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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> McCain Ads
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 301 - 325 of 358, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/30/2008 02:29:30 PM · #301
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

But, I'll bet he got more votes for president than Palin got for governor of Alaska.

You're comparing Palin's votes for a state post against Biden's votes for President. Apples and oranges. If Palin had been running for president alongside Biden, she wouldn't have registered a blip on the radar. Now if you want to compare state votes, then Biden also first won in an upset, however he did so as a 30yo Democrat running against a popular incumbent Republican in a historically Republican state (Palin's incumbent opponent had a 19% approval rating), and has generally won subsequent elections by an average of 60% of the vote. Alaska is heavily Republican (no state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate fewer times), so for Palin to beat the Democratic Knowles by only 7% isn't exactly good news.


My point was that Alaska is very small in population. You can't extrapolate a victory in a state that is not very diverse and doesn't have very many people to a national level. The fact that she won in Alaska really doesn't indicate how she can appeal to a national audience.

As for the rest, ditto.
08/30/2008 02:47:33 PM · #302
Originally posted by scalvert:

Alaska is heavily Republican (no state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate fewer times)

Pu-leeze. This is an extremely twisted use of "facts" intended to mis-lead those who read it and do NOT think it thru. The most relevant reason that no state has voted for a Democrat presidential candidate fewer times than Alaska, is because, with the exception of Hawaii ( which became a state in 1959, the same year as Alaska ) every other state has participated in at least ELEVEN MORE presidential elections than Alaska.
Out of the TWELVE times that Alaska has had the ability to vote in a presidential election, it has voted for the Democrat presidential candidate once. Since Alaska became a state, THIRTEEN OTHER states have also voted for the Democrat nominee just once: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
In the future, please compare apples to apples.
08/30/2008 02:56:36 PM · #303
Originally posted by RonB:

The most relevant reason that no state has voted for a Democrat presidential candidate fewer times than Alaska, is because, with the exception of Hawaii ( which became a state in 1959, the same year as Alaska ) every other state has participated in at least ELEVEN MORE presidential elections than Alaska.

A good point, but it wasn't something I made up to twist the facts. It's from Alaska's Wiki page. "Alaska is often described as a Republican-leaning state but with strong libertarian tendencies, except it strongly supports federal subsidizing of the Alaskan economy. In presidential elections, the state's electoral college votes have been almost always won by a Republican nominee. No state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate fewer times."

To be fair, Alaska's governors have been equally split between Republicans and Democrats (had to go look that one up separately). The rest stands.
08/30/2008 03:46:12 PM · #304
Hey but who is hotter? Biden or Palin?
08/30/2008 04:03:12 PM · #305
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:

The most relevant reason that no state has voted for a Democrat presidential candidate fewer times than Alaska, is because, with the exception of Hawaii ( which became a state in 1959, the same year as Alaska ) every other state has participated in at least ELEVEN MORE presidential elections than Alaska.

A good point, but it wasn't something I made up to twist the facts. It's from Alaska's Wiki page. "Alaska is often described as a Republican-leaning state but with strong libertarian tendencies, except it strongly supports federal subsidizing of the Alaskan economy. In presidential elections, the state's electoral college votes have been almost always won by a Republican nominee. No state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate fewer times."

To be fair, Alaska's governors have been equally split between Republicans and Democrats (had to go look that one up separately). The rest stands.

My bad. My contention that the statement was intended to mislead was an unfair assumption about the source of the information ( not that Wiki is immune from editorial bias, but that can hardly be held against you ).
Please accept my sincere apologies.
08/30/2008 04:13:43 PM · #306
Originally posted by scalvert:

A good point, but it wasn't something I made up to twist the facts. It's from Alaska's Wiki page. "Alaska is often described as a Republican-leaning state but with strong libertarian tendencies, except it strongly supports federal subsidizing of the Alaskan economy. In presidential elections, the state's electoral college votes have been almost always won by a Republican nominee. No state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate fewer times."


Tis the problem with Wikipedia. For those who don't know readers like you and I can contribute to the site. They are suppose to follow this guideline:

Taken from wikipedia's verifiability page: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

It's not too hard to find a bunch of verifiable quotes/commentary snippets and paste them together to make the whole say something or hint at something completely untrue and that says nothing about the flat out vandalism problems the site continues to be plagued with.

Message edited by author 2008-08-30 16:15:26.
08/30/2008 04:21:31 PM · #307
Originally posted by coronamv:

Hey but who is hotter? Biden or Palin?

