a pundit too” to The new pundit?


42 posted on 09/20/2008 11:21:56 PM PDT by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bossmechanic

The name of my site is “I’m a Pundit Too”, but the location is thenewpundit.com

Site is down at the moment though, bluehost is doing maintenance.


43 posted on 09/20/2008 11:28:28 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

OK - I’l look for your site to come up.
But in looking though the threads that you’ve sponsored or started, I don’t see much in the way of original thought or follow through.
So I guess the jury’s still out.......


44 posted on 09/20/2008 11:31:21 PM PDT by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: bossmechanic

“So I guess the jury’s still out.......”

Sometimes it depends on the intelligence of the jury


45 posted on 09/20/2008 11:33:19 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

Well,
The jury of google search is not particulary complimentary so, I’m still waiting to sample your prose.
At the very least, I think you have to admit that your ego has gotten a little ahead of your following.

In my experience, the freepers can put up with a lot of varied opinions. but what doesn’t seem to cut it here - as opposed to other sites - is egotistical ranting. Not to say that’s strictly your nature but I would suggest you not set yourself up as a target for ridicule. Just my opinion.


46 posted on 09/20/2008 11:39:21 PM PDT by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bossmechanic

“In my experience, the freepers can put up with a lot of varied opinions. but what doesn’t seem to cut it here - as opposed to other sites - is egotistical ranting. Not to say that’s strictly your nature but I would suggest you not set yourself up as a target for ridicule.”

In my experience, I only act that way when people decide to ridicule me from the onset instead of actually debating the issue. You see, I only found this thread because the author sent me a link after I argued with him in other threads. In those threads, not one person made a logical argument against me, they simply insulted, called me a liberal, and a few traitors to this country had the nerve to question my service in the Marine Corps.

I didn’t just jump in this thread and started acting the fool.


47 posted on 09/20/2008 11:44:27 PM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit

I hear ya.
Let’s drop it.
The topic was really the validation of BO to seek the position. Like I said before, alot of good people have worked on this and - as far as I know - no legitimate authority has disputed the fraudulent representation of a critical document put forth by the Obama campaign. I may be wrong.
The posts you’ve made indicate your concern with valid topics. I don’t perceive that you’re necessarily a liberal and frankly, don’t care if you are. And I applaud your service such as it may be.
We are not the enemy here.
This particular topic - that of BO’s eligibility - is critical.
In my opinion:
You have here a situation where a shallow fraud has been elevated to potentially POTUS status. His supporters are blatant Marxists and terrorists. He’s funded by dirty dollars and willing socialists - soros, hayden - and self serving pawns - pelosi, reid, dean et al. His core beliefs are tainted - wright, alinsky, frank. And his background is virtually unknown - schooling, friends/associates, annenberg, chicago politics, rezko, Freddie & Fannie, and BIRTH RECORDS. He has been responsible for NO substantial legislation at either the state or federal level. His only defining votes are megapro abortion, ademantly anti-gun, and comprehensive socialist indoctrination via community organization, bribed youth corps, and unfunded universal health care. His presence in the public is less one of substance than it is celebrity hype, fund raising, and voter registration based on ACORN, hope/change/more hope/and more change. He denies the competency of the military and can’t even offer an opinion on workings of the stock/financial markets. His troops slander the opposition party individuals relentlessly.
Now, all that aside, his apparent inability to prove eligibilty to the office is quite important. (I cring here) I would rather Hillary run/win the office than Obama knowing what (I think) I know. She at least meets the minimum requirements for the position.

So use your talents to fight for what’s right - that is truth. Use your site to promote same. Ya just don’t have to be so darn uppity/in-your-face about it.


48 posted on 09/21/2008 12:19:57 AM PDT by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Polarik rocks!

BTTT!!!


49 posted on 09/21/2008 5:54:46 AM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva

>>>...[He].. ended up sounding like John Kerry in a debate.

I wonder if he spent Christmas in Cambodia too.


50 posted on 09/21/2008 5:57:43 AM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson