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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> McCain Ads
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 358, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/26/2008 04:14:16 PM · #51
Originally posted by dponlyme:

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.


That more speaks to his loyalty to his fellow man than to his country.
08/26/2008 04:23:05 PM · #52
I'm cynical. I think it is all a matter of perspective.

Candidate A is a Republican. His voting record is "100%" party line.
Republicans say, "He is loyal to his platform."
Democrats say, "He is towing the party line."

Candidate B is a Democrat. His voting record is "100%" party line.
Democrats say, "He is loyal to his platform."
Republicans say, "He is towing the party line."

Candidate C is a Republican. He voting record is variable.
Republicans say, "He is a maverick."
Democrats say, "He is wishy washy. You can't trust him.

Candidate D is a Democrat. His voting record is variable.
Democrats say, "He is a maverick."
Republicans say, "He is wishy washy. You can't trust him"

Same old crap.

Different year.

edit - -I misquoted and misinterpreted the quote.

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 16:27:21.
08/26/2008 05:46:56 PM · #53
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

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?


Not necessisarily, but I do take my responsibility seriously to look at the candidates and the platform the swear to support.

I am a life long Democrat, but each election cycle I look at each parties platform, both national and state. I invite everyone to do the same. It is an eye opening read.

One fundamental differfence between the parties is that Democrats usually adapt the platform and vison of the candidate. The Republicans usually conform the candidate to the platform.

The beauty of the Republican philosophy is you can vote for anyone and get pretty much the same thing everytime. The candidate doesn't really matter all that much. This may be why some conservatives are nervous about McCain. He may reject some of the tried and true Republican rules, like his consideration of a pro-choice running mate. I don't think he'll actually pick a pro-choice running mate, but he was or is testing the waters. That makes party loyalists nervous.

With the Democrats, you have the educate yourself on the candidate more to understand the party platform. When I was in high school back in the 70s the government teacher brought in people from both parties during the 1976 election cycle. When the Democratic representive was asked about the party platform he said, "Our party platform in the platform of Jimmy Carter."

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 17:48:00.
08/26/2008 07:34:03 PM · #54
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

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?


You live in a representative democracy. You vote a person into office to represent you. Political parties are in theory there to support the individuals, not the other way around.

No form of government is perfect. Representative democracy is generally accepted as the least worst form of government.
08/26/2008 07:36:06 PM · #55
Originally posted by GeneralE:



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


Rather than the pathetic, unconconcious programed pawn, represented by Lawrence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate.
The vile & unquestioned militarism of McCain is parallel to the multiple personality of Peter Sellers, or worse the bomb riding Slim Pickens in Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove
08/26/2008 08:36:38 PM · #56
Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

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?


You live in a representative democracy. You vote a person into office to represent you. Political parties are in theory there to support the individuals, not the other way around.

No form of government is perfect. Representative democracy is generally accepted as the least worst form of government.


Yes, represent the constituents, not himself. In order to represent the constituents he needs to know what the constituents want.

Or worse, represent the government back to the people. Once elected they usually forget who put them there.

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 20:49:15.
08/26/2008 09:13:26 PM · #57
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

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?


You live in a representative democracy. You vote a person into office to represent you. Political parties are in theory there to support the individuals, not the other way around.

No form of government is perfect. Representative democracy is generally accepted as the least worst form of government.


Yes, represent the constituents, not himself. In order to represent the constituents he needs to know what the constituents want.

Or worse, represent the government back to the people. Once elected they usually forget who put them there.


I think this is a Edmund Burke quote:

"a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion"

We elect a representative because we value their judgement. Our opinions in matter of state are not always based on logic or all the facts. If we expect our representative to do exactly what we think we want, we will always be disappointed.
08/27/2008 08:18:12 AM · #58
There is only one reason Conservatives like me are voting for McCain (I have never really liked him much), he will be nominating Supreme Court justices. Obama would nominate justices who wants to make laws from the bench, not interprete laws that is their real job.
08/27/2008 08:53:32 AM · #59
Originally posted by scarbrd:



We elect a representative because we value their judgement. Our opinions in matter of state are not always based on logic or all the facts. If we expect our representative to do exactly what we think we want, we will always be disappointed.