Which one has the better-looking spouse?
08/30/2008 05:15:58 PM · #308
Originally posted by scarbrd:


oooo, I've been waiting for that one! Took you guys a while.

You're right, I think it is better that they cruise airport men's room looking to give a blow job. Or sending obscene text messages to teenage male congressional pages.

At least when Bill Clinton did it, it was with a female.

And as Sienfeld says, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Do you really want to get in the gutter with this? This thread has been pretty much on point and fairly respectful until now.

I like how when you guys get backed into a corner you play the blowjob card. Good show.


Clinton was the PRESIDENT. The head of out country...the rest were just jerkoff congressmen. BIG DIFFERENCE.
08/30/2008 05:17:28 PM · #309
Originally posted by RayEthier:


Not being too familiar with U.S politics I have to ask... what did Bush do in this regard.

Ray


Wouldn't know..i am no bush apologist
08/30/2008 05:17:48 PM · #310
Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

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.


Not being too familiar with U.S politics I have to ask... what did Bush do in this regard.

Ray


It definitely wasn't a pretty speech, I can guarantee you that:)


haha. oh damn...that had me laughing pretty good
08/30/2008 05:58:02 PM · #311
Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by scarbrd:


oooo, I've been waiting for that one! Took you guys a while.

You're right, I think it is better that they cruise airport men's room looking to give a blow job. Or sending obscene text messages to teenage male congressional pages.

At least when Bill Clinton did it, it was with a female.

And as Sienfeld says, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Do you really want to get in the gutter with this? This thread has been pretty much on point and fairly respectful until now.

I like how when you guys get backed into a corner you play the blowjob card. Good show.


Clinton was the PRESIDENT. The head of out country...the rest were just jerkoff congressmen. BIG DIFFERENCE.


So trolling men's rooms is OK for a Republican senator just so long as he doesn't become President? And it's OK that these hypocritical closest congressmen vote against any kind of equal rights for gays and lesbians all the while trying to seduce congressional pages or cruise a men's room?

Go ahead and ignore the fact the Clinton years had the most economic prosperity of any president in history. Ignore the fact that we were never at war under Clinton. Ignore that the Clinton policies did more for middle class Americans than Reagan, Bush I and Bush II combined.

Compare how many people died because of the GW policies to how many people died because of a tryst in the Clinton White House, and then explain to me which one is more morally reprehensible.

But if your only criteria is making sure the President doesn't get a BJ while in office, then by all means vote Republican.

Message edited by author 2008-08-30 17:58:48.
08/30/2008 06:34:26 PM · #312
Originally posted by scarbrd:



So trolling men's rooms is OK for a Republican senator just so long as he doesn't become President? And it's OK that these hypocritical closest congressmen vote against any kind of equal rights for gays and lesbians all the while trying to seduce congressional pages or cruise a men's room?

Go ahead and ignore the fact the Clinton years had the most economic prosperity of any president in history. Ignore the fact that we were never at war under Clinton. Ignore that the Clinton policies did more for middle class Americans than Reagan, Bush I and Bush II combined.

Compare how many people died because of the GW policies to how many people died because of a tryst in the Clinton White House, and then explain to me which one is more morally reprehensible.

But if your only criteria is making sure the President doesn't get a BJ while in office, then by all means vote Republican.


It's funny....clinton got a blowjob IN the white house.....you think its ok.
Bush goes golfing..and you go ape shit.

I will adress your other points...later....when I am done laughing
08/30/2008 06:51:01 PM · #313
Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by scarbrd:



So trolling men's rooms is OK for a Republican senator just so long as he doesn't become President? And it's OK that these hypocritical closest congressmen vote against any kind of equal rights for gays and lesbians all the while trying to seduce congressional pages or cruise a men's room?

Go ahead and ignore the fact the Clinton years had the most economic prosperity of any president in history. Ignore the fact that we were never at war under Clinton. Ignore that the Clinton policies did more for middle class Americans than Reagan, Bush I and Bush II combined.

Compare how many people died because of the GW policies to how many people died because of a tryst in the Clinton White House, and then explain to me which one is more morally reprehensible.

But if your only criteria is making sure the President doesn't get a BJ while in office, then by all means vote Republican.


It's funny....clinton got a blowjob IN the white house.....you think its ok.
Bush goes golfing..and you go ape shit.

I will adress your other points...later....when I am done laughing


Clinton got a BJ and the only casualty was a stain on a dress and a pissed off wife.

