#21. To: Itistoolate, titorite, GreyLmist, FormerLurker, RickyJ, randge, Lod, TommyTheMadArtist, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, christine, all (#0)
The picture with Obama was taken before the one with Robbie Parker. The Parker one is obviously photoshopped. Only 2 pairs of legs for 3 girls and the one with Obama isn't photoshopped - they took Emily from the Obama picture and pasted it into the Parker picture. This is damning evidence.
.... they took Emily from the Obama picture and pasted it into the Parker picture. ....
Either way, the girl (in the Utah photo) looking directly into the camera, with her hair parted on the right, is not exactly the same image as the girl (in the Obama photo), looking at something below the camera, with her hair parted down the middle.
The Utah photo, with green foliage, was obviously taken at least a few months before the December shooting, and the possibility that one of the younger girls had grown into Emilie's hand-me-downs by the time of the massacre would be entirely credible to any parent. Funny how NOBODY WHO KNEW EMILIE is supporting this conspiracy theory.
I think it's astonishing (and disgusting) how a massacre that took the life of one Jewish boy is being used as into an opportunity for Jew-baiting.
1. "We all know the government never does anything wrong. They would never kill 200 children with drone strikes just to get a few terrorist, but they did. They would never give guns to drug lords to kill thousands of people including our own agents, but they did. People like you that tow the line of what you are fed are an embarrassment to journalism.
Without those willing to not accept the government at face value and ask hard questions, no one would have learned of Fast and Furious because people like you are quite content to call those who question the official narrative as nuts. How about Benghazi, if I told you the Obama administration left 4 men to be murdered, refused repeated pleas for additional security over several months, you would say I was a crackpot, but they did and were caught. [sic]
The people that should be ignored Mike are people like you, without people asking real questions, most of the governments shenanigans would go unanswered and sadly, most do.."
2. "There is nothing wrong with wanting to know more about what really happened, Especially if it is not being told and so many politicians are wanting to use this as a case for certain types of new laws. Before new laws can be made everyone needs to understand what happened here 100%.
3. "There are MANY things that are very weird and secretive about this school shooting. [sic]
People cannot be blamed for wanting to know the truth when things don't line up."
4. "Why are so many people calling for a professor's firing? That is a very dangerous position to take, as "offensive speech" can be anything to an arbitrarily chosen group. If professors get fired every time they utter offensive speech, then the universities will be full of conformists and the students and society will be damaged as a result.
Also, I just googled an article by the Sun-Sentinel from 2002 claiming Saddam had WMDs. So the FAU professor must be shamed and taken to task for spreading alleged misinformation -- oh, how it hurts feelings -- but this paper can spread deadly misinformation with impunity and not be called to account for it. The petty professor is the bad guy here, and he deserves to be hung to dry by the morally lofty Sun-Sentinel."
5. "As an FAU alumni, I am embarrassed by those calling for the professor's firing. It shows that FAU alumni are not the brightest or most tolerant bunch of degree holders. What's galling is that FAU has not taught graduates to think critically and to be open to ideas which question the mainstream media or the establishment line. It was Voltaire who said that though he may not agree with someone else on something, he'd die for his right to say it.
Again, my question to Michael Mayo: why was the Sun-Sentinel pushing the WMD lies which caused thousands of deaths? Why is the same line now being used again Iran? So, why are you bringing attention to a petty professor over alleged misinformation, when your employer has committed far more egregious crimes?
Michael: your paper is now pushing the same tired line which WILL initiate another war at some point. Why aren't you taking the paper to task over this? Oh, that's right -- it's more politically convenient for a liberal journalist such as yourself to attack a professor who is in hot water for questioning journalists like you who toe the line.
Mind you, I am not a gun nut nor a wingnut. I just think more Americans are waking up to the lies of the mainstream media and this will mean less and less credibility in the long run."