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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> McCain Ads
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 251 - 275 of 358, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/29/2008 07:36:21 PM · #251
Originally posted by scarbrd:

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.


This is both the strength and weakness of the Republican party.

OTOH, the Dems have not been very flexible on the social agenda either. Heaven forbid I ever meet a candidate who is for a progessive tax system, for strong environmental regulation, against abortion, and for gun restriction.

Seeing that there have been other political parties with clout in the past (anybody a whig?), it makes me wonder when our current two party system will undergo a paradigm shift. We (or at least I) tend to have the frame of mind that it will be Rs and Ds forever, but that's not likely to be true. Maybe it's time.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 19:37:05.
08/29/2008 08:07:19 PM · #252
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

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.


This is both the strength and weakness of the Republican party.



I made that point in the earlier post, too. Welcome to the party doc! ;-)

Agreed, there is a comfort level in knowing what your going to get. Like going to McDonalds, not the best food in the world, but you know what you're going to get no matter who gives it to you.

We saw the shift in the 60s 70's and 80s, particularly in the South. The Democrats could be very conservative or very liberal. In the South, they were Democrats because it was a Republican in the white house for the civil war. The Dems were in the majority, but rarely on the same page on several issues.

Old time Democrats like Strom Thurmand, Phil Ghramm, and many others all switched parties without changing a single policy position. The result is you know pretty much what you get with either party. Yes, there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Personally, I have 5 major issues, the Democratic party is usually on the same side as me on these issues, hence my Democratic affiliation.

My problem with the Republican party and the current administration is the absolute refusal to own any of the failures that we've seen over the last 8 years.

"GW didn't cause Katrina"
"GW didn't cause house values to plummet"
"GW didn't cause the price a gasoline to triple"
"No WMDs? So what, he was a bad guy anyway"

Can they please just once admit that a policy just might be flawed?

But the decision today to pick someone so utterly unqualified for the job just so long as she is acceptable to the most extreme members of the far right, like they even knew who she was before today, is about as obvious as it gets that you can't stray from the party line and expect any measure of support.

What's sad is, you could be Atilla the Hun and if you're pro-life you could run for office as a Republican. Nothing else matters.

Maybe it's the same in the Democrats, but it just doesn't seem to be as extreme.

08/29/2008 08:23:14 PM · #253
Originally posted by metatate:

The 'they're all the same' argument is a cop-out. Even if there is truth to it (the nature of politics being under a microscope) ...
People change their minds and their course when it helps complete the ultimate goal. THe result of the financing decision is arguably a good thing. So if we're gonna talk about flip-flops maybe it would be fair to put McCain under the glass.

Originally posted by yanko:

Look, he's a politician just like McCain so that shouldn't surprise anyone not wearing blinders. While it would have been peachy had he adopted a different approach especially in light of the theme of his campaign which is to change the culture of politics he apparently is holding off on that for now at least until he gets elected. Probably why he went back on his word to agree to use public funding. People call that a smart move and while that is probably true since he clearly raised more money on his own it doesn't exactly strengthen his message or convince people on the fence that his change is real and not just more vapor promises from another politician. I hope I'm wrong though.


What's a cop out is critizing one candidate and ignoring the same actions by your own candidate, which is what a bunch of people in this thread are doing to no surprise. If you noticed in the very post you quoted from me I said "like McCain he's a politician..." so of course I am including him with the charges. Rather than try and argue a strawman why not address the specific charges I've made rather than point me to some anti-repub/McCain website as if I'm a McCain supporter?

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 21:16:56.
08/29/2008 08:50:36 PM · #254
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

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.


This is both the strength and weakness of the Republican party.

OTOH, the Dems have not been very flexible on the social agenda either. Heaven forbid I ever meet a candidate who is for a progessive tax system, for strong environmental regulation, against abortion, and for gun restriction.

Seeing that there have been other political parties with clout in the past (anybody a whig?), it makes me wonder when our current two party system will undergo a paradigm shift. We (or at least I) tend to have the frame of mind that it will be Rs and Ds forever, but that's not likely to be true. Maybe it's time.


