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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> McCain Ads
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 358, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/29/2008 03:28:34 PM · #201
Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by JH:

Spot the difference;

' . substr('//newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44971000/jpg/_44971265_kiss_ap_226i.jpg', strrpos('//newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44971000/jpg/_44971265_kiss_ap_226i.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

' . substr('//www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/28/clinton.lewinsky/clinton.lewinsky.hug.t1.jpg', strrpos('//www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/28/clinton.lewinsky/clinton.lewinsky.hug.t1.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


the beret, right? ;-)


the difference is one hand vs two... :)

You can't see Monica's second hand, it's busy.. :-/
08/29/2008 03:30:18 PM · #202
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I don't think McCain picked her because she's attractive, although that never hurts with some folks. But in the last hour or so I tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh show (a right-wing extremist fanatic with a popular radio show, for anyone outside the U.S. who is not familiar with him) who was mighty enthusiastic about Palin; and then also heard an interview with Ann Coulter, also very enthusiastic and full of praise for McCain's pick.

Call me superficial, but that's really all I need to know about Sarah Palin.


Word up!
08/29/2008 03:33:10 PM · #203
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh show (a right-wing extremist fanatic with a popular radio show, for anyone outside the U.S. who is not familiar with him) who was mighty enthusiastic about Palin


Rush Limbaugh would have been mighty enthusiastic about the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man had he been chosen as a running mate, for the sake of towing the party line.
08/29/2008 03:33:12 PM · #204
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by dponlyme:



As I've stated before, I don't trust Obama to lead our country in this age of terrorism. I feel he will be soft on national security. I also don't like his pro-choice stance but that is way secondary.


I'm just going to ask again seeing as your brouth it up... what age of terrorism... there hasn't been more OR LESS since Bush... but please correct me if I'm wrong... and really what is McCain going to do that's going too change that in your opinion that Obama wouldn't/Couldn't?


Invade Iran.


If that were necessary, yes. I'm not against invading Iran if it were necessary to make sure we don't end up getting nuked. That being said, I don't think that it will be necessary but I would definitely trust John McCain to make that decision moreso than Obama. Experience does matter. That being said It's super scary to me to think that if for some reason McCain falls ill (like he's older than dust) that Palin would be in charge who like Obama doesn't have any. Maybe McCain should have picked Hillary. I would definitely trust her more with national security and she would definitely have carried the election for him. Think she would have accepted? nah probably not.
08/29/2008 03:35:16 PM · #205
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I don't think McCain picked her because she's attractive, although that never hurts with some folks. But in the last hour or so I tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh show (a right-wing extremist fanatic with a popular radio show, for anyone outside the U.S. who is not familiar with him) who was mighty enthusiastic about Palin; and then also heard an interview with Ann Coulter, also very enthusiastic and full of praise for McCain's pick.

Call me superficial, but that's really all I need to know about Sarah Palin.


Word up!


They would have been enthusiastic at just about whoever he picked. It means nothing.
08/29/2008 03:35:17 PM · #206
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by dponlyme:



As I've stated before, I don't trust Obama to lead our country in this age of terrorism. I feel he will be soft on national security. I also don't like his pro-choice stance but that is way secondary.


I'm just going to ask again seeing as your brouth it up... what age of terrorism... there hasn't been more OR LESS since Bush... but please correct me if I'm wrong... and really what is McCain going to do that's going too change that in your opinion that Obama wouldn't/Couldn't?


Invade Iran.


If that were necessary, yes. I'm not against invading Iran if it were necessary to make sure we don't end up getting nuked. That being said, I don't think that it will be necessary but I would definitely trust John McCain to make that decision moreso than Obama. Experience does matter. That being said It's super scary to me to think that if for some reason McCain falls ill (like he's older than dust) that Palin would be in charge who like Obama doesn't have any. Maybe McCain should have picked Hillary. I would definitely trust her more with national security and she would definitely have carried the election for him. Think she would have accepted? nah probably not.


original question still stands here... you said you don't trust obama in this age of terrorism... what age of terrorism?
08/29/2008 03:36:23 PM · #207
Good point. Rush was so anti-McCain before he won the primaries, he needed an opportunity to jump back with him .. and apparently this is it ? Pretty sad.

