| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/20/2008 05:12:17 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Some one just sent me this in an email! :-))
 |
HAHAHAHA! |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:14:23 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
Originally posted by bmartuch:
I'm afraid that he will be linked to terrorists because his last name is Obama. Remember, if a lie is told enough times, people start to believe it. |
I don't normally say this; in fact this is a question I would never have thought I would have to ask, but is it possible that you are underestimating the American public? I'm sure you can find people who will say this because they think it's funny, but to actually believe it requires levels of stupidity, paranoia and the kind of drug abuse that would have made Hunter S. Thompson recoil in disgust.
|
If folks bothered to check on snopes.com they would find out that the current information circulating about Obama being linked to terrorists is all a MYTH!
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:19:46 PM · #303 |
Him being linked is a myth? (obviously)
Or that information is circulating?
Just not sure which you meant.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:55:51 PM · #304 |
Just when I thought I couldn't be any more disgusted with the idea of the media cherry picking our candidates, I watched TV last night.
Did anyone notice how the second place Republican winner in the Nevada caucus wasn't mentioned? They actually went out of their way to avoid bringing up his name. Worse yet, they put another candidate's name in his place by "accident". This isn't some benign mistake, it is a nefarious action that should outrage anyone who values their freedom.
People keep asking me who I'm voting for and when I say "Ron Paul" the response is always the same: "Who is that? You never hear about him on TV." My disgust has turned to anger and now to deep sadness at the thought of a nation of people who believe they are acting on free will, while viable candidates are being blacked-out by a propaganda machine.
BTW, those internet rumors about Obama and the derogatory bumper stickers about Clinton, etc. are all part of the ploy. They want to keep you bickering about silly crap, when the truth is that any one of the major candidates is just fine with the corporations who are making our selections for us.
Message edited by author 2008-01-20 18:05:31. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 05:56:08 PM · #305 |
The democratic base consists of very emotional, highly sensitive people...and/or individuals/families on the poorer end of the spectrum. Democrats aren't nearly as concerned with the actual issue(s) at hand, from practical standpoint, as they are with the emotional ramifications of an issue. I'm scared to death of a democrat being elected to office. Anyone that puts their emotions ahead of facts and reality is asking for trouble. For these very reasons, candidates like Obama and Clinton are able to sway large numbers of people without actually talking about anything specific. Clinton can shed a few tears and rack up a couple million new votes. Obama can say "It's time for a change" (with no specifics) and another million emotional, hyper sensitive people flock his direction. You don't see that happening on the republican side. Republicans will acknolwedge that Clinton's tears MIGHT humanize her a little more...but that's where it ends. They won't be swayed by a few salt-laden droplets of H2O falling out of her tear ducts. She has no "real" presidential experience behind her. She's only known because of her husband. Obama has virtually no executive experience of any kind. He's a good speaker that communicates party slogans well. That's it. Compared to the proven leadership on the republican side, it's amazing more people aren't being swayed republican. Who do we REALLY want running our country? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Or one of the republican options that have lead army's, corporations, cities, etc. through both good and bad times. It's amazing that people give the democrats the time of day. I guess 50% of Americans are basically saying, in a nutshell, "We don't really care about actual leadership experience. We love getting taxed more. Quality of life is irrelevant...we'd rather starve! The economy doesn't matter. We're more interested in global warming, saving sea lions, and making each other feel good." The democratic party is very awkward and backwards. I think when the actual candidates are selected from both parties, people will ultimately vote in a republican president. As much as democrats want to be emotionally pampered, the issues still take precedence. The endless, ridiculous "change" slogans only go so far. People aren't stupid (some are...and they usually vote democratic for the simple reason that even a stupid person has emotions...but more than likely don't take the time to analyze the issues - hence, stupidity). I'm clearly a republican. I study the issues. I study the people. I honestly think if someone is rational, putting feel-good-driven emotions aside, a republican candidate is the only real option if you care about any kind of "real" change and improvement.