That day can't come fast enough.
08/29/2008 09:14:32 PM · #255
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Personally, I have 5 major issues, the Democratic party is usually on the same side as me on these issues, hence my Democratic affiliation.

My problem with the Republican party and the current administration is the absolute refusal to own any of the failures that we've seen over the last 8 years.

"GW didn't cause Katrina"
"GW didn't cause house values to plummet"
"GW didn't cause the price a gasoline to triple"
"No WMDs? So what, he was a bad guy anyway"

Can they please just once admit that a policy just might be flawed?

But the decision today to pick someone so utterly unqualified for the job just so long as she is acceptable to the most extreme members of the far right, like they even knew who she was before today, is about as obvious as it gets that you can't stray from the party line and expect any measure of support.

What's sad is, you could be Atilla the Hun and if you're pro-life you could run for office as a Republican. Nothing else matters.

Maybe it's the same in the Democrats, but it just doesn't seem to be as extreme.


It should be clear to anybody with a head on their shoulders that GW has been an abysmal failure but you need the adminstration to say that then you'll be onboard??? Did you get that from Democrats when they were in office? You sure it's not more about their stubbornness (or ulterior motives) to continue policies that aren't working or something like that?

Regarding the VP comment, I agree she apparently doesn't have much experience but since you use the words utterly unqualified it begs the question what would your benchmark be for a candidate to be qualified. I assume Obama meets this benchmark? Does McCain? I assume Biden does? Personally I think Biden should be the president out of this bunch.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 21:22:18.
08/29/2008 09:46:46 PM · #256
Interesting way of choosing a running mate...
08/29/2008 09:58:44 PM · #257
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

Ah, yes, the perfect qualification for being Commander-In-Chief.
08/29/2008 10:17:10 PM · #258
In some ways McCain's choice for VP reminds me of the first Bush's choice for VP.

No one wanted anything to happen to Bush Sr. because they were afraid of Quayle being in charge.
08/29/2008 10:22:17 PM · #259
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

In some ways McCain's choice for VP reminds me of the first Bush's choice for VP.

No one wanted anything to happen to Bush Sr. because they were afraid of Quayle being in charge.


LOL. You're not watching Olberman right this moment are you? Quayle's name just came up comparing her to him.
08/29/2008 10:52:23 PM · #260
Originally posted by dponlyme:


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


... there is a difference between painting and tarring!

Ray
08/29/2008 11:14:38 PM · #261
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

In some ways McCain's choice for VP reminds me of the first Bush's choice for VP.

No one wanted anything to happen to Bush Sr. because they were afraid of Quayle being in charge.


LOL. You're not watching Olberman right this moment are you? Quayle's name just came up comparing her to him.


Who's that?
08/30/2008 12:24:06 AM · #262
I don't know any more about Palin than the average person...but I know that this was a genius move for McCain.

The Democrats did exactly what they shouldn't have done. They immediately went for the Jugular on 'experience'.

Palin got to office by defeating an INCUMBENT Republican Gov....in the primaries and then beating the Democrat candidate in the elections.

Obama got into office by playing political parlor tricks and getting ALL of his opponents for his Illinois Senate seat removed from the ballot. He ran unopposed..because of this chickensh*& move.
Obama then ran unopposed , by other democrats for his US Senate seat...and his only competition was Alan Keyes. (* I am sure that even Jeremiah Wright could have beaten Alan Keyes in this election)

In reality, Palin has more decision making experience than Obama. When a Governor is presented with a Problem they either have to respond in the affirmative or the negative.

As a Illinios State Senator.....Obama voted PRESENT many times...instead of Yea or Nea. Why? Because he couldn't be held politically accountable for this type of vote

bad news for Obama....Palin couldn't vote 'present' when decisions came to her desk. She had to step up to the plate, make a decision and then live with the consequences.

Palin had experience as a Mayor, a Governor..taking care of corruption in her own state, dropping taxes, and helping to curb the use of 'pork spending' in her state
Obama was a state senator....and then he pissed around in the Senate for two years...before spending the next two years of his term...RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Accomplishing NOTHING.

When is comes to experience...Palin is the clear winner.

EVEN if you don't believe that...this debate highlights the MASSIVE lack of experience...or anything of note...that would qualify Obama for the Presidency.

