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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> McCain Ads
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 358, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/27/2008 02:46:02 PM · #76
Originally posted by scarbrd:


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?


I wouldn't say I was a one issue voter.. it's just that this is an important social issue. I wouldn't say that it is the most important issue. That would be national security because regardless of whether or not abortion is legal I don't want terrorists to kill our citizens and damage our economy the way it happened on 911.
08/27/2008 02:49:30 PM · #77
Originally posted by metatate:

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.


Obama at a speech he gave to Planned Parenthood-

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. "He loves his wife. He's good to his dog," he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Do we really need to elect someone to any court based on empathy, or based upon their knowledge of the law? I empathize with someone so this law shouldn't apply to them?? Or I empathize with you but you broke the law or this is the law.
08/27/2008 02:49:37 PM · #78
Originally posted by metatate:

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


No not really. Just wanting to discuss politics. I don't expect anything to come of it in the way of changing anyones mind. I'm really not so certain that Barack wouldn't be a great president. He might be. It certainly wouldn't be for lack of brains if he wasn't. He's obviously a smart guy. I have chosen to vote for McCain for the reasons I have already stated however.

edit to add I watched the videos and they weren't that effective in my opinion. They certainly haven't changed my mind. I want a leader to lead and not follow the polls. He obviously was a little disingenuous when trying to curry favor for the surge but I think that is relatively minor. It was hyperbole more or less about the effectiveness of the strategy. The part at the end about the flag was in favor of McCain in my opinion. I think it is good that people and in particular leaders who can admit when they have made a mistake.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 15:04:00.
08/27/2008 02:57:32 PM · #79
Originally posted by dponlyme:

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.

It's an appeal to FUD that targets the least informed. Obama has no less foreign policy experience than Lincoln or JFK.
08/27/2008 03:08:00 PM · #80
Originally posted by dponlyme:


I wouldn't say I was a one issue voter.. it's just that this is an important social issue. I wouldn't say that it is the most important issue. That would be national security because regardless of whether or not abortion is legal I don't want terrorists to kill our citizens and damage our economy the way it happened on 911.


So I suppose, then, if in your opinion national security is the most important issue, that you're frightened by and disappointed with the way the Bush administration handled all the warning signals pre-9/11 -- that is, to ignore all the alarms and treat with derision anyone who tried to warn him? And I suppose you're also outraged over the fact that Bush allowed bin Laden to escape, and then excused this failure by claiming that bin Laden was no longer a threat, while at the same time advancing the false argument that Iraq/Saddam Hussein was the real threat, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?

And yet you're going to vote for a man who supported Bush and his administration in every one of these falsehoods and incompetent acts?

It boggles the mind...
08/27/2008 03:10:20 PM · #81
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

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.

It's an appeal to FUD that targets the least informed. Obama has no less foreign policy experience than Lincoln or JFK.


FUD? I'm not up on the internet lingo.
Perhaps it does target the least informed and perhaps it is not a positive ad but I think it is effective. Doesn't Obama's entire campaign target the least informed? The message of change to me is nothing more than an emotional appeal. He's a great motivational speaker but I am not convinced of his leadership abilities. Quite frankly I'm not convinced of McCain's leadership abilities but I think he is the best bet of the two.
08/27/2008 03:11:23 PM · #82
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

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.

It's an appeal to FUD that targets the least informed. Obama has no less foreign policy experience than Lincoln or JFK.


To expand the point, what makes you think McCain is remotely ready for the infamous 3:00 AM call? He's never had to make those kinds of decisions. Unless you are running for re-election, no one can say they are truly prepared for something like that.

It a sound bite. I don't find the ads particularly effective. I find them shameless in using Hillary to make their point when they've spent countless hours and money attacking her for the last several years. They've used the fear of her possible presidency to raise millions of dollars.

I live in Texas, I once got a direct mail piece form Rudy Guliani asking for money to run against Hillary for the New York senate.

Disingenuous doesn't begin to describe it.

Just wait until the debates. Obama will mop the floor with McCain.
08/27/2008 03:16:26 PM · #83
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by dponlyme:


I wouldn't say I was a one issue voter.. it's just that this is an important social issue. I wouldn't say that it is the most important issue. That would be national security because regardless of whether or not abortion is legal I don't want terrorists to kill our citizens and damage our economy the way it happened on 911.