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh show (a right-wing extremist fanatic with a popular radio show, for anyone outside the U.S. who is not familiar with him) who was mighty enthusiastic about Palin


Rush Limbaugh would have been mighty enthusiastic about the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man had he been chosen as a running mate, for the sake of towing the party line.
08/29/2008 03:36:49 PM · #208
Originally posted by Eyesup:


original question still stands here... you said you don't trust obama in this age of terrorism... what age of terrorism?


The one where they fly planes into our buildings on our own soil and kill our citizens.
edit to add: and put major dents in our economy.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 15:38:14.
08/29/2008 03:41:28 PM · #209
Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by dponlyme:



As I've stated before, I don't trust Obama to lead our country in this age of terrorism. I feel he will be soft on national security. I also don't like his pro-choice stance but that is way secondary.


I'm just going to ask again seeing as your brouth it up... what age of terrorism... there hasn't been more OR LESS since Bush... but please correct me if I'm wrong... and really what is McCain going to do that's going too change that in your opinion that Obama wouldn't/Couldn't?


Invade Iran.


and that woudld do what to stop terrorists? or maybe that's the plan o make more terrorists that then justifies more radical actions, which then breeds more terrorist...etc


Made sense with Iraq, didn't it?
08/29/2008 03:41:45 PM · #210
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I don't think McCain picked her because she's attractive, although that never hurts with some folks. But in the last hour or so I tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh show (a right-wing extremist fanatic with a popular radio show, for anyone outside the U.S. who is not familiar with him) who was mighty enthusiastic about Palin; and then also heard an interview with Ann Coulter, also very enthusiastic and full of praise for McCain's pick.

Call me superficial, but that's really all I need to know about Sarah Palin.


Word up!


They would have been enthusiastic at just about whoever he picked. It means nothing.


Not if he had picked Tom Ridge, probably the most qualified, from a battlegorund state, but alas, he's pro-choice. And we can't have that.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 15:42:23.
08/29/2008 03:42:03 PM · #211
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Eyesup:


original question still stands here... you said you don't trust obama in this age of terrorism... what age of terrorism?


The one where they fly planes into our buildings on our own soil and kill our citizens.
edit to add: and put major dents in our economy.


but that did't just start did it? and do you thing McCain is likely to end it? do you think that Invading country after Country is going to make things better?

also don't you think the dent in your economy has something to do with the billions of dollars of debt you carry?

again, just for debate, not for attack
08/29/2008 03:51:23 PM · #212
LOL From the NY Times:

"She hunts! She fishes! She eats moose burgers! She can gut a salmon as well as dispatch an incumbent governor! She’s a rural mother of five who clings to guns and religion -– exuberantly!"
08/29/2008 03:51:40 PM · #213
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I don't think McCain picked her because she's attractive, although that never hurts with some folks. But in the last hour or so I tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh show (a right-wing extremist fanatic with a popular radio show, for anyone outside the U.S. who is not familiar with him) who was mighty enthusiastic about Palin; and then also heard an interview with Ann Coulter, also very enthusiastic and full of praise for McCain's pick.

Call me superficial, but that's really all I need to know about Sarah Palin.


Word up!


They would have been enthusiastic at just about whoever he picked. It means nothing.


Wrong. Limbaugh, and Coulter especially, even recently, have been very harsh in their criticism of McCain. Coulter even claimed she would vote for Hillary before she'd vote for McCain.

In any event, just found an interesting blog post about Palin from an Alaskan blogger here.

Here's an excerpt:

"Before her meteoric rise to political success as governor, just two short years ago Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla. I had a good chuckle at MSN.com’s claim that she had been the mayor of “Wasilla City”. It is not a city. Just Wasilla. Wasilla is the heart of the Alaska “Bible belt” and Sarah was raised amongst the tribe that believes creationism should be taught in our public schools, homosexuality is a sin, and life begins at conception. She’s a gun-toting, hang ‘em high conservative. Remember…this is where her approval ratings come from. There is no doubt that McCain again is making a strategic choice to appeal to a particular demographic - fundamentalist right-wing gun-owning Christians."
08/29/2008 03:51:52 PM · #214
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by dponlyme:



As I've stated before, I don't trust Obama to lead our country in this age of terrorism. I feel he will be soft on national security. I also don't like his pro-choice stance but that is way secondary.


I'm just going to ask again seeing as your brouth it up... what age of terrorism... there hasn't been more OR LESS since Bush... but please correct me if I'm wrong... and really what is McCain going to do that's going too change that in your opinion that Obama wouldn't/Couldn't?


Invade Iran.