I'd rather not give someone carte blanche to do what they want. There's something called accountability that seems to be missing in a lot of politicians. Maybe if we had recall they'd wake up.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 08:54:50.
08/27/2008 09:07:21 AM · #60
Originally posted by vtruan:

There is only one reason Conservatives like me are voting for McCain (I have never really liked him much), he will be nominating Supreme Court justices. Obama would nominate justices who wants to make laws from the bench, not interprete laws that is their real job.


Of course, that's WAYYYY more important than pulling out of the nosedive the Republicans have put the country into. Four more years of Republican antics and the US will be China's lapdog.
08/27/2008 09:17:27 AM · #61
Speaking of McCain ads:

Singer Jackson Browne has filed a lawsuit against John McCain for using Browne's song, "Running on Empty" in a McCain campaign commercial.

The Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Committee were also named in the lawsuit.

Browne is a lifelong liberal who has donated to Barack Obama's campaigns in the past and, according to reports, is concerned the McCain ad will leave the impression Browne is endorsing McCain.

Browne has asked for damages in excess of $75,000.

This isn't the first time John McCain has been busted for copyright infringement. Earlier this week actor Mike Myers demanded McCain stop airing another ad using Myers' Wayne's World "We're Not Worthy" routine with Dana Carvey.
08/27/2008 09:18:13 AM · #62
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by vtruan:

There is only one reason Conservatives like me are voting for McCain (I have never really liked him much), he will be nominating Supreme Court justices. Obama would nominate justices who wants to make laws from the bench, not interprete laws that is their real job.


Of course, that's WAYYYY more important than pulling out of the nosedive the Republicans have put the country into. Four more years of Republican antics and the US will be China's lapdog.


What have the republicans done to put it in a nosedive as you say? They didn't create the current housing market problems, they didn't create high gas prices. As for the Iraq war, the democrats voted for the war also. What fatal mismanagement has occured that you feel the republicans are responsible for? Don't get me wrong I understand that a lot of people are not happy with Bush and I'm sure there are reasons. Specifically though, what have they done?

edit to add that the picking of supreme court justices could affect our country for a lot longer than the four year term of the president and have a huge impact on society. It is a very important thing.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 09:24:00.
08/27/2008 09:22:58 AM · #63
oops again

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 09:23:48.
08/27/2008 11:13:23 AM · #64
Originally posted by vtruan:

There is only one reason Conservatives like me are voting for McCain (I have never really liked him much), he will be nominating Supreme Court justices. Obama would nominate justices who wants to make laws from the bench, not interprete laws that is their real job.


So in essence what you are saying is that Obama confided in you and told you what his plans are... interesting. Does he ask you for your input on any on any of this?

Ray
08/27/2008 11:39:46 AM · #65
Originally posted by dponlyme:

What have the republicans done to put it in a nosedive as you say? They didn't create the current housing market problems, they didn't create high gas prices. As for the Iraq war, the democrats voted for the war also...

While the business practices that led to shaky loans have been around a while, it was the rapid increases in Fed interest rates within the past few years that triggered the current meltdown when ARM rates went up (and the administration knew this was coming for years). You can pin much of the rise in gas prices to instability created by the Iraq war and conflicts with Venezuela and others, not to mention poor focus on alternative energy sources and conservation. While democrats may have voted for the war, they did so based on misinformation supplied by the administration, which also bears responsibility for the horrible planning and lack of exit strategy. It's actually tough to find something the current administration HASN'T mismanaged (Katrina, torture, healthcare, civil liberties...).

I should point out that I don't think this is a Republican/Democrat or Liberal/Conservative issue so much as a clueless president who has surrounded himself with incompetent and/or self-serving people.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 12:04:59.
08/27/2008 12:55:00 PM · #66
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

What have the republicans done to put it in a nosedive as you say? They didn't create the current housing market problems, they didn't create high gas prices. As for the Iraq war, the democrats voted for the war also...

While the business practices that led to shaky loans have been around a while, it was the rapid increases in Fed interest rates within the past few years that triggered the current meltdown when ARM rates went up (and the administration knew this was coming for years). You can pin much of the rise in gas prices to instability created by the Iraq war and conflicts with Venezuela and others, not to mention poor focus on alternative energy sources and conservation. While democrats may have voted for the war, they did so based on misinformation supplied by the administration, which also bears responsibility for the horrible planning and lack of exit strategy. It's actually tough to find something the current administration HASN'T mismanaged (Katrina, torture, healthcare, civil liberties...).