So I suppose, then, if in your opinion national security is the most important issue, that you're frightened by and disappointed with the way the Bush administration handled all the warning signals pre-9/11 -- that is, to ignore all the alarms and treat with derision anyone who tried to warn him? And I suppose you're also outraged over the fact that Bush allowed bin Laden to escape, and then excused this failure by claiming that bin Laden was no longer a threat, while at the same time advancing the false argument that Iraq/Saddam Hussein was the real threat, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?

And yet you're going to vote for a man who supported Bush and his administration in every one of these falsehoods and incompetent acts?

It boggles the mind...


What about Bill clinton. He could have taken Bin Laden out and chose not to. I don't think you can blame Bush for 911 like you seem to be doing and while I do not support the decision to go to war in iraq I don't think it was entirely unreasonable considering that the entire international community agreed that he had weapons of mass destruction and the congress authorized him to take action if necessary. We can never know the amount by which things were exaggerated or by whom. I do know that there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil since 911 and for this I give Bush an a+.
08/27/2008 03:18:30 PM · #84
Originally posted by dponlyme:

I don't want terrorists to kill our citizens and damage our economy the way it happened on 911.

Of course not, but the cure shouldn't be worse than the disease! More Americans have died in the name of "fighting terrorism" than were ever killed by terrorists, and our economy is in considerably worse shape now than right after 9/11. The deaths of a few thousand on 9/11 led directly to overthrowing two countries at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, 100,000+ lives, and arguably our own civil liberties and international image... all in the name of making sure those responsible don't repeat that catastrophe. The deaths of a few thousand during Hurricane Katrina led to... what exactly? We may find out next week whether those responsible repeat that catastrophe. Given the current administration's lack of domestic policy experience, I'd be worried.
08/27/2008 03:22:35 PM · #85
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

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.

It's an appeal to FUD that targets the least informed. Obama has no less foreign policy experience than Lincoln or JFK.


To expand the point, what makes you think McCain is remotely ready for the infamous 3:00 AM call? He's never had to make those kinds of decisions. Unless you are running for re-election, no one can say they are truly prepared for something like that.

It a sound bite. I don't find the ads particularly effective. I find them shameless in using Hillary to make their point when they've spent countless hours and money attacking her for the last several years. They've used the fear of her possible presidency to raise millions of dollars.

I live in Texas, I once got a direct mail piece form Rudy Guliani asking for money to run against Hillary for the New York senate.

Disingenuous doesn't begin to describe it.

Just wait until the debates. Obama will mop the floor with McCain.


See my answer above your last post. I think he is the best bet of the two.
I do look forward to the debates. While I've made up my mind there's nothing that says I can't change it. It's not likely but I always listen with an open mind. You never know. I think McCain killed him at the saddleback forum but that was kind of already geared towards McCain and his positions so it was no surprise. It also wasn't a debate where they could respond to each other. It will be interesting to see how they do head to head.
08/27/2008 03:29:15 PM · #86
Originally posted by dponlyme:

FUD? I'm not up on the internet lingo.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's not internet lingo, but an acronym in common use. When the economy, and government in general, are in the toilet, a message of change is FAR more appealing than the specter of more of the same.
08/27/2008 03:38:59 PM · #87
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I don't want terrorists to kill our citizens and damage our economy the way it happened on 911.

Of course not, but the cure shouldn't be worse than the disease! More Americans have died in the name of "fighting terrorism" than were ever killed by terrorists, and our economy is in considerably worse shape now than right after 9/11. The deaths of a few thousand on 9/11 led directly to overthrowing two countries at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, 100,000+ lives, and arguably our own civil liberties and international image... all in the name of making sure those responsible don't repeat that catastrophe. The deaths of a few thousand during Hurricane Katrina led to... what exactly? We may find out next week whether those responsible repeat that catastrophe. Given the current administration's lack of domestic policy experience, I'd be worried.


So we shouldn't fight the terrorist? We shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan? Have you personally had your civil liberties curtailed? I don't think the economies problems can necessarily be blamed on the current administration either. I don't so much worry about our international image. There are a lot of people that will hate/dislike us no matter what we do or how we do it. I feel we must do what's right for our own citizens regardless of our international image. One could make a case that we haven't done that but the decision should have nothing to do with our national image. Sometimes i would agree that it is in our citizens best interest to do what is also best for our international image but this is certainly not always the case. As far as Katrina, you sound like as if Bush created the hurricane. Disasters happen and maybe it wasn't dealt with in the best possible way but I feel the state government is more to blame than the federal. They are supposed to be the first responders. They are the ones who should have been better prepared. I seriously doubt Bush caused things to be mishandled.
08/27/2008 03:41:32 PM · #88
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

FUD? I'm not up on the internet lingo.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's not internet lingo, but an acronym in common use. When the economy, and government in general, are in the toilet, a message of change is FAR more appealing than the specter of more of the same.


