- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: TPOS Dailybeast reveals identity of private citizen who made the pelosi video
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:08 am to NoSaint
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:08 am to NoSaint
quote:
A meme of trump with comically small baby hands being far different than editing video to look like trump had a stroke and spreading it as a major news story
This guy spread this as a major news story? Does he work for a major network?
quote:
I haven’t compared them but someone said speed changed, and tone edited to conceal that and make the speaker look worse
Oh so you don't even know about the video at hand but someone told you something
You would be great in the media
0
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:08 am to LSU2ALA
quote:This is misleading. Pleas post you full name address and SSN.
No, in China the government would impose penalties and shut down your right to speech. Here, this is a private entity saying the name of the individual. They are in no way related.
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:10 am to NoSaint
quote:
I’d react differently to someone posting a realistically forged drug test or police report
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:10 am to LSU2ALA
quote:Subjective as hell. Someone might actually believe Saban is that short.
No, comedy is fine. Deceptive political discourse is not.
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:11 am to NoSaint
quote:
Wouldn’t editing the speed/tone of a video to present the speaker as having issues be a bit disingenuous?
Is this what happened? So editing to create a narrative should be punishable? Every single news network is now guilty, especially those that determined the pelosi video was a lie. Who will police this moving forward?
This post was edited on 6/2/19 at 10:11 am
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:14 am to BBONDS25
quote:Ive worked as a newspaper photographer. If someone was mean or rude to me—they got shot different than if they were nice. Common practice. I suppose now I’m probably like up for he internment camp.
Is this what happened? So editing to create a narrative should be punishable? Every single news network is now guilty, especially those that determined the pelosi video was a lie. Who will police this moving forward?
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:16 am to Taxing Authority
By tre white night’s standard anyone with photoshop has been “disingenuous”. If I use the heal tool to remove a blemish from a dating site website photo... am I misleading the potential daters?
I suppose I would be. Oh. The. Horror!!
I suppose I would be. Oh. The. Horror!!
This post was edited on 6/2/19 at 10:17 am
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:20 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:This is he is troubling part. Given that our IC, DOJ and FBI has been made an active attempt to delegitimize an election and discredit a duly elected president... “someone living in their parent’s basement posed a YouTube video” isn’t much of a story.
Story is newsworthy, discovering who made the video important, naming them isn't..doesn't add anything.
This post was edited on 6/2/19 at 10:21 am
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:38 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
I find the downvotes fascinating here as I can’t believe people support someone who lied and not the entity that exposed him as a liar.
This whole board is fake Christians, fake Americans, fake outrage over fake news stories. Many posters here live in a world of delusion and they love it. Of course they're upset when a fellow lying shite stirrer is called out.
This post was edited on 6/5/19 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:48 am to PetroBabich
quote:
No right to privacy in the Constitution
This actually true
It took activist judges to create the right of privacy from a made up interpretation system referred to as the penumbra
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:52 am to BBONDS25
Did you read the article? It had the speed of her voice adjusted to make it appear she was slurring her words?
Posted on 6/2/19 at 10:59 am to the808bass
That is correct I go by middle name so that’s why I put that.
Posted on 6/2/19 at 11:00 am to LSU2ALA
quote:She appeared to be drunk before the video was adjusted. The adjustment simply made fun of that.
It had the speed of her voice adjusted to make it appear she was slurring her words?
Posted on 6/2/19 at 11:02 am to LSU2ALA
quote:You really should take that down btw.
That is correct I go by middle name so that’s why I put that.
ETA: Given the post above, I guess it's too late.
This post was edited on 6/2/19 at 11:05 am
Posted on 6/2/19 at 11:04 am to LSU2ALA
The original video she was either drunk or on drugs
Posted on 6/2/19 at 11:06 am to kingbob
quote:
penumbra right read into the 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments
Hence I reiterate, There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
Posted on 6/2/19 at 11:06 am to Deactived
quote:This.
The original video she was either drunk or on drugs
There'd have been no spoof video if Pelosi had looked/sounded/acted sober originally.
Posted on 6/2/19 at 11:17 am to ToesOnTheNose213
quote:
This whole board is fake Christians, fake Americans, fake outrage over fake news stories. Many posters here love in a world of delusion and they love it. Of course they're upset when a fellow lying shite stirrer is called out
these are the melts I come here for. Posted on 6/2/19 at 11:17 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
Did you read the article? It had the speed of her voice adjusted to make it appear she was slurring her words?
quote:
Is this what happened? So editing to create a narrative should be punishable? Every single news network is now guilty, especially those that determined the pelosi video was a lie. Who will police this moving forward?
Posted on 6/2/19 at 11:19 am to PetroBabich
quote:
Hence I reiterate, There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has disagreed with your interpretation time and again. Though, I’m not sure the relevance of your statement in this thread.
This post was edited on 6/2/19 at 11:20 am
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News