This is an original and the retouched version used in a RNC ad. I don't like Colin K. but this is ridiculous. Look at the skin color.
Discussing politics and religion
- Thread starter Floorist
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum - DIY & Professional:
..............or the so called original is on the right and the sharpened and color corrected version of the image is on the left. The color difference is minuscule and than blurryness of the second image is more of an issue.
This isn't remotely close to the OJ Simpson image of it's fame.
Amazing sometimes what clicking the "enhance" or "auto contrast" will do to an image.
The guy needs to be deported in a lead coffin anyway, so who cares. I don't. Look how he climbed to fame and look what he's done for us.
Sorry if the guy falls on stairs and hurts himself. If he did, he'd probably make money off of that too. Nothing can make him look more badder in the eyes of his beholders.
I'm just saying that if the images were not side by side I wouldn't have noticed anything different about the a-hole. Looks like a made up conspiracy............. something he would absolutely love to see.
The original is on the left. I have seen it before. He is a total ass, this was just overkill by the RNC...............or the so called original is on the right and the sharpened and color corrected version of the image is on the left. The color difference is minuscule and than blurryness of the second image is more of an issue.
This isn't remotely close to the OJ Simpson image of it's fame.
Amazing sometimes what clicking the "enhance" or "auto contrast" will do to an image.
The guy needs to be deported in a lead coffin anyway, so who cares. I don't. Look how he climbed to fame and look what he's done for us.
Sorry if the guy falls on stairs and hurts himself. If he did, he'd probably make money off of that too. Nothing can make him look more badder in the eyes of his beholders.
It's implied the RNC doctored the image. They got an image and used it. How would anyone know? I wouldn't have noticed it. Just looks like it's slightly underexposed. The entire image is underexposed. Image crappy, Colin crappy........... perfect match if I ever was one.
Nobody made a stink about this one. It's fake.
Nobody made a stink about this one. It's fake.
Attachments
I can't wait for the libs to get in office, where they triple our taxes, divert social security to the illegals, where gas will be $10 an hour, gun shops are out of business, and it will be the republicans turn to cry, whine, bitch, hold sit in's, and quit paying our takes because an illegal alien is just like a taxpayer who fails to pay taxes, they are both illegal. You can't put us all in jail, can ya?
This woman is S-T-U-P-I-D
I'm not even gonna Google or Snopes that one Rusty. Whether she said that or not, that's exactly they way her mind thinks. She's way below the Democrat level.
No it's all bullshit. She's not taking away cars, freight trucks or airplanes and motorcycles.
The crazy ones are the conservative bullshitters that make this nonsense up and the morons who believe it.
Here's what the green new deal says about transportation and nothing else:
(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail;
The crazy ones are the conservative bullshitters that make this nonsense up and the morons who believe it.
Here's what the green new deal says about transportation and nothing else:
(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail;
The New Green Deal I assume, has been modified.......... otherwise nobody would be ON BOARD!
The words that came of of her mouth were to eliminate all fossil fueled transportation including airplanes and replace them with high speed electric powered trains that run coast to coast............ in the next 10 years, or by 2050 or whatever. She's just an idiot.
The words that came of of her mouth were to eliminate all fossil fueled transportation including airplanes and replace them with high speed electric powered trains that run coast to coast............ in the next 10 years, or by 2050 or whatever. She's just an idiot.
"as much as is technologically feasible" was not what she first said.
She was seen on TV saying she wanted robotic trucks. What an idiot.
They are already on the road! Lol You guys should get out more. A Tesla one was spotted recently in CA.
https://www.wired.com/story/embark-self-driving-truck-deliveries/
https://www.wired.com/story/embark-self-driving-truck-deliveries/
Yeah, Clinton is much better...
- Around 2007, the Clinton Foundation was criticized for a lack of transparency. Although U.S. law did not require charities, including presidential foundations, to disclose the identities of their contributors, critics said that the names of donors should be disclosed because Hillary Clinton was running to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Commentator Matthew Yglesias opined in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that the Clintons should make public the names of foundation donors to avoid any appearance of impropriety.[78]
Secretary of State Clinton meets with Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, 21 September 2010
A lengthy donors list was then released by the Foundation in December 2008,[16] which included several politically sensitive donors, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Blackwater Worldwide.[79] The Foundation stated that the disclosures would ensure that "not even the appearance of a conflict of interest" would exist once Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.[79]
The foundation has been criticized for receiving donations from Middle-Eastern countries which are seen to oppress women (stoning for adultery, not being able to drive, requiring a male guardian, etc.). These countries include Saudi Arabia ($10–25 million), UAE, and Qatar.[80] The foundation accepted these donations even though Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential campaign platform guaranteed to break down barriers that held women back.[81]
In November 2016, Reuters reported that "The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. Secretary of State without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments."[82] Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin opined that the Qatari gift "raised ethical questions" because of the nation's support for Hamas.[83]
The ethics agreement between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation that had been put into force at the beginning of Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State in 2009 came under scrutiny from the news media during February 2015 as polls showed her the likely 2016 Democratic nominee for president.[84] The Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation had resumed accepting donations from foreign governments once Secretary Clinton's tenure had ended.[85] Contributions from foreign donors, which are prohibited by law from contributing to political candidates in the U.S., constitute a major portion of the foundation's income. A Washington Post investigation in 2014 showed that there was "substantial overlap between the Clinton political machinery and the foundation". The investigation revealed that almost half of the major donors who had backed Ready for Hillary, a group which supported her 2016 presidency bid, had given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either personally or through foundations or companies they run. The Clinton Foundation's chief communications officer Craig Minassian explained that it is a "false choice to suggest that people who may be interested in supporting political causes wouldn’t also support philanthropic work."[5]
A subsequent Washington Post inquiry into donations by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation during the Secretary's tenure found, in addition to six cases where such governments continued making donations at the same level they had before Clinton became Secretary as envisioned under the agreement, one instance of a new donation, $500,000 from Algeria for earthquake relief in Haiti, that was outside the bounds of the continuation provision and should have received a special ethics review, but did not.[86] Foundation officials said that if the former Secretary decided to run for president in 2016, they would again consider what steps to take in reference to foreign donations.[86] But in general, they stressed that, "As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way.
In March 2015, Reuters reported that the Clinton Health Access Initiative had failed to publish all of its donors, and to let the State Department review all of its donations from foreign governments after it was spun off from the Clinton Foundation in 2010.
2015 State Department subpoena
Main article: Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy
In February 2016, The Washington Post reported that the United States Department of State issued a subpoena to the foundation in the fall of 2015.
.jpg)
So you support AOC?