I should point out that I don't think this is a Republican/Democrat or Liberal/Conservative issue so much as a clueless president who has surrounded himself with incompetent and/or self-serving people.


I was unaware that the administration controlled interest rates. I thought that was left up to the chairman of the federal reserve who while being appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate does not answer to either (and will be in that position until at least 2010). What evidence do you have that the iraq war has contributed to higher gas prices? Can the administration be blamed for problems with venezuela and others? If so please explain. Barack Obama knew not to vote for the war. What was special about him? Wasn't he given the same 'misinformation'? Based on what he knew at the time shouldn't he have voted with the other democrats in favor of giving the president authority to go to war if necessary? If not then why not?
08/27/2008 01:08:32 PM · #67
Obviously you started this thread to spread the negative ads of John McCain. Since you aren't a big fan of his, you obviously are out to spread negative information about Obama because you have a problem with him. For many of us though, he represents someone who KNOWS the American people will benefit from a clean break from this administration - for countless reasons.

Regarding the point of voting to give the president this power, it is commonly said that people "voted for the war" but at the time, it was still billed as a last resort. The administration has misled everyone along the way.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Barack Obama knew not to vote for the war. What was special about him? Wasn't he given the same 'misinformation'? Based on what he knew at the time shouldn't he have voted with the other democrats in favor of giving the president authority to go to war if necessary? If not then why not?
08/27/2008 01:10:55 PM · #68
Originally posted by dponlyme:

I was unaware that the administration controlled interest rates. I thought that was left up to the chairman of the federal reserve who while being appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate does not answer to either.

Kinda like those Supreme Court Justices you were worried about a few posts back...

Originally posted by dponlyme:

What evidence do you have that the iraq war has contributed to higher gas prices? Can the administration be blamed for problems with venezuela and others? If so please explain.

Rolls eyes. Do a Google search.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Barack Obama knew not to vote for the war. What was special about him? Wasn't he given the same 'misinformation'? Based on what he knew at the time shouldn't he have voted with the other democrats in favor of giving the president authority to go to war if necessary? If not then why not?

That's the stark contrast between government intelligence and being intelligent. "Even at the time, it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well." Many politicians hold that opinion now. Few had the courage to say it when it mattered.
08/27/2008 02:15:46 PM · #69
Originally posted by metatate:

Obviously you started this thread to spread the negative ads of John McCain. Since you aren't a big fan of his, you obviously are out to spread negative information about Obama because you have a problem with him. For many of us though, he represents someone who KNOWS the American people will benefit from a clean break from this administration - for countless reasons.

Regarding the point of voting to give the president this power, it is commonly said that people "voted for the war" but at the time, it was still billed as a last resort. The administration has misled everyone along the way.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Barack Obama knew not to vote for the war. What was special about him? Wasn't he given the same 'misinformation'? Based on what he knew at the time shouldn't he have voted with the other democrats in favor of giving the president authority to go to war if necessary? If not then why not?


Actually I started this thread to see what people would think about the ads but not because I have a problem with Obama. I actually think he is one of the smartest individuals to run for president in a long time. Smart doesn't equal wise however. I won't vote for him because of his social policies (pro-choice) and his inexperience in dealing with world affairs. When it is the members of your own party that are criticizing you for not having enough experience I think that makes for a pretty darn effective ad. Just wondering what others thought.
08/27/2008 02:30:27 PM · #70
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Barack Obama knew not to vote for the war. What was special about him? Wasn't he given the same 'misinformation'? Based on what he knew at the time shouldn't he have voted with the other democrats in favor of giving the president authority to go to war if necessary? If not then why not?


Obama wasn't a member of the US Senate when that vote came about. That vote took place in 2002 and he was sworn in to the Senate in 2005.
08/27/2008 02:30:33 PM · #71
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by metatate:

Obviously you started this thread to spread the negative ads of John McCain. Since you aren't a big fan of his, you obviously are out to spread negative information about Obama because you have a problem with him. For many of us though, he represents someone who KNOWS the American people will benefit from a clean break from this administration - for countless reasons.

