DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> McCain Ads
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 226 - 250 of 358, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/29/2008 04:37:18 PM · #226
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:


What's sad is that Russia has far more justification for its invasion of Georgia than the US does for the invasion of Iraq.


I'd like to hear more... what coalition of nations did russia put together? Georgia break any UN resolutions?


Georgian troops were supposedly suppressing Russian-ethnic minorites in the breakaway provinces that were pushing for independence. Russia supposedly stepped in to stop that. (I only say supposedly because I've only heard sketchy reports).

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 16:37:29.
08/29/2008 04:43:03 PM · #227
I Wikied her earlier today when I caught the news. Its gone now, but look at her AKA...

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/25000-29999/27562/120/715528.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/25000-29999/27562/120/715528.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Funny. It would be even more humorous if she weren’t such a psycho about drilling in Federal lands for oil that experts say wouldn't give the US more than a year’s supply of oil.
08/29/2008 04:48:44 PM · #228
Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

no one said let's un-ring the bell... but let's seperate what the sensationalist media tells us from what reality actually is? is the world MORE dangerous than it was before 9/11? Hmmm... and even if it is, is the same old approach of invading one country after another always chasing the spector of "National Security" really going to make this 'world' Safer?

I tend to think that it actually does the opposite, every time the US invades a country it breeds a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill you...


The fact of the matter is, the world is more dangerous than it was 8 years ago. The Russian intervention in Georgia demonstrates that. The US no longer has the international polictical muscle (or moral standing) to keep Russia, China, India, or whomever from running roughshod over their neighbors. The only way to make the world safer is for broad international agreement and cooperation, not continued unilateral cowboy diplomacy. I'll leave it to you to decide which ticket offers the best hope for that.


I agree with the second part but not the first... please tell me how the world is more dangerous? quantify this for me, because I neither see an increase or decrease in the level of violence in the world

ETA: and for the record my only real stake in this electoral race is finding out which butt our priminister is going to be kissing for the next few years...lol (that's only a half joke)


I don't know -- with all the petrochemical resources in Canada, maybe we'll be kissing your butts :)

The Russia/Georgia situation is particularly glaring to me in that it highlights the fact that we have much less recourse against nations that perform unilateral military actions. The fact that the West could really do nothing but watch as Russia did as they pleased in Georgia sends a bad message to Russia and other nations that may have similar ambitions. Danger doesn't necessary mean that violence is happening, it means that the potential for violence is increasing. And I firmly believe that the current administration's neglect of international cooperation has had a dual affect of alienating more would-be terrorists and enabling Russia to act unilaterily.


Is the potential for violence more now then it was during say the cold War? and what is the cause of that increase? could it be the foreign policy of the US itself?

for instance would there be a talliban if the US hadn't funded them when the soviet Union invaded rather than going in and helping them selves?

Would many of the Middle Easts problems (and concequent hatered of the US) be much differnt today without the US's interfereance (if even only percieved)?

I wonder if Maybe Obama's Pen might just well be mightier than McCains sword...
08/29/2008 04:49:29 PM · #229
Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:


What's sad is that Russia has far more justification for its invasion of Georgia than the US does for the invasion of Iraq.


I'd like to hear more... what coalition of nations did russia put together? Georgia break any UN resolutions?


Georgian troops were supposedly suppressing Russian-ethnic minorites in the breakaway provinces that were pushing for independence. Russia supposedly stepped in to stop that. (I only say supposedly because I've only heard sketchy reports).


What I understood was that they wanted to control the oil pipeline going through Georgia. I admit I am not very knowledgeable about the situation either.
08/29/2008 04:50:22 PM · #230
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:


What's sad is that Russia has far more justification for its invasion of Georgia than the US does for the invasion of Iraq.


I'd like to hear more... what coalition of nations did russia put together? Georgia break any UN resolutions?


Really, we had a coalition? Who, aside from the British (and they're responsible for Iraq's existence in the first place.) contributed any significant support?

If anything, it was a paper coalition.

Were any American citizens under direct fire in Iraq? Was the US mounting a military action to ensure their safety? Who fired first?

Georgian troops were firing on Russian citizens before any tanks rolled into S. Ossetia.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 16:52:08.
08/29/2008 04:50:30 PM · #231
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Afghanistan was a no brainer. We had to invade their country because they (taliban) were undoubtedly in cahoots with the people who attacked us (al qaida). I don't think that garnered any opposition in the world community outside of those who already hate us. Iraq was another story. obviously a mistake in retrospect.


