Posted on 12/22/2007 7:04:49 AM PST by Leisler
Watch out, you’ll be accused of telling a hate joke.
You asked to see a photo of MLK and Romney. That’s what 107 is. You did not refer to the June 23 or June 29 marches. By pointing out the photo I made no claims about the marches. I already explained the evidence pro and contra in 101 and explained why the eyewitness evidence for June 29 that places both MLK and Romney at that march would, by standard historical method, be taken more seriously than Grosse Pointe Historical Society dames.
I evaluated the evidence. You just shout and preen.
Does this mean “WAS” has become the new “IS” ?
Are you seriously claiming that is authentic? OMG!
My fault - I thought that was implied.
Hey pepperhead, can you link to the original source of that photo? I'm interested in reading more about it.
No jokes about Romney are allowed! They aren’t American by golly!
Specifically in 111 you asked to see a photo of Mrs. Romney and MLK. 110 to which you responded did not claim to have seen photos of MLK and George Romney marching. It claimed that eyewitnesses state they saw them marching together. 110 went on to say that photos of Mrs. Romney and MLK exist. You asked to see those photos, not photos of MLK and George Romney marching. I referred you to 107. Then you come back and prate about that photo not showing MLK and Romney marching. Well, you didn’t ask to see a photo of that.
Why don’t you pay attention?
The picture in #107 is photoshopped. LOL
I am not a Myth hater....I simply don't like liars, double-speakers, or whatever you want to call people who play fast and loose with words like Mitt. I did/I didn't -I saw/it was saw in the figurative sense. You get my drift..... Again, I don't hate Mitt, I just don't like him for his continual parsing of words.
Right, in a nut shell that is it. We don’t deny George was involved with the civil rights movement. We just don’t think the newspapers are lying when they originally reported the two didn’t march together. But they both did march but on different days. Thus Mitt never saw his father march with King and he surely didn’t march with his father and King like he said in a 78 interview.
Do you have evidence that it is not? If so, cite it. If not, why is your assumption that it is not authentic any more trustworthy than my assumption that it is? If you have evidence that it is not authentic, offer it. Otherwise, can the innuendo. It only reveals your prejudice. When someone offers evidence the photo is a fake, I’ll change my assumption. But I won’t change it based on your assumption to the contrary.
Why dont you pay attention?
Well, in fairness, I've been paying enough attention to notice some odd things about that photo in #107.
One is called Hillary.
ROTFLMAO.....
*Proof that Adobe Photoshop is a fun and versatile tool for photo manipulation.
Dude, just look closely at the picture.
All that may be true, but the story as related by Mitt has an eerie ring of:
Christmas in Cambodia
Church burnings
Named for Edmund Hillary
and so on....
why can’t people just stick to the facts and not do what I will charitably call embellishing?
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.