Either way, a brilliant move by McCain and his staff.

P.S. As for 'We all put COUNTRY FIRST, McCain' Really?
Obama went to harvard and then solved ONE problem is southside Chicago as a community Organizer.

McCain served his country....and was imprisoned for that service for FIVE years of his life (1/5th of my lifespan...he was in a vietnamese prison).
Palin raised her children right...and her eldest son is heading to Iraq in 11 days to fight for his country. THAT is putting country first.

Biden? Yes...obviosly he raised his son right as well.....and he personally has My thanks for that....he also has a lifetime of service in the Senate for his state

BUT Obama has no evidence that HE puts Country First. Nothing besides a pretty speech. Actions speak louder than words....and the absence of real action on his part..is deafening.

Message edited by author 2008-08-30 00:29:37.
08/30/2008 12:46:25 AM · #263
Originally posted by egamble:

When is comes to experience...Palin is the clear winner.


Oi vey. You have got some seriously rose (red) colored glasses on. If I have been the president of my high school chess club, does that qualify me to be CEO of General Motors? Both do have decision making power you know. Mayor of a town of 9,000? 18 months as governor of the third smallest state who's closest neighbor is a territory with a population of 31,000?

I'd take a Senator any day of the week, Obama or otherwise. At least they have some awareness of what's going on on the international front.

Can anybody actually imagine if Palin was the head of the ticket? She's only one clogged artery away...
08/30/2008 01:25:43 AM · #264
Adding to Achoo's points... Palin governs a state with fewer people than the metro area of Little Rock, Arkansas, and not without making some very dubious decisions as a governor of less than two years. "Taking care of corruption in her own state" may take on a whole new meaning with the current investigation into her actions.

The highlight of McCain's pre-political background was apparently spending five years as a prisoner of war. Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years at a major university. I'm having a hard time seeing the former as a better (or even *a*) qualification for leading the country.

McCain met Palin for the first time six months ago, and only spoke to her once before offering her the second highest position in the country. Nevermind the guy "not getting" the issues of the country... how well can he possibly understand his own running mate?!?
08/30/2008 01:30:33 AM · #265
Originally posted by scalvert:



McCain met Palin for the first time six months ago, and only spoke to her once before offering her the second highest position in the country. Nevermind the guy "not getting" the issues of the country... how well can he possibly understand his own running mate?!?


(Disclaimor -- I don't necessarily disagree)

But, it is interesting to me, that we, on a photography forum, obviously know, understand, and can analyze down to the minutiae so much about the lives, and qualifications, of all of the candidates, and to the best of my knowledge, have never met any of them, personally.
08/30/2008 02:14:13 AM · #266
Originally posted by egamble:

BUT Obama has no evidence that HE puts Country First. Nothing besides a pretty speech. Actions speak louder than words....and the absence of real action on his part..is deafening.


So being a senator, civil rights lawyer, professor, community organizer and now running for president is not evidence? Geez.
08/30/2008 02:59:07 AM · #267
[quote=egamble] I don't know any more about Palin than the average person...but I know that this was a genius move for McCain.

The Democrats did exactly what they shouldn't have done. They immediately went for the Jugular on 'experience'.

Palin got to office by defeating an INCUMBENT Republican Gov....in the primaries and then beating the Democrat candidate in the elections.

Obama got into office by playing political parlor tricks and getting ALL of his opponents for his Illinois Senate seat removed from the ballot. He ran unopposed..because of this chickensh*& move.
Obama then ran unopposed , by other democrats for his US Senate seat...and his only competition was Alan Keyes. (* I am sure that even Jeremiah Wright could have beaten Alan Keyes in this election)

Fact Check (cause all of you right wingers strive for the truth right)
Obama was pitted against Keys because the Republican Jack Ryan (ex-hubby of Jeri Ryan AKA 7 of 9 from Star Trek) was forced to withdraw after the realities of his playing in his marriage was made public. Ref Wikipedia

The guy was dragging his wife to sex clubs in Europe and NY from what i can remember about the story.