If that were necessary, yes. I'm not against invading Iran if it were necessary to make sure we don't end up getting nuked. That being said, I don't think that it will be necessary but I would definitely trust John McCain to make that decision moreso than Obama. Experience does matter. That being said It's super scary to me to think that if for some reason McCain falls ill (like he's older than dust) that Palin would be in charge who like Obama doesn't have any. Maybe McCain should have picked Hillary. I would definitely trust her more with national security and she would definitely have carried the election for him. Think she would have accepted? nah probably not.


How the heck would Iran nuke us? Assuming they don't irradiate themselves in the process? Or do you mean nuking Israel? Do you think they're going to fly their bomber over the DC and drop one down the chimney? or maybe put one on an ICBM and take out NY. The simple answer is: they can't. They don't have a bomber capable of doing so, not to mention, it'd be shot down. They also don't have missiles capable of striking an intercontinetal target. They MIGHT be able to hit Israel. There's a lot more to a nuclear bomb that what you watch on 24. This is the real world, not TV.

As if the rest of the world doesn't hate us enough for starting a war with Iraq, invading Iran would certainly do the trick. We'd become the new Evil Empire.

Experience doesn't matter as much as you'd like to think.
08/29/2008 03:52:12 PM · #215
Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Eyesup:


original question still stands here... you said you don't trust obama in this age of terrorism... what age of terrorism?


The one where they fly planes into our buildings on our own soil and kill our citizens.
edit to add: and put major dents in our economy.


but that did't just start did it? and do you thing McCain is likely to end it? do you think that Invading country after Country is going to make things better?

also don't you think the dent in your economy has something to do with the billions of dollars of debt you carry?

again, just for debate, not for attack


I hear you. No terrorism didn't just start with 911 but it sure did wake people up to what we were facing. You can't unring the bell and pretend that everything is ok anymore like we did before that attack. No I don't think the debt is having such a huge effect on our economy presently. That's more of a problem down the line. That has to be addressed by cutting out all of the earmarks and crap that gets floated through in these massive spending bills that congress passes and only spend on what we actually need. We have to find a way to stop all of the waste. I don't think Obama or McCain have an inside track to getting that done.
08/29/2008 04:01:38 PM · #216
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Eyesup:


original question still stands here... you said you don't trust obama in this age of terrorism... what age of terrorism?


The one where they fly planes into our buildings on our own soil and kill our citizens.
edit to add: and put major dents in our economy.


but that did't just start did it? and do you thing McCain is likely to end it? do you think that Invading country after Country is going to make things better?

also don't you think the dent in your economy has something to do with the billions of dollars of debt you carry?

again, just for debate, not for attack


I hear you. No terrorism didn't just start with 911 but it sure did wake people up to what we were facing. You can't unring the bell and pretend that everything is ok anymore like we did before that attack. No I don't think the debt is having such a huge effect on our economy presently. That's more of a problem down the line. That has to be addressed by cutting out all of the earmarks and crap that gets floated through in these massive spending bills that congress passes and only spend on what we actually need. We have to find a way to stop all of the waste. I don't think Obama or McCain have an inside track to getting that done.


no one said let's un-ring the bell... but let's seperate what the sensationalist media tells us from what reality actually is? is the world MORE dangerous than it was before 9/11? Hmmm... and even if it is, is the same old approach of invading one country after another always chasing the spector of "National Security" really going to make this 'world' Safer?

I tend to think that it actually does the opposite, every time the US invades a country it breeds a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill you...
08/29/2008 04:06:18 PM · #217
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by dponlyme:



As I've stated before, I don't trust Obama to lead our country in this age of terrorism. I feel he will be soft on national security. I also don't like his pro-choice stance but that is way secondary.


I'm just going to ask again seeing as your brouth it up... what age of terrorism... there hasn't been more OR LESS since Bush... but please correct me if I'm wrong... and really what is McCain going to do that's going too change that in your opinion that Obama wouldn't/Couldn't?


Invade Iran.


If that were necessary, yes. I'm not against invading Iran if it were necessary to make sure we don't end up getting nuked. That being said, I don't think that it will be necessary but I would definitely trust John McCain to make that decision moreso than Obama. Experience does matter. That being said It's super scary to me to think that if for some reason McCain falls ill (like he's older than dust) that Palin would be in charge who like Obama doesn't have any. Maybe McCain should have picked Hillary. I would definitely trust her more with national security and she would definitely have carried the election for him. Think she would have accepted? nah probably not.