Message edited by author 2008-01-20 17:58:39.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 06:08:37 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by chafer:
The democratic base consists of very emotional, highly sensitive people...and/or individuals/families on the poorer end of the spectrum. Democrats aren't nearly as concerned with the actual issue(s) at hand, from practical standpoint, as they are with the emotional ramifications of an issue. I'm scared to death of a democrat being elected to office. Anyone that puts their emotions ahead of facts and reality is asking for trouble. For these very reasons, candidates like Obama and Clinton are able to sway large numbers of people without actually talking about anything specific. Clinton can shed a few tears and rack up a couple million new votes. Obama can say "It's time for a change" (with no specifics) and another million emotional, hyper sensitive people flock his direction. You don't see that happening on the republican side. Republicans will acknolwedge that Clinton's tears MIGHT humanize her a little more...but that's where it ends. They won't be swayed by a few salt-laden droplets of H2O falling out of her tear ducts. She has no "real" presidential experience behind her. She's only known because of her husband. Obama has virtually no executive experience of any kind. He's a good speaker that communicates party slogans well. That's it. Compared to the proven leadership on the republican side, it's amazing more people aren't being swayed republican. Who do we REALLY want running our country? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Or one of the republican options that have lead army's, corporations, cities, etc. through both good and bad times. It's amazing that people give the democrats the time of day. I guess 50% of Americans are basically saying, in a nutshell, "We don't really care about actual leadership experience. We love getting taxed more. Quality of life is irrelevant...we'd rather starve! The economy doesn't matter. We're more interested in global warming, saving sea lions, and making each other feel good." The democratic party is very awkward and backwards. I think when the actual candidates are selected from both parties, people will ultimately vote in a republican president. As much as democrats want to be emotionally pampered, the issues still take precedence. The endless, ridiculous "change" slogans only go so far. People aren't stupid (some are...and they usually vote democratic for the simple reason that even a stupid person has emotions...but more than likely don't take the time to analyze the issues - hence, stupidity). I'm clearly a republican. I study the issues. I study the people. I honestly think if someone is rational, putting feel-good-driven emotions aside, a republican candidate is the only real option if you care about any kind of "real" change and improvement. |
Yeah, we see how far the "Family Values" thing got us;) Truth is that neither party has a monopoly on ineptness and corruption...no, make that "Evil". The Bush administration is now trying to preemptively pardon themselves of war crimes. I think I'm going to be sick.
Message edited by author 2008-01-20 18:16:24. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 06:32:54 PM · #307 |
Read deeper into what I just wrote. Don't look at the surface. I'm not talking about individuals or specific incidences...I'm referring to the core personalities of democrats. I'm also not saying that republicans don't have faults. But look at the bigger, non-political picture. Lool at the core tendencies and attitudes.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 06:42:29 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by chafer:
Read deeper into what I just wrote. Don't look at the surface. I'm not talking about individuals or specific incidences...I'm referring to the core personalities of democrats. I'm also not saying that republicans don't have faults. But look at the bigger, non-political picture. Lool at the core tendencies and attitudes. |
Although I'm just changed my registration to Republican, for the primaries, I vehemently disagree with just about everything they are currently doing and say they want to do (Aside from Ron Paul). "They talk out of both sides of their mouth." (As my grandma used to put it). When I do analyze the issues, I weigh in as a Libertarian. I think the two party system has outstayed its welcome. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 07:22:20 PM · #309 |
I would agree with you to an extent. I think things are way too partisan. But again, I'm talking about people's personalities and emotional tendencies more than anything else. I've paid close attention to the democrats and the republicans I talk to. The democrats I know (very well in most cases) are very sensitive people...usually to a detriment. Everything needs to be "fair" and "equal." I've known most of them for years also...since we were kids. They were that way when they were young also. Their feelings were hurt very easy, they didn't want other people to "lose" in sports, etc. Equality was paramount. It's interesting, if anything. Actual issues, facts, intelligence, etc. take a back seat to raw emotion. As far as the republicans go, I don't think they're all talking out of one side of their mouth. However, if you strongly believe that about the republican candidates, you absolutely have to extend that analysis to the democrats. I think people usually exclude democrats from the "both sides of their mouth" example because they are using emotion versus facts to gather their followers. It's hard to say "you're emotionally on both sides of the issue." Republicans are actually giving concrete examples of things they've done...and it's easier to pick apart. Democrats are all about emotion...tugging at your heart strings...and for whatever reason that sucks people in and makes them less likely criticize their comments. Another interesting thing to analyze.