Invaded Afghanistan in response to the Saudi perpetrators of 9/11 and to chase al queda back to their camps in Pakistan, where Osama Bin Laden and his gang are currently residing. Osama; remember him?
08/29/2008 04:55:32 PM · #232
Originally posted by Spazmo99:



Really, we had a coalition? Who, aside from the British (and they're responsible for Iraq's existence in the first place.)


LOL, using that wonderful piece of logic one could say we are responsible for the USA as well.
08/29/2008 05:00:16 PM · #233
Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:



Really, we had a coalition? Who, aside from the British (and they're responsible for Iraq's existence in the first place.)


LOL, using that wonderful piece of logic one could say we are responsible for the USA as well.


Yeah, that's it, blame Britain.
08/29/2008 05:01:57 PM · #234
Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:



Really, we had a coalition? Who, aside from the British (and they're responsible for Iraq's existence in the first place.)


LOL, using that wonderful piece of logic one could say we are responsible for the USA as well.


And Canada, and Austrailia, and... oh wait...lol

ETA but we digress

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 17:02:29.
08/29/2008 05:11:15 PM · #235
i have yet to see here and proof that the world has actually quantifiably, gotten more dangerous or evil than it was before.

Further, I don't see how Bush has made andthing better, and I don't relly see how McCain would change that. there is a reason that there is nothing that the US could do to pressure Russia in this case... and the reason is that No one is listening to the US any more, because of Bush the credibility of your country has gone from what little is was to next to 0 on the international scale, and if the US really wants to do something about it, another President, willing brandish force at the drop of a hat doesnt' seem to me to be the way to do it.
08/29/2008 05:20:59 PM · #236
One thing that just makes me sick is last week I heard Karl Rove completely bashing Obama before his VP pick declaring it would be "purely political". In other words, the pick would be designed to help the ticket by shoring up support in some battleground state or with some demographic.

Is there anybody who doesn't think Palin is a "purely political" choice?

I'm not necessarily saying there is something wrong with picking the VP based on how it helps you win the election (although it does seem weak), but I take great umbrage with Rove who paints Obama in such a light only to have his own party do exactly the same.

If anything, Biden does complement Obama by bringing experience in foreign affairs. How does Palin complement McCain?
08/29/2008 05:23:29 PM · #237
Originally posted by dponlyme:


If experience doesn't matter that much to you then by all means vote for Obama/Biden.... or McCain/Palin... damn it's on both tickets now.


I honestly don't understand how anyone that has done even a slight bit of research on the candidates could not see a huge glaring difference between the tickets. Looks at the total package you get with each ticket, and how it will affect the direction of the country in the future.

McCain / Palin
McCain - War Hero / POW. Agrees with Bush administration and feels we have had pretty good economic prosperity..though also says he doesn't know much about the economy. His economic adviser (technically "former" adviser now) says we are having a "mental recession" and are a "nation of whiners". Left his first wife to marry a beer heiress. Oh, and then offered her up to compete in the Ms. Buffalo Chip "beauty contest" at the Sturgis biker rally.

Palin - Former mayor of a town of 8000. Governor for only two years. Under investigation of ethics violation for allegedly firing head of public safety for not removing a state trooper, which happened to be her sister's ex-husband. Is quoted here as saying she doesn't even know what the VP role does.

Obama / Biden
Obama - Pragmatic thinker with the ability to inspire people. Well respected around the world. Worked his way up in life, and has constantly worked to help those in need. Served in state legislature before coming to Washington. Promotes making healthcare more affordable and wages more fair.

Biden - More experience in government than even McCain. Expert in foreign policy. Well respected on both sides of the aisle and around the world. Not afraid to speak his mind and stand up for what is right, at home, or when dealing with world leaders. Worked his was up in life from humble beginnings, and never forgot where he came from and what his priorities were (family).

To me, it just seems obvious which ticket really is the ticket that can change the direction of our country. Not just to make things better here at home, but to actually improve our relationships throughout the world. Maybe I've swallowed the Kool-aid or something, but to me, if you look at all things considered, there is a clear difference between the tickets.

One ticket wants to get into office and help rebuild our country. The other, just wants to do what it takes to get into office.
08/29/2008 05:24:56 PM · #238
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One thing that just makes me sick is last week I heard Karl Rove completely bashing Obama before his VP pick declaring it would be "purely political". In other words, the pick would be designed to help the ticket by shoring up support in some battleground state or with some demographic.