Learn something new everyday.
08/27/2008 03:43:42 PM · #89
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

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.

It's an appeal to FUD that targets the least informed. Obama has no less foreign policy experience than Lincoln or JFK.


FUD? I'm not up on the internet lingo.
Perhaps it does target the least informed and perhaps it is not a positive ad but I think it is effective. Doesn't Obama's entire campaign target the least informed? The message of change to me is nothing more than an emotional appeal. He's a great motivational speaker but I am not convinced of his leadership abilities. Quite frankly I'm not convinced of McCain's leadership abilities but I think he is the best bet of the two.


What campaign targets the informed? Certainly not McCain's.

I'll take a gamble on change as opposed to 4 more years of the status quo. McCain's projection of himself as a maverick is complete BS. Historically, in his voting record, he toes the party line 95% of the time and since his campaign has begun, his stated positions on those issues where he has differed from the Republican party line have shifted towards the party-line. There's no reason to expect anything different from McCain than if G.W. Bush were re-elected.
08/27/2008 03:45:55 PM · #90
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

There's no reason to expect anything different from McCain than if G.W. Bush were re-elected.

Well, presumably the President will vacation in the Arizona desert rather than the Texas desert ...
08/27/2008 03:48:20 PM · #91
Have you ever been to or seen pictures of that part of Texas? Gez man.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

There's no reason to expect anything different from McCain than if G.W. Bush were re-elected.

Well, presumably the President will vacation in the Arizona desert rather than the Texas desert ...

08/27/2008 03:51:42 PM · #92
Nope -- never been to Texas, though I heard most of it is pretty hot. I guess I should have referenced only the states and not the climate ...
08/27/2008 03:57:54 PM · #93
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

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.

It's an appeal to FUD that targets the least informed. Obama has no less foreign policy experience than Lincoln or JFK.


FUD? I'm not up on the internet lingo.
Perhaps it does target the least informed and perhaps it is not a positive ad but I think it is effective. Doesn't Obama's entire campaign target the least informed? The message of change to me is nothing more than an emotional appeal. He's a great motivational speaker but I am not convinced of his leadership abilities. Quite frankly I'm not convinced of McCain's leadership abilities but I think he is the best bet of the two.


What campaign targets the informed? Certainly not McCain's.

I'll take a gamble on change as opposed to 4 more years of the status quo. McCain's projection of himself as a maverick is complete BS. Historically, in his voting record, he toes the party line 95% of the time and since his campaign has begun, his stated positions on those issues where he has differed from the Republican party line have shifted towards the party-line. There's no reason to expect anything different from McCain than if G.W. Bush were re-elected.


Well I tend to think that most candidates gravitate to the positions that they feel will get them elected and then once elected return to the positions that they truly hold. That's why I suppose I don't put as much into the waffling that both of them do (and they both do it). I think McCain will be very different from Bush when it comes to immigration (another very serious social policy) in particular.
08/27/2008 04:05:45 PM · #94
Originally posted by dponlyme:

As far as Katrina, you sound like as if Bush created the hurricane. Disasters happen and maybe it wasn't dealt with in the best possible way but I feel the state government is more to blame than the federal. They are supposed to be the first responders. They are the ones who should have been better prepared. I seriously doubt Bush caused things to be mishandled.


That's whay we have FEMA. And Bush appointed an unqualified political crony to head the agency as payback for his support to Bush. Still, should it take FEMA 5 days to get water to the Superdome? The local state argument is non-sense. They were overwhelmed. FEMA is supposed to bring the full weight of the federal government to help its people. They failed miserably.

Do you really think we are safer now because of the actions of the administration? Is the world safer since we invaded Iraq? We had them pinned down in a very manageable no fly zome for years. Saddam wasn't going to do anyting to the US. This was was supposed to cost between $80 and $100 billion, and that was a tough one to swallow. Now it is approaching $1 Trillion and no end in sight. Was it worth it? Is it worth the toll on the economy? Was it worth the thousands of lives? Is the region more stable? Did it keep the price of oil down? Why has it taken longer to fight this little regional war than it did to simultaneously bring down the Nazis and Japan in WWII? We're talking Iraq here. And we still haven't found Bin Laden.