Message edited by author 2008-01-20 19:24:26.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 07:39:34 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by chafer:
I would agree with you to an extent. I think things are way too partisan. But again, I'm talking about people's personalities and emotional tendencies more than anything else. I've paid close attention to the democrats and the republicans I talk to. The democrats I know (very well in most cases) are very sensitive people...usually to a detriment. Everything needs to be "fair" and "equal." I've known most of them for years also...since we were kids. They were that way when they were young also. Their feelings were hurt very easy, they didn't want other people to "lose" in sports, etc. Equality was paramount. It's interesting, if anything. Actual issues, facts, intelligence, etc. take a back seat to raw emotion. As far as the republicans go, I don't think they're all talking out of one side of their mouth. However, if you strongly believe that about the republican candidates, you absolutely have to extend that analysis to the democrats. I think people usually exclude democrats from the "both sides of their mouth" example because they are using emotion versus facts to gather their followers. It's hard to say "you're emotionally on both sides of the issue." Republicans are actually giving concrete examples of things they've done...and it's easier to pick apart. Democrats are all about emotion...tugging at your heart strings...and for whatever reason that sucks people in and makes them less likely criticize their comments. Another interesting thing to analyze. |
Oh, no worries there. I feel that the leading contenders (as per the media) in both parties are either dishonest or painfully naive. My point is that "Republicans" (I use that term loosely) are just as guilty of promoting emotional wedge issues as Democrats. The difference being that their arsenal is filled with issues of Christianity, Abortion Rights and Gay Marriage. I want a candidate who lives his values instead of spouting off whatever he thinks will get him/her elected.
Message edited by author 2008-01-20 19:39:49. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 07:43:27 PM · #311 |
I don't mind a candidate that lives his values as long as their values aren't forced onto the general populace.
Church and state should be kept separate. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 07:51:58 PM · #312 |
That's a fair statement. It's interesting to look at how Huckabee uses/references his religion in almost every speech he makes. Everything about his campaign relies on and hinges on his church base. Romney, on the other hand, is a very devout Mormon. But he rarely if ever mentions his church. He's not going out preaching to "Mormons" and making a big deal out of his religion. He doesn't need to leverage religion to get his point across...unlike Huckabee.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2008 08:13:17 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by chafer:
That's a fair statement. It's interesting to look at how Huckabee uses/references his religion in almost every speech he makes. Everything about his campaign relies on and hinges on his church base. Romney, on the other hand, is a very devout Mormon. But he rarely if ever mentions his church. He's not going out preaching to "Mormons" and making a big deal out of his religion. He doesn't need to leverage religion to get his point across...unlike Huckabee. |
True. But I have to wonder if he would still refrain from playing the faith card if his religion was embraced by the majority. I just can't seem to reconcile the idea that a religious person can promote their claim to morality without vehemently speaking and acting out against the killing and torture perpetrated by our government. This strikes me as disingenuine and dangerous. |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 08:36:40 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Church and state should be kept separate. |
Absolutely!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
01/20/2008 10:23:20 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by chafer:
That's a fair statement. It's interesting to look at how Huckabee uses/references his religion in almost every speech he makes. Everything about his campaign relies on and hinges on his church base. Romney, on the other hand, is a very devout Mormon. But he rarely if ever mentions his church. He's not going out preaching to "Mormons" and making a big deal out of his religion. He doesn't need to leverage religion to get his point across...unlike Huckabee. |
I suspect Romney doesn't play the "Mormon" or "religion" card because so many "mainstream" Christians don't trust/believe Mormons or Mormonism. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 03:23:16 PM · #316 |
| One day while campaigning against Dwight Eisenhower during the 1952 presidential election, Adlai Stevenson was approached by a female admirer. "Governor," she enthused, "every thinking person will be voting for you." "Madam, that is not enough," Stevenson replied. "I need a majority!" |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 08:12:06 AM · #317 |
Wow! How about that debate last night?
