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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> McCain Ads
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 358, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/26/2008 02:11:00 PM · #26
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by David Ey:

well, I knew Jack Kennedy. Obama is no Jack Kennedy.


Not yet.


is this a reference to and Do you think he will be assasinated? I saw today where they arrested some people who were supposedly trying to do just that. they had bullet proof vests high powered rifles and walkie talkies. Unfortunately there are a lot of hate mongerers who would like nothing better. That's kind of scary.
08/26/2008 02:11:24 PM · #27
oops

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 14:11:45.
08/26/2008 02:13:08 PM · #28
I was amazed by how McCain stood next to GWB for the past 7 years or so. Simply amazing for a "maverick" that got beat in by GWB by negative campaign tactics. Since giving it another shot, he has flip-flopped on many issues to be more "electable". He's fallen into the Karl Rove style of politics, and tried to morph himself into someone that IS another GWB. Pretty sad really.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I've looked at a couple of different issues as posted on both McCain and Obama's websites and they are really not far apart on them. Surprisingly they both seem to have similar plans for the military (increase the size and modernize). And also on energy as far as incentives for more fuel efficiency and 0 emission vehicles. One glaring difference in their plans is the whole Pro-choice/Pro-life issue.
08/26/2008 02:13:28 PM · #29
I don't really see how you can make that assumption from that and it's scary that you took it that way.
08/26/2008 02:13:51 PM · #30
I noticed that FOX News made this their headline - I wonder why.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by David Ey:

well, I knew Jack Kennedy. Obama is no Jack Kennedy.


Not yet.


is this a reference to and Do you think he will be assasinated? I saw today where they arrested some people who were supposedly trying to do just that. they had bullet proof vests high powered rifles and walkie talkies. Unfortunately there are a lot of hate mongerers who would like nothing better. That's kind of scary.
08/26/2008 02:15:54 PM · #31
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by metatate:

OK - let's vote based on negative ads.
What a great idea. Forget about their records -
or what they are capable of doing as President.


Obama doesn't have much of a record and from what I understand it is almost completely along party lines what we do have. Doesn't exactly speak to change.


And McCain voted with GW 95% of the time. What's your point? As for change, at least the party that controls the Executive branch might change, and that is change enough for me.


McCain does have the 'maverick' image and is noted for going against his party on some pretty key issues which shows that he votes his conscience and isn't necessarily playing politics. We don't have any indication of that from Barack.
08/26/2008 02:17:21 PM · #32
Originally posted by trevytrev:

I don't really see how you can make that assumption from that and it's scary that you took it that way.


I guess it was just on my mind from seeing that report this morning.
08/26/2008 02:18:17 PM · #33
Originally posted by metatate:

I noticed that FOX News made this their headline - I wonder why.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by David Ey:

well, I knew Jack Kennedy. Obama is no Jack Kennedy.


Not yet.


is this a reference to and Do you think he will be assasinated? I saw today where they arrested some people who were supposedly trying to do just that. they had bullet proof vests high powered rifles and walkie talkies. Unfortunately there are a lot of hate mongerers who would like nothing better. That's kind of scary.


You don't think that is a newsworthy item? How could they not report it. Seems like big news to me.
08/26/2008 02:22:48 PM · #34
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by metatate:

OK - let's vote based on negative ads.
What a great idea. Forget about their records -
or what they are capable of doing as President.


Obama doesn't have much of a record and from what I understand it is almost completely along party lines what we do have. Doesn't exactly speak to change.


And McCain voted with GW 95% of the time. What's your point? As for change, at least the party that controls the Executive branch might change, and that is change enough for me.


McCain does have the 'maverick' image and is noted for going against his party on some pretty key issues which shows that he votes his conscience and isn't necessarily playing politics. We don't have any indication of that from Barack.


No politician should be voting HIS/HER conscience. They should be voting their constituent's conscience. That's why the constituents voted for him/her in the first place.

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 14:23:03.
08/26/2008 02:25:22 PM · #35
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by metatate:

OK - let's vote based on negative ads.
What a great idea. Forget about their records -
or what they are capable of doing as President.


Obama doesn't have much of a record and from what I understand it is almost completely along party lines what we do have. Doesn't exactly speak to change.


And McCain voted with GW 95% of the time. What's your point? As for change, at least the party that controls the Executive branch might change, and that is change enough for me.


McCain does have the 'maverick' image and is noted for going against his party on some pretty key issues which shows that he votes his conscience and isn't necessarily playing politics. We don't have any indication of that from Barack.


No politician should be voting HIS/HER conscience. They should be voting their constituent's conscience. That's why the constituents voted for him/her in the first place.


I would respectfully disagree. The candidate who will be elected is being placed in a position of leadership and not in a position of trying to cater to the latest polls.
08/26/2008 02:26:38 PM · #36
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by metatate:

OK - let's vote based on negative ads.
What a great idea. Forget about their records -
or what they are capable of doing as President.