How the heck would Iran nuke us? Assuming they don't irradiate themselves in the process? Or do you mean nuking Israel? Do you think they're going to fly their bomber over the DC and drop one down the chimney? or maybe put one on an ICBM and take out NY. The simple answer is: they can't. They don't have a bomber capable of doing so, not to mention, it'd be shot down. They also don't have missiles capable of striking an intercontinetal target. They MIGHT be able to hit Israel. There's a lot more to a nuclear bomb that what you watch on 24. This is the real world, not TV.

As if the rest of the world doesn't hate us enough for starting a war with Iraq, invading Iran would certainly do the trick. We'd become the new Evil Empire.

Experience doesn't matter as much as you'd like to think.


I realize that they don't currently have the missile technology to shoot one over at us. Doesn't mean they couldn't acquire that at some point just as they are acquiring the necessary technology and materials to make a nuke.

If experience doesn't matter that much to you then by all means vote for Obama/Biden.... or McCain/Palin... damn it's on both tickets now.
08/29/2008 04:14:18 PM · #218
Originally posted by Eyesup:

no one said let's un-ring the bell... but let's seperate what the sensationalist media tells us from what reality actually is? is the world MORE dangerous than it was before 9/11? Hmmm... and even if it is, is the same old approach of invading one country after another always chasing the spector of "National Security" really going to make this 'world' Safer?

I tend to think that it actually does the opposite, every time the US invades a country it breeds a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill you...


The fact of the matter is, the world is more dangerous than it was 8 years ago. The Russian intervention in Georgia demonstrates that. The US no longer has the international polictical muscle (or moral standing) to keep Russia, China, India, or whomever from running roughshod over their neighbors. The only way to make the world safer is for broad international agreement and cooperation, not continued unilateral cowboy diplomacy. I'll leave it to you to decide which ticket offers the best hope for that.
08/29/2008 04:16:52 PM · #219
Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

no one said let's un-ring the bell... but let's seperate what the sensationalist media tells us from what reality actually is? is the world MORE dangerous than it was before 9/11? Hmmm... and even if it is, is the same old approach of invading one country after another always chasing the spector of "National Security" really going to make this 'world' Safer?

I tend to think that it actually does the opposite, every time the US invades a country it breeds a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill you...


The fact of the matter is, the world is more dangerous than it was 8 years ago. The Russian intervention in Georgia demonstrates that. The US no longer has the international polictical muscle (or moral standing) to keep Russia, China, India, or whomever from running roughshod over their neighbors. The only way to make the world safer is for broad international agreement and cooperation, not continued unilateral cowboy diplomacy. I'll leave it to you to decide which ticket offers the best hope for that.


I agree with the second part but not the first... please tell me how the world is more dangerous? quantify this for me, because I neither see an increase or decrease in the level of violence in the world

ETA: and for the record my only real stake in this electoral race is finding out which butt our priminister is going to be kissing for the next few years...lol (that's only a half joke)

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 16:18:33.
08/29/2008 04:19:03 PM · #220
Originally posted by Eyesup:



no one said let's un-ring the bell... but let's seperate what the sensationalist media tells us from what reality actually is? is the world MORE dangerous than it was before 9/11? Hmmm... and even if it is, is the same old approach of invading one country after another always chasing the spector of "National Security" really going to make this 'world' Safer?

I tend to think that it actually does the opposite, every time the US invades a country it breeds a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill you...


You say it like we've done it a hundred times. Afghanistan was a no brainer. We had to invade their country because they (taliban) were undoubtedly in cahoots with the people who attacked us (al qaida). I don't think that garnered any opposition in the world community outside of those who already hate us. Iraq was another story. obviously a mistake in retrospect. To answer your question the answer is no but we are not invading country after country willy nilly as you seem to be saying. There are times when military action is necessary and I don't know what the future holds but I would rather have an experienced person at the helm when the decisions have to be made. I tend to think that there will be a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill us no matter what we do. If we are tough then that's a reason to kill us and if we are soft that's a way to kill us. I'd rather be tough than soft.
08/29/2008 04:25:50 PM · #221
Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

no one said let's un-ring the bell... but let's seperate what the sensationalist media tells us from what reality actually is? is the world MORE dangerous than it was before 9/11? Hmmm... and even if it is, is the same old approach of invading one country after another always chasing the spector of "National Security" really going to make this 'world' Safer?