I was fully on board with the actions in Afghanistan. That is where the terrorists trained and that is where Bin Laden is holed up. Iraq was a huge mistake and we'll be paying for it for generations. And McCain still thinks is was a good idea. If that's not clueless, I don't know what is.

What you seem to be saying is, McCain is going to do the exact same thing as Bush in regards to Iraq and you're OK with that. At what point do you hold these people accountable for their actions?
08/27/2008 04:13:00 PM · #95

Well, I've heard most of California is pretty queer and is likely to fall off into the ocean if it doesn't get flooded first due to global warming.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Nope -- never been to Texas, though I heard most of it is pretty hot. I guess I should have referenced only the states and not the climate ...

08/27/2008 04:23:33 PM · #96
Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, I've heard most of California is pretty queer and is likely to fall off into the ocean if it doesn't get flooded first due to global warming.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Nope -- never been to Texas, though I heard most of it is pretty hot. I guess I should have referenced only the states and not the climate ...

Your knowledge of plate tectonics seems lacking. Only a small sliver of of California is on the Pacific Plate -- the vast majority is on the North American Plate -- and the fault moves laterally northwards several millimeters/year; nothing will "fall off" into the ocean.
08/27/2008 04:46:33 PM · #97
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, I've heard most of California is pretty queer and is likely to fall off into the ocean if it doesn't get flooded first due to global warming.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Nope -- never been to Texas, though I heard most of it is pretty hot. I guess I should have referenced only the states and not the climate ...

Your knowledge of plate tectonics seems lacking. Only a small sliver of of California is on the Pacific Plate -- the vast majority is on the North American Plate -- and the fault moves laterally northwards several millimeters/year; nothing will "fall off" into the ocean.


I always thought that if the big one ever happens, CA will be OK and the rest of North America will fall into the Atlantic. ;-)

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 16:46:43.
08/27/2008 05:03:59 PM · #98
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

As far as Katrina, you sound like as if Bush created the hurricane. Disasters happen and maybe it wasn't dealt with in the best possible way but I feel the state government is more to blame than the federal. They are supposed to be the first responders. They are the ones who should have been better prepared. I seriously doubt Bush caused things to be mishandled.


That's whay we have FEMA. And Bush appointed an unqualified political crony to head the agency as payback for his support to Bush. Still, should it take FEMA 5 days to get water to the Superdome? The local state argument is non-sense. They were overwhelmed. FEMA is supposed to bring the full weight of the federal government to help its people. They failed miserably.

Do you really think we are safer now because of the actions of the administration? Is the world safer since we invaded Iraq? We had them pinned down in a very manageable no fly zome for years. Saddam wasn't going to do anyting to the US. This was was supposed to cost between $80 and $100 billion, and that was a tough one to swallow. Now it is approaching $1 Trillion and no end in sight. Was it worth it? Is it worth the toll on the economy? Was it worth the thousands of lives? Is the region more stable? Did it keep the price of oil down? Why has it taken longer to fight this little regional war than it did to simultaneously bring down the Nazis and Japan in WWII? We're talking Iraq here. And we still haven't found Bin Laden.

I was fully on board with the actions in Afghanistan. That is where the terrorists trained and that is where Bin Laden is holed up. Iraq was a huge mistake and we'll be paying for it for generations. And McCain still thinks is was a good idea. If that's not clueless, I don't know what is.

What you seem to be saying is, McCain is going to do the exact same thing as Bush in regards to Iraq and you're OK with that. At what point do you hold these people accountable for their actions?


You discard the idea that the state is at fault with Katrina but I do not think you realize that FEMA was not meant to be a first response organization. It is only supposed to act when local and state resources are overwhelmed. Are you telling me that the state of Louisiana couldn't have helicoptered in water and food for the people at the superdome? The state doesn't have a helicopter and access to food and water? They are the ones that put those people in the superdome. You would think that they would have been right on top of making sure that they had what they needed to survive.
I personally think that blaming Bush is a knee-jerk "I don't like bush" type of response. Could things have went better? Of course but the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans carry a huge portion of the blame for not being prepared in my opinion.

To answer your question, yes I do think the actions of the administration have made this country safer. There haven't been any more terrorist attacks on our soil. I think the actions of the administration in regards to wiretapping and other homeland security measures have been appropriate considering the circumstances. It is good that people are challenging these things so as to be assured that our civil liberties are truly protected but I feel that the decisions that the Bush administration has made in regards to counter-terrorism have been both reasonable and effective.