Obama doesn't have much of a record and from what I understand it is almost completely along party lines what we do have. Doesn't exactly speak to change.


And McCain voted with GW 95% of the time. What's your point? As for change, at least the party that controls the Executive branch might change, and that is change enough for me.


McCain does have the 'maverick' image and is noted for going against his party on some pretty key issues which shows that he votes his conscience and isn't necessarily playing politics. We don't have any indication of that from Barack.


No politician should be voting HIS/HER conscience. They should be voting their constituent's conscience. That's why the constituents voted for him/her in the first place.


I would respectfully disagree. The candidate who will be elected is being placed in a position of leadership and not in a position of trying to cater to the latest polls.


Sorry but if that were the case then why do we vote at all.
08/26/2008 02:32:24 PM · #37
Originally posted by cpanaioti:



Sorry but if that were the case then why do we vote at all.


Through the campaign I think we determine which candidate represents our opinions and beliefs as best as we can. Sometimes they do a good job and sometimes not and then they can be voted out of office but I do not believe that the general population should micromanage a representative (politician) through polling. The public does not always have all of the information or time to make a truly informed decision... that's why we have representatives to take care of running our government.

edit to add: Some decisions have to be made quickly and their isn't time to poll the represented.

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 14:35:25.
08/26/2008 02:34:48 PM · #38
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:



Sorry but if that were the case then why do we vote at all.


Through the campaign I think we determine which candidate represents our opinions and beliefs as best as we can. Sometimes they do a good job and sometimes not and then they can be voted out of office but I do not believe that the general population should micromanage a representative (politician) through polling. The public does not always have all of the information or time to make a truly informed decision... that's why we have representatives to take care of running our government.


That's why there are party platforms so we know what we are voting for.


08/26/2008 02:38:41 PM · #39
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:



Sorry but if that were the case then why do we vote at all.


Through the campaign I think we determine which candidate represents our opinions and beliefs as best as we can. Sometimes they do a good job and sometimes not and then they can be voted out of office but I do not believe that the general population should micromanage a representative (politician) through polling. The public does not always have all of the information or time to make a truly informed decision... that's why we have representatives to take care of running our government.


That's why there are party platforms so we know what we are voting for.


I don't know about you but I don't vote for a party I vote for a person. Yes the platform of the individual is relevant to know when making a decision who to vote for and if they stray from this platform too far the represented would have a right to be upset but I want and I think most people would want a person representing them that is capable of making decisions without having to take a poll to figure out what is right to do.
08/26/2008 02:38:58 PM · #40
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Reagan was inexperienced, Bush, Jr. waaaaaaaay inexperienced. Now experience matters?


Both Reagan and Bush Jr. had been governors of large states, arguably a better qualification for President than being a senator is. Certainly, Americans have elected a LOT more governors than they have senators to the highest office. Not that I'm a fan of McCain (or Bush, for that matter), but just set the record straight on that...

R.


Governors are, by design, very weak executive offices, especially in Texas. But, we don't have governors running, we have senators this time. The most "experienced" senator was also 894 out of 899 in his graduating class. We've had so much fun with a dumb guy in office for the lasy 8 years. I'm ready for a smart guy.

JFK was a young senator too, in a much more dangerous time internationally. He did OK staring down the Russians.


Oh, I'm not arguing that point; all I was saying is that you can't call Reagan and Bush "inexperienced" by any objective standard that can be applied to candidates for the presidency most years. I mean, unless an incumbent is running NONE of the candidates have any experience being POTUS, right? And governors, at least, have experience, such as it is, in the executive branch, which senators do not.

I'm NOT saying governors "make better presidents" than senators, nothing like that... I just thought calling Reagan and Bush "inexperienced" because they had not held political office at the national level seems bogus to me. I mean, both Texas and California (especially California) have bigger economies than most countries do. And as far as "weak executive offices" go, an awful lot of people think that describes POTUS to a T. Certainly Bush, Cheney, and Karl Rove have been busting their hunps trying to end-run the constitution and bulk up the powers of POTUS, unfortunately for pretty venal reasons...

R.

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 14:39:42.
08/26/2008 02:47:34 PM · #41
I thought this was hilarious.

//www.youtube.com/v/FiQJ9Xp0xxU&hl=en&fs=1
08/26/2008 03:05:07 PM · #42
Originally posted by dponlyme:


I don't know about you but I don't vote for a party I vote for a person. Yes the platform of the individual is relevant to know when making a decision who to vote for and if they stray from this platform too far the represented would have a right to be upset but I want and I think most people would want a person representing them that is capable of making decisions without having to take a poll to figure out what is right to do.


For major decisions it is their responsibility to know what the constituents want.
08/26/2008 03:05:46 PM · #43
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by metatate:

OK - let's vote based on negative ads.
What a great idea. Forget about their records -
or what they are capable of doing as President.