Is there anybody who doesn't think Palin is a "purely political" choice?

I'm not necessarily saying there is something wrong with picking the VP based on how it helps you win the election (although it does seem weak), but I take great umbrage with Rove who paints Obama in such a light only to have his own party do exactly the same.

If anything, Biden does complement Obama by bringing experience in foreign affairs. How does Palin complement McCain?


Doc, when you see Karl Rove on TV, pick up remote click to next channel, then you won't get mad.
08/29/2008 05:25:07 PM · #239
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One thing that just makes me sick is last week I heard Karl Rove completely bashing Obama before his VP pick declaring it would be "purely political". In other words, the pick would be designed to help the ticket by shoring up support in some battleground state or with some demographic.

Is there anybody who doesn't think Palin is a "purely political" choice?

I'm not necessarily saying there is something wrong with picking the VP based on how it helps you win the election (although it does seem weak), but I take great umbrage with Rove who paints Obama in such a light only to have his own party do exactly the same.

If anything, Biden does complement Obama by bringing experience in foreign affairs. How does Palin complement McCain?


She's hot... he's not

seriously I do agree that she doesn't seem to bring a whole lot to the table
08/29/2008 05:25:22 PM · #240
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One thing that just makes me sick is last week I heard Karl Rove completely bashing Obama before his VP pick declaring it would be "purely political". In other words, the pick would be designed to help the ticket by shoring up support in some battleground state or with some demographic.

Is there anybody who doesn't think Palin is a "purely political" choice?

I'm not necessarily saying there is something wrong with picking the VP based on how it helps you win the election (although it does seem weak), but I take great umbrage with Rove who paints Obama in such a light only to have his own party do exactly the same.

If anything, Biden does complement Obama by bringing experience in foreign affairs. How does Palin complement McCain?


Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

In any event, just found an interesting blog post about Palin from an Alaskan blogger here.

Here's an excerpt:

"Before her meteoric rise to political success as governor, just two short years ago Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla. I had a good chuckle at MSN.com’s claim that she had been the mayor of “Wasilla City”. It is not a city. Just Wasilla. Wasilla is the heart of the Alaska “Bible belt” and Sarah was raised amongst the tribe that believes creationism should be taught in our public schools, homosexuality is a sin, and life begins at conception. She’s a gun-toting, hang ‘em high conservative. Remember…this is where her approval ratings come from. There is no doubt that McCain again is making a strategic choice to appeal to a particular demographic - fundamentalist right-wing gun-owning Christians."


I think that might answer your question :/
08/29/2008 05:25:58 PM · #241
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



If anything, Biden does complement Obama by bringing experience in foreign affairs. How does Palin complement McCain?


She can gut a salmon! :-P
08/29/2008 05:27:11 PM · #242
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



If anything, Biden does complement Obama by bringing experience in foreign affairs. How does Palin complement McCain?


She can gut a salmon! :-P


OMG, I just LOLed big time!
08/29/2008 05:27:44 PM · #243
Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

no one said let's un-ring the bell... but let's seperate what the sensationalist media tells us from what reality actually is? is the world MORE dangerous than it was before 9/11? Hmmm... and even if it is, is the same old approach of invading one country after another always chasing the spector of "National Security" really going to make this 'world' Safer?

I tend to think that it actually does the opposite, every time the US invades a country it breeds a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill you...


The fact of the matter is, the world is more dangerous than it was 8 years ago. The Russian intervention in Georgia demonstrates that. The US no longer has the international polictical muscle (or moral standing) to keep Russia, China, India, or whomever from running roughshod over their neighbors. The only way to make the world safer is for broad international agreement and cooperation, not continued unilateral cowboy diplomacy. I'll leave it to you to decide which ticket offers the best hope for that.


I agree with the second part but not the first... please tell me how the world is more dangerous? quantify this for me, because I neither see an increase or decrease in the level of violence in the world

ETA: and for the record my only real stake in this electoral race is finding out which butt our priminister is going to be kissing for the next few years...lol (that's only a half joke)


I don't know -- with all the petrochemical resources in Canada, maybe we'll be kissing your butts :)

The Russia/Georgia situation is particularly glaring to me in that it highlights the fact that we have much less recourse against nations that perform unilateral military actions. The fact that the West could really do nothing but watch as Russia did as they pleased in Georgia sends a bad message to Russia and other nations that may have similar ambitions. Danger doesn't necessary mean that violence is happening, it means that the potential for violence is increasing. And I firmly believe that the current administration's neglect of international cooperation has had a dual affect of alienating more would-be terrorists and enabling Russia to act unilaterily.