Il Senate

Obama ran for State Senator when Alice Palmer decided to run for Congress in a 1995 special election, and he received her endorsement.[2] After being defeated in the primary by Jesse Jackson Jr., Palmer returned to request that Obama drop out of the race and let her run again for the seat.[3] Obama declined, and Palmer decided to run against him. Prior to the primary, Obama challenged the validity of ballot petition signatures for his opponents, resulting in their exclusion from the ballot and allowing him to run unopposed in the primary.[2][4] Obama won the heavily Democratic 13th district by a large margin (from wikipedia)

Doesn't sound like "parlor tricks" to me

Palin is currently under investigation by the AK legislature over misconduct in the termination of a police official...

she wants creationism taught in schools as a FACT --- sorry ... not in MY country

Lets talk about McCain and records
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act NO VOTE
Equal Pay Bill NO VOTE

EXPRESSING SUPPORT ALL MEN AND WOMEN OF THE US ARMED FORCES VOTED NO
DC VOTING RIGHTS VOTED NO (denied 600000 AMERICANS (more than the state of AK) that live in the Nations Capitol representation in the Senate and House

9/11 commision act NO VOTE

ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE Voted NO

I can go on ...

08/30/2008 07:37:58 AM · #268
ROFLMFAO at this.

she wants creationism taught in schools as a FACT --- sorry ... not in MY country

She's already trying to woo the redneck vote, but I think she's a little late. Are there any undecided rednecks out there? lol

Message edited by author 2008-08-30 07:38:24.
08/30/2008 09:50:16 AM · #269
Originally posted by scalvert:

Adding to Achoo's points... Palin governs a state with fewer people than the metro area of Little Rock, Arkansas, and not without making some very dubious decisions as a governor of less than two years. "Taking care of corruption in her own state" may take on a whole new meaning with the current investigation into her actions.

The highlight of McCain's pre-political background was apparently spending five years as a prisoner of war. Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years at a major university. I'm having a hard time seeing the former as a better (or even *a*) qualification for leading the country.

McCain met Palin for the first time six months ago, and only spoke to her once before offering her the second highest position in the country. Nevermind the guy "not getting" the issues of the country... how well can he possibly understand his own running mate?!?


Good thing Obama doesn't have any controveries of his own...right?
08/30/2008 09:52:46 AM · #270
Originally posted by yanko:


So being a senator, civil rights lawyer, professor, community organizer and now running for president is not evidence? Geez.

Haha. Besides Senator, how are any of those professions 'putting country first'?

He didn't get anything accomplished.

One 'major' accomplishment as a community organizer. He got an office moved closer to the south side...oh yeah...and got a bit of asbestos cleaned up. THATS IT.

State Senator? Voted PRESENT..instead of yea or nea on tough issues...so that he wouldn't have to answer for them

US Senator? Nothing of note....has spent half of his term...running for President.
08/30/2008 09:57:35 AM · #271
Originally posted by nomad469:

[quote=egamble] I don't know any more about Palin than the average person...but I know that this was a genius move for McCain.

The Democrats did exactly what they shouldn't have done. They immediately went for the Jugular on 'experience'.

Palin got to office by defeating an INCUMBENT Republican Gov....in the primaries and then beating the Democrat candidate in the elections.

Obama got into office by playing political parlor tricks and getting ALL of his opponents for his Illinois Senate seat removed from the ballot. He ran unopposed..because of this chickensh*& move.
Obama then ran unopposed , by other democrats for his US Senate seat...and his only competition was Alan Keyes. (* I am sure that even Jeremiah Wright could have beaten Alan Keyes in this election)

Fact Check (cause all of you right wingers strive for the truth right)
Obama was pitted against Keys because the Republican Jack Ryan (ex-hubby of Jeri Ryan AKA 7 of 9 from Star Trek) was forced to withdraw after the realities of his playing in his marriage was made public. Ref Wikipedia

The guy was dragging his wife to sex clubs in Europe and NY from what i can remember about the story.