Obama doesn't have much of a record and from what I understand it is almost completely along party lines what we do have. Doesn't exactly speak to change.


And McCain voted with GW 95% of the time. What's your point? As for change, at least the party that controls the Executive branch might change, and that is change enough for me.


Actually that is just recently, he has been as low as 77% in 05 and has actually been as low as 67% with his own party. Obama has voted with the president as high as 49%, though that is along his party line votes since he has voted with his party nearly 100% since he has been in the senate. Now correct me if I'm wrong but a guy who campaigns on crossing the aisle and reaching to the other side doesn't seem to do anything that his party doesn't. At least McCain has crossed the aisle and bucked his party at some point and way more frequently then Obama. As for changing stances on issues recently, I think both can be found guilty on that matter.
08/26/2008 03:32:25 PM · #44
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by dponlyme:


I don't know about you but I don't vote for a party I vote for a person. Yes the platform of the individual is relevant to know when making a decision who to vote for and if they stray from this platform too far the represented would have a right to be upset but I want and I think most people would want a person representing them that is capable of making decisions without having to take a poll to figure out what is right to do.


For major decisions it is their responsibility to know what the constituents want.


What decisions would you characterize as major? which would you characterize as not major?
08/26/2008 03:40:17 PM · #45
Originally posted by dponlyme:

McCain does have the 'maverick' image and is noted for going against his party on some pretty key issues which shows that he votes his conscience and isn't necessarily playing politics. We don't have any indication of that from Barack.

So McCain voting his conscience against Republican interests is good, but Obama voting his conscience (and Party position) against Republican interests is bad? Something does not compute here ...

Does anybody else find McCain's constant harping on his POW experience bringing to mind The Manchurian Candidate?
08/26/2008 03:47:10 PM · #46
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

McCain does have the 'maverick' image and is noted for going against his party on some pretty key issues which shows that he votes his conscience and isn't necessarily playing politics. We don't have any indication of that from Barack.

So McCain voting his conscience against Republican interests is good, but Obama voting his conscience (and Party position) against Republican interests is bad? Something does not compute here ...

Does anybody else find McCain's constant harping on his POW experience bringing to mind The Manchurian Candidate?


He's a great friend and fine human being (something like that)
08/26/2008 03:48:47 PM · #47
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by dponlyme:


I don't know about you but I don't vote for a party I vote for a person. Yes the platform of the individual is relevant to know when making a decision who to vote for and if they stray from this platform too far the represented would have a right to be upset but I want and I think most people would want a person representing them that is capable of making decisions without having to take a poll to figure out what is right to do.


For major decisions it is their responsibility to know what the constituents want.


Actually, we elect people to vote their conscience, not ours. Our responsibility is to elect representatives that best reflect our views. No one will please all the people all the time.
08/26/2008 03:50:38 PM · #48
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by dponlyme:


I don't know about you but I don't vote for a party I vote for a person. Yes the platform of the individual is relevant to know when making a decision who to vote for and if they stray from this platform too far the represented would have a right to be upset but I want and I think most people would want a person representing them that is capable of making decisions without having to take a poll to figure out what is right to do.


For major decisions it is their responsibility to know what the constituents want.


Actually, we elect people to vote their conscience, not ours. Our responsibility is to elect representatives that best reflect our views. No one will please all the people all the time.


Maybe you do. You put a lot of trust in politicians don't you?
08/26/2008 03:52:13 PM · #49
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

McCain does have the 'maverick' image and is noted for going against his party on some pretty key issues which shows that he votes his conscience and isn't necessarily playing politics. We don't have any indication of that from Barack.

So McCain voting his conscience against Republican interests is good, but Obama voting his conscience (and Party position) against Republican interests is bad? Something does not compute here ...

Does anybody else find McCain's constant harping on his POW experience bringing to mind The Manchurian Candidate?


The point is that we don't know if Barack is voting his conscience or if he is simply voting on the party line as a matter of politics. He may very well be voting his conscience it's just that we have no way to know. I do think that he (McCain)plays the prisoner of war think up a bit much at times. I personally don't see that being a prisoner of war will make you a better president necessarily but I suppose it does speak to his loyalty to his country.

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 15:53:50.
08/26/2008 03:54:12 PM · #50
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

McCain does have the 'maverick' image and is noted for going against his party on some pretty key issues which shows that he votes his conscience and isn't necessarily playing politics. We don't have any indication of that from Barack.

So McCain voting his conscience against Republican interests is good, but Obama voting his conscience (and Party position) against Republican interests is bad? Something does not compute here ...

Does anybody else find McCain's constant harping on his POW experience bringing to mind The Manchurian Candidate?


John McCain is the bravest, kindest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 02/26/2020 10:09:48 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: 02/26/2020 10:09:48 AM EST.