Is the potential for violence more now then it was during say the cold War? and what is the cause of that increase? could it be the foreign policy of the US itself?

for instance would there be a talliban if the US hadn't funded them when the soviet Union invaded rather than going in and helping them selves?

Would many of the Middle Easts problems (and concequent hatered of the US) be much differnt today without the US's interfereance (if even only percieved)?

I wonder if Maybe Obama's Pen might just well be mightier than McCains sword...


Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am suggesting that the world is more dangerous because of the Bush administration and that I fear that McCain will just make it worse. I believe that Obama/Biden have a hope of making it better. Or do I misunderstand you?
08/29/2008 05:30:32 PM · #244
Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

no one said let's un-ring the bell... but let's seperate what the sensationalist media tells us from what reality actually is? is the world MORE dangerous than it was before 9/11? Hmmm... and even if it is, is the same old approach of invading one country after another always chasing the spector of "National Security" really going to make this 'world' Safer?

I tend to think that it actually does the opposite, every time the US invades a country it breeds a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill you...


The fact of the matter is, the world is more dangerous than it was 8 years ago. The Russian intervention in Georgia demonstrates that. The US no longer has the international polictical muscle (or moral standing) to keep Russia, China, India, or whomever from running roughshod over their neighbors. The only way to make the world safer is for broad international agreement and cooperation, not continued unilateral cowboy diplomacy. I'll leave it to you to decide which ticket offers the best hope for that.


I agree with the second part but not the first... please tell me how the world is more dangerous? quantify this for me, because I neither see an increase or decrease in the level of violence in the world

ETA: and for the record my only real stake in this electoral race is finding out which butt our priminister is going to be kissing for the next few years...lol (that's only a half joke)


I don't know -- with all the petrochemical resources in Canada, maybe we'll be kissing your butts :)

The Russia/Georgia situation is particularly glaring to me in that it highlights the fact that we have much less recourse against nations that perform unilateral military actions. The fact that the West could really do nothing but watch as Russia did as they pleased in Georgia sends a bad message to Russia and other nations that may have similar ambitions. Danger doesn't necessary mean that violence is happening, it means that the potential for violence is increasing. And I firmly believe that the current administration's neglect of international cooperation has had a dual affect of alienating more would-be terrorists and enabling Russia to act unilaterily.


Is the potential for violence more now then it was during say the cold War? and what is the cause of that increase? could it be the foreign policy of the US itself?

for instance would there be a talliban if the US hadn't funded them when the soviet Union invaded rather than going in and helping them selves?

Would many of the Middle Easts problems (and concequent hatered of the US) be much differnt today without the US's interfereance (if even only percieved)?

I wonder if Maybe Obama's Pen might just well be mightier than McCains sword...


Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am suggesting that the world is more dangerous because of the Bush administration and that I fear that McCain will just make it worse. I believe that Obama/Biden have a hope of making it better. Or do I misunderstand you?


I think I did misunderstand you... now I understand :)

08/29/2008 06:11:21 PM · #245
Originally posted by cbeller:

Originally posted by dponlyme:


If experience doesn't matter that much to you then by all means vote for Obama/Biden.... or McCain/Palin... damn it's on both tickets now.


I honestly don't understand how anyone that has done even a slight bit of research on the candidates could not see a huge glaring difference between the tickets. Looks at the total package you get with each ticket, and how it will affect the direction of the country in the future.

McCain / Palin
McCain - War Hero / POW. Agrees with Bush administration and feels we have had pretty good economic prosperity..though also says he doesn't know much about the economy. His economic adviser (technically "former" adviser now) says we are having a "mental recession" and are a "nation of whiners". Left his first wife to marry a beer heiress. Oh, and then offered her up to compete in the Ms. Buffalo Chip "beauty contest" at the Sturgis biker rally.

Palin - Former mayor of a town of 8000. Governor for only two years. Under investigation of ethics violation for allegedly firing head of public safety for not removing a state trooper, which happened to be her sister's ex-husband. Is quoted here as saying she doesn't even know what the VP role does.