Regarding the point of voting to give the president this power, it is commonly said that people "voted for the war" but at the time, it was still billed as a last resort. The administration has misled everyone along the way.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Barack Obama knew not to vote for the war. What was special about him? Wasn't he given the same 'misinformation'? Based on what he knew at the time shouldn't he have voted with the other democrats in favor of giving the president authority to go to war if necessary? If not then why not?


Actually I started this thread to see what people would think about the ads but not because I have a problem with Obama. I actually think he is one of the smartest individuals to run for president in a long time. Smart doesn't equal wise however. I won't vote for him because of his social policies (pro-choice) and his inexperience in dealing with world affairs. When it is the members of your own party that are criticizing you for not having enough experience I think that makes for a pretty darn effective ad. Just wondering what others thought.


So if you are a one issue voter (abortion) then what's the point of discussing the other issues? If that is your only criteria then you've got your candidate. If McCain was pro-life and didn't have experience in global affairs (not the he really has, but anyway) wouldn't you still support him becuase of his pro-life position?

08/27/2008 02:36:51 PM · #72
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I was unaware that the administration controlled interest rates. I thought that was left up to the chairman of the federal reserve who while being appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate does not answer to either.

Kinda like those Supreme Court Justices you were worried about a few posts back...

Originally posted by dponlyme:

What evidence do you have that the iraq war has contributed to higher gas prices? Can the administration be blamed for problems with venezuela and others? If so please explain.

Rolls eyes. Do a Google search.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Barack Obama knew not to vote for the war. What was special about him? Wasn't he given the same 'misinformation'? Based on what he knew at the time shouldn't he have voted with the other democrats in favor of giving the president authority to go to war if necessary? If not then why not?

That's the stark contrast between government intelligence and being intelligent. "Even at the time, it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well." Many politicians hold that opinion now. Few had the courage to say it when it mattered.


I would be surprised if the fed reserve chairman will change under an obama administration. At any rate I don't think the chairman was/is chosen for political reasons. Everyone wants a strong economy. Check out this article about the current fed reserve chairman.

//www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26fed.html?ex=1287979200&en=d73cf2f49a32fb1f&ei=5090

I concede that the iraq war has contributed to higher gas prices.. just wanted to see what you would say.

As far as Barack's vote on the war I would have to say that you are right on. I always felt like most democrats cow-towed to public opinion.

A worry I have about a Barack presidency is evidenced in part in the posts above about leadership. I think that Barack may not like being unpopular and as such will follow poll numbers instead of leading. This very well may not be the case as evidenced by his vote on the war but he doesn't have enough of a record in my opinion to make that judgement. He may just be against war at all cost which also would not be a good thing.

08/27/2008 02:37:26 PM · #73
I don't know - it seems like someone just spreading negative ads using the DPC venue. If I put every ad that I thought was "effective" into a new thread, I'd be doing it all day. There's an agenda here, NO?

Romney

ANother Ad
08/27/2008 02:40:41 PM · #74
Do you think you could give some anecdotal evidence or precedent for this?

Originally posted by vtruan:

There is only one reason Conservatives like me are voting for McCain (I have never really liked him much), he will be nominating Supreme Court justices. Obama would nominate justices who wants to make laws from the bench, not interprete laws that is their real job.
08/27/2008 02:44:14 PM · #75
Originally posted by vtruan:

There is only one reason Conservatives like me are voting for McCain (I have never really liked him much), he will be nominating Supreme Court justices. Obama would nominate justices who wants to make laws from the bench, not interprete laws that is their real job.


Oh yes, beware of those evil "activist judges." (Like the ones that went against virtually all prior jurisprudence to hand Bush the election in 2000.)

"Making laws from the bench" = "activist judge" = judges making rulings you don't agree with.

The problem is not judges "making law," it's judges who align themselves with particular party ideology. Congress gets to write the law, the Executive gets to enforce the law, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the law means. It is meant to be a co-equal branch, not a lap dog for any branch or party.

Originally posted by Federalist No. 78:

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two . . . that . . . the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean, so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments . . .
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 10/28/2020 10:06:11 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: 10/28/2020 10:06:11 PM EDT.