I tend to think that it actually does the opposite, every time the US invades a country it breeds a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill you...


The fact of the matter is, the world is more dangerous than it was 8 years ago. The Russian intervention in Georgia demonstrates that. The US no longer has the international polictical muscle (or moral standing) to keep Russia, China, India, or whomever from running roughshod over their neighbors. The only way to make the world safer is for broad international agreement and cooperation, not continued unilateral cowboy diplomacy. I'll leave it to you to decide which ticket offers the best hope for that.


I agree with the second part but not the first... please tell me how the world is more dangerous? quantify this for me, because I neither see an increase or decrease in the level of violence in the world

ETA: and for the record my only real stake in this electoral race is finding out which butt our priminister is going to be kissing for the next few years...lol (that's only a half joke)


I don't know -- with all the petrochemical resources in Canada, maybe we'll be kissing your butts :)

The Russia/Georgia situation is particularly glaring to me in that it highlights the fact that we have much less recourse against nations that perform unilateral military actions. The fact that the West could really do nothing but watch as Russia did as they pleased in Georgia sends a bad message to Russia and other nations that may have similar ambitions. Danger doesn't necessary mean that violence is happening, it means that the potential for violence is increasing. And I firmly believe that the current administration's neglect of international cooperation has had a dual affect of alienating more would-be terrorists and enabling Russia to act unilaterily.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 16:26:37.
08/29/2008 04:29:21 PM · #222
Good discussion point. How would Obama and McCain's response to what happened in Georgia differ?

08/29/2008 04:29:36 PM · #223
Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Eyesup:

no one said let's un-ring the bell... but let's seperate what the sensationalist media tells us from what reality actually is? is the world MORE dangerous than it was before 9/11? Hmmm... and even if it is, is the same old approach of invading one country after another always chasing the spector of "National Security" really going to make this 'world' Safer?

I tend to think that it actually does the opposite, every time the US invades a country it breeds a whole new batch of people willing to kill themselves to kill you...


The fact of the matter is, the world is more dangerous than it was 8 years ago. The Russian intervention in Georgia demonstrates that. The US no longer has the international polictical muscle (or moral standing) to keep Russia, China, India, or whomever from running roughshod over their neighbors. The only way to make the world safer is for broad international agreement and cooperation, not continued unilateral cowboy diplomacy. I'll leave it to you to decide which ticket offers the best hope for that.


I agree with the second part but not the first... please tell me how the world is more dangerous? quantify this for me, because I neither see an increase or decrease in the level of violence in the world

ETA: and for the record my only real stake in this electoral race is finding out which butt our priminister is going to be kissing for the next few years...lol (that's only a half joke)


I don't know -- with all the petrochemical resources in Canada, maybe we'll be kissing your butts :)

The Russia/Georgia situation is particularly glaring to me in that it highlights the fact that we have much less recourse against nations that perform unilateral military actions. The fact that the West could really do nothing but watch as Russia did as they pleased in Georgia sends a bad message to Russia and other nations that may have similar ambitions. Danger doesn't necessary mean that violence is happening, it means that the potential for violence is increasing. And I firmly believe that the current administration's neglect of international cooperation has had a dual affect of alienating more would-be terrorists and enabling Russia to act unilaterily.


What's sad is that Russia has far more justification for its invasion of Georgia than the US does for the invasion of Iraq.
08/29/2008 04:33:31 PM · #224
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


What's sad is that Russia has far more justification for its invasion of Georgia than the US does for the invasion of Iraq.


I'd like to hear more... what coalition of nations did russia put together? Georgia break any UN resolutions?
08/29/2008 04:35:27 PM · #225
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Good discussion point. How would Obama and McCain's response to what happened in Georgia differ?


McCain seems to be supporting the unilateral nature of Bush's foreign policy, so I suspect that he would continue to escalate with Russia by continuing to push for NATO membership for more former Soviet states and installing missile defense systems along their border. Obama seems to be calling for more internation cooperation, so I suspect he would work with allies to create economic incentives to keep Russia in check while utilizing back-door diplomacy (i.e., actually talking to the Russians and yes, making concessions such as not pushing for NATO memberships, etc.,).

ETA: More importantly, I believe that by reaching out to our allies and even to our perceived enemies, we can regain the moral high ground and be able to show a more-unified front to agressive nations and terrorist organizations.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 16:42:30.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 01/23/2020 09:03:17 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 09:03:17 PM EST.