Obama / Biden
Obama - Pragmatic thinker with the ability to inspire people. Well respected around the world. Worked his way up in life, and has constantly worked to help those in need. Served in state legislature before coming to Washington. Promotes making healthcare more affordable and wages more fair.

Biden - More experience in government than even McCain. Expert in foreign policy. Well respected on both sides of the aisle and around the world. Not afraid to speak his mind and stand up for what is right, at home, or when dealing with world leaders. Worked his was up in life from humble beginnings, and never forgot where he came from and what his priorities were (family).

To me, it just seems obvious which ticket really is the ticket that can change the direction of our country. Not just to make things better here at home, but to actually improve our relationships throughout the world. Maybe I've swallowed the Kool-aid or something, but to me, if you look at all things considered, there is a clear difference between the tickets.

One ticket wants to get into office and help rebuild our country. The other, just wants to do what it takes to get into office.


That's all very interesting but one could make similar arguments the other way and paint the other ticket in the worst light.
08/29/2008 06:16:06 PM · #246
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by cbeller:

Originally posted by dponlyme:


If experience doesn't matter that much to you then by all means vote for Obama/Biden.... or McCain/Palin... damn it's on both tickets now.


I honestly don't understand how anyone that has done even a slight bit of research on the candidates could not see a huge glaring difference between the tickets. Looks at the total package you get with each ticket, and how it will affect the direction of the country in the future.

McCain / Palin
McCain - War Hero / POW. Agrees with Bush administration and feels we have had pretty good economic prosperity..though also says he doesn't know much about the economy. His economic adviser (technically "former" adviser now) says we are having a "mental recession" and are a "nation of whiners". Left his first wife to marry a beer heiress. Oh, and then offered her up to compete in the Ms. Buffalo Chip "beauty contest" at the Sturgis biker rally.

Palin - Former mayor of a town of 8000. Governor for only two years. Under investigation of ethics violation for allegedly firing head of public safety for not removing a state trooper, which happened to be her sister's ex-husband. Is quoted here as saying she doesn't even know what the VP role does.

Obama / Biden
Obama - Pragmatic thinker with the ability to inspire people. Well respected around the world. Worked his way up in life, and has constantly worked to help those in need. Served in state legislature before coming to Washington. Promotes making healthcare more affordable and wages more fair.

Biden - More experience in government than even McCain. Expert in foreign policy. Well respected on both sides of the aisle and around the world. Not afraid to speak his mind and stand up for what is right, at home, or when dealing with world leaders. Worked his was up in life from humble beginnings, and never forgot where he came from and what his priorities were (family).

To me, it just seems obvious which ticket really is the ticket that can change the direction of our country. Not just to make things better here at home, but to actually improve our relationships throughout the world. Maybe I've swallowed the Kool-aid or something, but to me, if you look at all things considered, there is a clear difference between the tickets.

One ticket wants to get into office and help rebuild our country. The other, just wants to do what it takes to get into office.


That's all very interesting but one could make similar arguments the other way and paint the other ticket in the worst light.


I'd actually like to see the opposing view laid out like that... takers?
08/29/2008 06:46:12 PM · #247
Originally posted by Eyesup:



I'd actually like to see the opposing view laid out like that... takers?


watch Fox news.
08/29/2008 06:51:23 PM · #248
Hey maybe there is a third alternative

//www.inews3.com/play.php?first=
08/29/2008 07:30:13 PM · #249
I never really understood it until today.

The Republican party is truly controlled by the religious right.

Of all the qualified, albeit conservative, Republican possibilities for the VP slot:

Kay Baily Hutchenson - Conservative record, long time senator, but pro-choice
Christine Whitman - Former Governor of New Jersey, fiscal conservative, but pro choice
Tom Ridge - Former governor of Pennsylvania (a battleground state), former head of Homeland Security, fiscal conservative, but pro-choice

So who does McCain pick - a pro gun, pro-life first term governor from Alaska.

Why? Because if had picked any of the other three clearly more qualified people, there would have been a revolt on the convention floor next week. Pure and simple fact.

In an earlier post I claimed the it doesn't really matter who the Republicans pick because they always make the candidate fit the platform.

The news today drives that point home.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 19:30:44.
08/29/2008 07:33:23 PM · #250
Lest we forget drilling for oil in Alaska! :-(
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/26/2020 04:55:14 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/26/2020 04:55:14 AM EST.