Pixiq

"The photo...is claiming"????? Really????? That's interesting...

And your headline is incorrect...the photo is not a lie. The photo is an accurate representation of what occurred on a given date in a given place. Just because someone purports the photo to be of a time and place other than when it was taken does NOT mean the photo is a lie. Just that whoever makes the statement is a liar.

The photo still depicts the truth; unless you are claiming the photo has been digitally manipulated in some way???

rich: this john you just said that to, is a jackass not worthy of even saying anything to as your reply does! this is what i think, i am not saying you think this way or even should! i think carlos has been way too nice to people like john that are just trying to make trouble out of nothing! they are jackasses and always will be!
[correction was made to this comment]

I was once going to march with the Apathasists, but then I figured, why bother.

Members of the military had "no other way of making a living"? That's patently untrue in a society where millions of immigrants with barely any formal education have quickly found jobs after arrival, and it doesn't match the facts regarding the backgrounds of enlistees and officers.

As a 2005 analysis by the Heritage Foundation reported:

"Like their peers in 1999 and 2003, [military] recruits in 2004 and 2005 came primarily from middle-class areas. Poor areas are proportionally underrepresented in the wartime years (2003-2005)."

http://liten.be//Z4M3u

John Smith wrote: "And your headline is incorrect...the photo is not a lie. The photo is an accurate representation of what occurred on a given date in a given place."

A photograph is a two deminsional representation of a slice in time. It tells us nothing about what transpired before the shutter was released nor what transpired after the shutter was released. It tells us nothing about what is going on beyond the edges of the image. To THAT extent, every photograph is a lie.

This reminds me of what the BBC did on September 11 2001 by showing a split-screen of the towers burning and an arab crowd cheering in the streets. Neither picture is actually a lie, but putting the two together carries an implication that might not have been true.

"... the troops were not the ones who started the wars and many just signed up because they had no other way of making a living."

I know you're a self-proclaimed liberal, but I didn't know you were so prone to spouting the anti-military garbage of the left. The VAST majority of people in the military joined because they want to fight for and defend this country. Even when people like you won't do the same.

I didn't sign up because I couldn't find a job. I enlisted because I love my country and wanted to help in its defense. That's not to say that people who don't join the military don't love their country, but implying that a lot of soldiers ONLY joined because they needed the job is equally stupid.

The OWS protesters don't need any help being discredited. They're doing fine on their own.

Carlos Miller, YOU are the liar here, NOT the photo or MY post on Flickr. You reference my quote in Flickr, but claim this photo is making the rounds on Facebook. It is crystal clear, if you actually read my quote from my Flickr post that I did NOT claim this to be taken at the peace demonstration in Portland, OR.

ah-ha-ha. It's funny that picture finally made it around to the Occupy Wall Street folks.

I'm an OIF/OEF veteran, I live in Portland Oregon, and spent the last two years as a representative of two major veteran anti-war organizations in Oregon.

It's funny, because those same a-holes are still around. I know a few of them, I've talked with them. They also burned an effigy of a soldier at that same rally. One, and only one, has apologized. They're actually real upset that the Occupy Portland scene isn't radical enough for them. This same incident (and photos from this incident) regularly make it around conservative groups to show how unruly and disrespectful Anarchists/Leftists are.

They, and the people who support antics like this, are a major reason why I no longer work with the antiwar movement in my home city.

Fidelity wrote: "They, and the people who support antics like this, are a major reason why I no longer work with the antiwar movement in my home city."

Ah, all to often familiarity does breed contempt.

COURTHOUSE ARRESTS MAY HAVE TERROR LINK

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=...

Three men in their twenties, described as French-Moroccan Muslims, are being questioned by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and by officials of the Department of Homeland Security after they were arrested inside the 120 year old Bexar County Courthouse in downtown San Antonio shortly before 2 this morning, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Officials say two of the men crawled through a window to get into the 120 year old Courthouse, which is a landmark in downtown San Antonio, and the third was found in a van parked in front of the building.

Inside the van, officials say they found "photographs of infrastructure" including photos of shopping malls, water systems, courthouses and other public buildings which they say were taken in cities nationwide.

An inanimate object cannot lie, as it has no choice/decision making ability. An unedited photograph tell a story, gives insight, about whatever has been captured. Sure, people may see photos differently, but there are always facts that can be garnered from every photograph. Accordingly, UNEDITED photographs never lie, but they can be "used".

The above debate is truly hilarious.

That beings said, an unedited photograph can be used to support a position of the writer who's using it. ALL sides of the media do this. Even Time magazine has been found guilty in the court of public opinion many times.

Notliberal