Bush on the other hand started an unjustified and unnecessary war that cost tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of lives and many more injured and maimed.

Maybe you're so prude that the two are equal on moral terms, but it's probably more an indication of the prosaic nature of your own sex life and you're just jealous of Clinton.
08/30/2008 07:03:43 PM · #314
Well I guess I always knew it would eventually degrade to this but it is still disappointing. Carry on.
08/31/2008 08:27:08 AM · #315
Originally posted by Spazmo99:



Clinton got a BJ and the only casualty was a stain on a dress and a pissed off wife.

Bush on the other hand started an unjustified and unnecessary war that cost tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of lives and many more injured and maimed.

Maybe you're so prude that the two are equal on moral terms, but it's probably more an indication of the prosaic nature of your own sex life and you're just jealous of Clinton.


I love you how people forget that CLINTON is the one who let Bib Laden get away when we had the ability to kill him.

Clinton is the person who let our national security dwindle so far that we were attacked on 9/11. (bush had only been in office for 8 1/2 months)

Sure..he had the economy on auto pilot, and that was nice, but Clinton isn't God Incarnate...and he didn't serve the perfect presidency. If it he had actually cared about National Security...we might not have been hit on 9/11

AS FOR THE BLOWJOB. This was in response to the attack on bush about Vacations. Neither the blowjob OR the vacation have anything to do with policy. Stop acting like they do.

If you are going to criticize the character of Bush over vacation time (you right should)....you should also stick to your guns and criticize Clinton over the adultery he committed in the White House. Instead...you turn a blind eye. Typical Liberals.
08/31/2008 08:38:54 AM · #316
Originally posted by egamble:

I love you how people forget that CLINTON is the one who let Bib Laden get away when we had the ability to kill him.

Really? "According to The Washington Post, the US government concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the Battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in late 2001, and according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge, failure by the US to commit US ground troops to hunt him led to his escape and was the gravest failure by the US in the war against al Qaeda." Which is the greater failure: not creating a martyr out of someone in another country who might be a threat in the future, or failing to get him when we had the full weight of the U.S. military in the country with that as their primary goal? Chavez and Putin might be a threat in the future... shall we send in the Tomahawks?

Message edited by author 2008-08-31 08:51:58.
08/31/2008 09:43:31 AM · #317
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by egamble:

I love you how people forget that CLINTON is the one who let Bib Laden get away when we had the ability to kill him.

Really? "According to The Washington Post, the US government concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the Battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in late 2001, and according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge, failure by the US to commit US ground troops to hunt him led to his escape and was the gravest failure by the US in the war against al Qaeda." Which is the greater failure: not creating a martyr out of someone in another country who might be a threat in the future, or failing to get him when we had the full weight of the U.S. military in the country with that as their primary goal? Chavez and Putin might be a threat in the future... shall we send in the Tomahawks?


Both Clinton and Bush hold a responsibility for letting Bin Laden slip through the cracks. As for letting his escape from US Troops in Tora Bora, do you really think that is the gravest error in the war against Al Qaeda? I would think it was the failure of our government to stop the attacks of 9/11. He would have been considered a martyr regardless of when he was killed so I don't really see the difference.

Message edited by author 2008-08-31 09:43:41.
08/31/2008 10:48:07 AM · #318
Originally posted by scalvert:

Which is the greater failure: not creating a martyr out of someone in another country who might be a threat in the future,


Are you seriosly suggesting that Obama had nothing to do with ANY attacks on the US prior to 9/11?

MIGHT BE A THREAT? (from 2001)

Wow. Ignorance is bliss...or so they say.

1998-Embassy Bombings

Embassy Bombings

Remember..this was under Clinton's watch. But I guess...we shouldn't have taken him out...because 'HE MIGHT BE A THREAT'. RIGHT.

October 2000- USS COLE
USS COLE

Remember..this was under Clinton's watch. But I guess...we shouldn't have taken him out...because 'HE MIGHT BE A THREAT'. RIGHT.

Message edited by author 2008-08-31 10:51:29.
08/31/2008 10:50:00 AM · #319
Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:



Clinton got a BJ and the only casualty was a stain on a dress and a pissed off wife.

Bush on the other hand started an unjustified and unnecessary war that cost tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of lives and many more injured and maimed.

Maybe you're so prude that the two are equal on moral terms, but it's probably more an indication of the prosaic nature of your own sex life and you're just jealous of Clinton.