Il Senate

Obama ran for State Senator when Alice Palmer decided to run for Congress in a 1995 special election, and he received her endorsement.[2] After being defeated in the primary by Jesse Jackson Jr., Palmer returned to request that Obama drop out of the race and let her run again for the seat.[3] Obama declined, and Palmer decided to run against him. Prior to the primary, Obama challenged the validity of ballot petition signatures for his opponents, resulting in their exclusion from the ballot and allowing him to run unopposed in the primary.[2][4] Obama won the heavily Democratic 13th district by a large margin (from wikipedia)

Doesn't sound like "parlor tricks" to me

Palin is currently under investigation by the AK legislature over misconduct in the termination of a police official...

she wants creationism taught in schools as a FACT --- sorry ... not in MY country

Lets talk about McCain and records
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act NO VOTE
Equal Pay Bill NO VOTE

EXPRESSING SUPPORT ALL MEN AND WOMEN OF THE US ARMED FORCES VOTED NO
DC VOTING RIGHTS VOTED NO (denied 600000 AMERICANS (more than the state of AK) that live in the Nations Capitol representation in the Senate and House

9/11 commision act NO VOTE

ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE Voted NO

I can go on ...


1.) The fact remains, regardless of the GOP reason, Obama ran,basically, unopposed for US Senate. And his only real challenge....from his own party..was negated by getting her taken off the ballot.

2.)Palin IS under INVESTIGATION. Obama accepted a million dollar bribe..in the form of land next to his home. I KNOW...IKNOW...it isn't proven...but only somebody that is sticking their head in the sand can't see the truth on this one. Sounds like the Pot calling the Kettle black on this one.

3.) At least McCain votes? maybe you don't like his vote.....but he isn't so worried about actually having to defend himself that he votes PRESENT.
08/30/2008 10:01:25 AM · #272
McCain Attack generator

Just hit refresh for a new attack. Should be good for hours of fun!
08/30/2008 10:18:37 AM · #273
Originally posted by egamble:



3.) At least McCain votes? maybe you don't like his vote.....but he isn't so worried about actually having to defend himself that he votes PRESENT.


Actually, to be fair, McCain has missed the most votes this Senate session, 68% to be exact and Obama has missed 45% of the votes ranking him third on that dubious list. I find it ridiculous that Ted Kennedy, who has brain cancer, has missed less votes that these two guys. You should not be able to miss a vote as a US Senator, ever, unless you are ill or have a family emergency. If I didn't show up for my job 45% or 68% of the time I would be collecting unemployment.
08/30/2008 10:24:19 AM · #274
Originally posted by yanko:



It should be clear to anybody with a head on their shoulders that GW has been an abysmal failure but you need the adminstration to say that then you'll be onboard??? Did you get that from Democrats when they were in office? You sure it's not more about their stubbornness (or ulterior motives) to continue policies that aren't working or something like that?

Regarding the VP comment, I agree she apparently doesn't have much experience but since you use the words utterly unqualified it begs the question what would your benchmark be for a candidate to be qualified. I assume Obama meets this benchmark? Does McCain? I assume Biden does? Personally I think Biden should be the president out of this bunch.


The difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama was vetted through a long a brutal primary process and the people of his party decided through that process that he has what it takes. Palin wasn't. So I think the issue is a valid one.

And no I wouldn't be on board if they just admitted that their policies are horribly flawed. But it would show they have some grasp on reality. I am sure it is ulterior motives that keeps them going with the same policies through 3 Republican administrations. Like they say, follow the money. Look at who got rich during the Regan, Bush I and Bush II administrations and look who benefitted the most financially during the Clinton administration.

I'm just wondering when people will finally realize that Republican idea the giving money to the rich will somehow help the poor is just a ridiculous as it sounds.
08/30/2008 10:25:14 AM · #275
Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by egamble:



3.) At least McCain votes? maybe you don't like his vote.....but he isn't so worried about actually having to defend himself that he votes PRESENT.


Actually, to be fair, McCain has missed the most votes this Senate session, 68% to be exact and Obama has missed 45% of the votes ranking him third on that dubious list. I find it ridiculous that Ted Kennedy, who has brain cancer, has missed less votes that these two guys. You should not be able to miss a vote as a US Senator, ever, unless you are ill or have a family emergency. If I didn't show up for my job 45% or 68% of the time I would be collecting unemployment.


That always happens when a member of congress is campaigning for national office.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 11/24/2020 01:32:24 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: 11/24/2020 01:32:24 AM EST.