I would like to point out that we 'won' the war a long time ago. I think it took a few days at most to topple saddam hussein. The rest of the time we have been over their it has been a mission to help the Iraqi people to build a democratic government. It has cost us dearly but in comparison to the cost we would pay by simply up and leaving it is quite small in my opinion. In for a dime in for a dollar. We owe the iraqi people now that we have taken away their former government to stay until they can govern themselves fully and adequately. If successful then we will also reap the benefits of having a democratic nation in the middle east. I do want to reiterate that I do not think the invasion was a good idea but once done we have to follow through. It is the only right thing to do both for iraqi citizens and for our own national interests.
08/27/2008 05:17:28 PM · #99
Originally posted by scarbrd:

I always thought that if the big one ever happens, CA will be OK and the rest of North America will fall into the Atlantic. ;-)

Try and check out an old story called The Great Nebraska Sea.
08/27/2008 05:46:04 PM · #100
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

As far as Katrina, you sound like as if Bush created the hurricane. Disasters happen and maybe it wasn't dealt with in the best possible way but I feel the state government is more to blame than the federal. They are supposed to be the first responders. They are the ones who should have been better prepared. I seriously doubt Bush caused things to be mishandled.


That's whay we have FEMA. And Bush appointed an unqualified political crony to head the agency as payback for his support to Bush. Still, should it take FEMA 5 days to get water to the Superdome? The local state argument is non-sense. They were overwhelmed. FEMA is supposed to bring the full weight of the federal government to help its people. They failed miserably.

Do you really think we are safer now because of the actions of the administration? Is the world safer since we invaded Iraq? We had them pinned down in a very manageable no fly zome for years. Saddam wasn't going to do anyting to the US. This was was supposed to cost between $80 and $100 billion, and that was a tough one to swallow. Now it is approaching $1 Trillion and no end in sight. Was it worth it? Is it worth the toll on the economy? Was it worth the thousands of lives? Is the region more stable? Did it keep the price of oil down? Why has it taken longer to fight this little regional war than it did to simultaneously bring down the Nazis and Japan in WWII? We're talking Iraq here. And we still haven't found Bin Laden.

I was fully on board with the actions in Afghanistan. That is where the terrorists trained and that is where Bin Laden is holed up. Iraq was a huge mistake and we'll be paying for it for generations. And McCain still thinks is was a good idea. If that's not clueless, I don't know what is.

What you seem to be saying is, McCain is going to do the exact same thing as Bush in regards to Iraq and you're OK with that. At what point do you hold these people accountable for their actions?


You discard the idea that the state is at fault with Katrina but I do not think you realize that FEMA was not meant to be a first response organization. It is only supposed to act when local and state resources are overwhelmed. Are you telling me that the state of Louisiana couldn't have helicoptered in water and food for the people at the superdome? The state doesn't have a helicopter and access to food and water? They are the ones that put those people in the superdome. You would think that they would have been right on top of making sure that they had what they needed to survive.
I personally think that blaming Bush is a knee-jerk "I don't like bush" type of response. Could things have went better? Of course but the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans carry a huge portion of the blame for not being prepared in my opinion.

To answer your question, yes I do think the actions of the administration have made this country safer. There haven't been any more terrorist attacks on our soil. I think the actions of the administration in regards to wiretapping and other homeland security measures have been appropriate considering the circumstances. It is good that people are challenging these things so as to be assured that our civil liberties are truly protected but I feel that the decisions that the Bush administration has made in regards to counter-terrorism have been both reasonable and effective.

I would like to point out that we 'won' the war a long time ago. I think it took a few days at most to topple saddam hussein. The rest of the time we have been over their it has been a mission to help the Iraqi people to build a democratic government. It has cost us dearly but in comparison to the cost we would pay by simply up and leaving it is quite small in my opinion. In for a dime in for a dollar. We owe the iraqi people now that we have taken away their former government to stay until they can govern themselves fully and adequately. If successful then we will also reap the benefits of having a democratic nation in the middle east. I do want to reiterate that I do not think the invasion was a good idea but once done we have to follow through. It is the only right thing to do both for iraqi citizens and for our own national interests.


Then I think you should vote for McCain. If you really think that everything from Katrina, the economy, the enviornment, our reputation, and the war in Iraq is going so well then McCain will continue all those same policies.

Forgive me if I disagree on each and every point. Gosh, all these things just seemed so much better under the last administration.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/23/2020 09:01:49 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: 01/23/2020 09:01:49 PM EST.