I love you how people forget that CLINTON is the one who let Bib Laden get away when we had the ability to kill him.

Clinton is the person who let our national security dwindle so far that we were attacked on 9/11. (bush had only been in office for 8 1/2 months)

Sure..he had the economy on auto pilot, and that was nice, but Clinton isn't God Incarnate...and he didn't serve the perfect presidency. If it he had actually cared about National Security...we might not have been hit on 9/11

AS FOR THE BLOWJOB. This was in response to the attack on bush about Vacations. Neither the blowjob OR the vacation have anything to do with policy. Stop acting like they do.

If you are going to criticize the character of Bush over vacation time (you right should)....you should also stick to your guns and criticize Clinton over the adultery he committed in the White House. Instead...you turn a blind eye. Typical Liberals.


No one ever claimed Clinton's presidency was perfect, just better. And if he had got to Bid Laden before the attacks, you would have crucified him for political assassination because we wouldn't have the 9/11 attacks as a context.

Another take on it is, Clinton was obsessed with finding Bid Laden as the 911 report found, but he saw a weak and not so tuned in presdient in GW that he knew he could succeed.

Oh and thanks for the all caps thing. It really helps.



Message edited by author 2008-08-31 10:50:30.
08/31/2008 10:53:10 AM · #320
Originally posted by scarbrd:

. And if he had got to Bid Laden before the attacks, you would have crucified him for political assassination because we wouldn't have the 9/11 attacks as a context.


Right, because nobody was upset about the Embassy Bombines in the 90's. We would have been upset if we had taken Osama out AFTER that...because we had NO CONTEXT for aggression.

Please.

Message edited by author 2008-08-31 13:13:26.
08/31/2008 10:55:06 AM · #321
Originally posted by scarbrd:


Another take on it is, Clinton was obsessed with finding Bid Laden as the 911 report found, but he saw a weak and not so tuned in presdient in GW that he knew he could succeed.

Oh and thanks for the all caps thing. It really helps.


-Right...The 9/11 attackers waited for years to attack....waiting for Bush to be elected. After the election....their trap was SPRUNG...and they began plotting.

:)

and about the caps...YOU'RE WELCOME, I AM GLAD THEY REALLY HELP :D
08/31/2008 12:46:02 PM · #322
Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

. And if he had got to Bid Laden before the attacks, you would have crucified him for political assassination because we wouldn't have the 9/11 attacks as a context.


Right, because nobody was upset about the Embassy Bombines in the 90's. We would have been upset if we had taken Obama out AFTER that...because we had NO CONTEXT for aggression.

Please.


The embassy bombings weren't in the US.

Again, just another example Bush and his minions not owning up to anything that happened on his watch. Just blame Clinton for everything bad. It's a tired argument. But if it makes you feel better about this administration's mishandling of just about everything, then go right ahead.
08/31/2008 01:00:16 PM · #323
Originally posted by egamble:

Right, because nobody was upset about the Embassy Bombines in the 90's. We would have been upset if we had taken Obama out AFTER that...because we had NO CONTEXT for aggression.

Very subtle, conflating the names of a Presidential candidate with the world's most-wanted terrorist.
08/31/2008 01:11:27 PM · #324
Originally posted by scarbrd:



The embassy bombings weren't in the US.

Again, just another example Bush and his minions not owning up to anything that happened on his watch. Just blame Clinton for everything bad. It's a tired argument. But if it makes you feel better about this administration's mishandling of just about everything, then go right ahead.


So...only attacks 'on US soil' are worthy of retaliation? SPECIFICALLY, these attacks and murders on American Citizens did not warrant the killing of Osama Bin Laden?

I am not following your logic on this one...

Message edited by author 2008-08-31 13:19:13.
08/31/2008 01:13:05 PM · #325
Originally posted by egamble:


Right, because nobody was upset about the Embassy Bombines in the 90's. We would have been upset if we had taken Obama out AFTER that...because we had NO CONTEXT for aggression


Originally posted by GeneralE:


Very subtle, conflating the names of a Presidential candidate with the world's most-wanted terrorist.


Wow. I didn't realize I had done that...In fact..I had to re-read my own sentence 3 times ...before I realized what you were even talking about...just a typo.(going to change in original post now...Obama to Osama...)

Message edited by author 2008-08-31 13:15:55.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 11/25/2020 09:18:35 PM

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: 11/25/2020 09:18:35 PM EST.