I just wrote MSNBC a scathing email.
If you ever doubted that the media is choosing our next ruler, that should be evidence enough.
My favorite parts:
1. The fact that Ron Paul was actually there. It took them 15 minutes before he was even shown.
2. The way McCain stumbled fell down the stairs when asked a question about the economy by Dr. Paul.
3. How they decided to deflect the hard questions by focusing on Hillary Clinton instead of their own policies.
4. How MSNBC is now drooling over the phony Mitt Romney.
Yuck!
That's my take, how did everyone else feel about the debate?
Message edited by author 2008-01-25 17:19:39. |
|
|
|
02/06/2008 11:27:25 AM · #318 |
Would it qualify as irony if Obama does not receive the nomination because of one minority's prejudice against another?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2008 11:47:09 AM · #319 |
Originally posted by chafer:
That's a fair statement. It's interesting to look at how Huckabee uses/references his religion in almost every speech he makes. Everything about his campaign relies on and hinges on his church base. Romney, on the other hand, is a very devout Mormon. But he rarely if ever mentions his church. He's not going out preaching to "Mormons" and making a big deal out of his religion. He doesn't need to leverage religion to get his point across...unlike Huckabee. |
Mike Huckabee: âI have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe itâs a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thatâs what we need to do is amend the Constitution so itâs in Godâs standards rather than trying to change Godâs standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.â
|
|
|
|
02/06/2008 11:49:03 AM · #320 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by chafer:
That's a fair statement. It's interesting to look at how Huckabee uses/references his religion in almost every speech he makes. Everything about his campaign relies on and hinges on his church base. Romney, on the other hand, is a very devout Mormon. But he rarely if ever mentions his church. He's not going out preaching to "Mormons" and making a big deal out of his religion. He doesn't need to leverage religion to get his point across...unlike Huckabee. |
Mike Huckabee: âI have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe itâs a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thatâs what we need to do is amend the Constitution so itâs in Godâs standards rather than trying to change Godâs standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.â |
Chilling. |
|
|
|
02/06/2008 11:50:03 AM · #321 |
Simple: Obama.
November, I will vote for Obama ;) |
|
|
|
02/06/2008 11:51:35 AM · #322 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by chafer:
That's a fair statement. It's interesting to look at how Huckabee uses/references his religion in almost every speech he makes. Everything about his campaign relies on and hinges on his church base. Romney, on the other hand, is a very devout Mormon. But he rarely if ever mentions his church. He's not going out preaching to "Mormons" and making a big deal out of his religion. He doesn't need to leverage religion to get his point across...unlike Huckabee. |
Mike Huckabee: âI have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe itâs a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thatâs what we need to do is amend the Constitution so itâs in Godâs standards rather than trying to change Godâs standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.â |
Chilling. |
It is chilling and "thank god" (irony ;-P) that it looks like McCain will be the guy I just hope he doesn't pick Hckabee to be his running mate. |
|
|
|
02/06/2008 12:54:50 PM · #323 |
I think it's sad that this bunch of losers is the best we could come up with...
Sadly, I'll be voting for the lesser of the evils as none of them actually inspire me to want to vote for them.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2008 10:46:44 AM · #324 |
Given all that's happened since the last post on this thread...I wondered if anyone had any new thoughts, had changed their mind, or had given up caring altogether!
So, who's going to be the next president of the US? |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 10:54:23 AM · #325 |
| It is too hard to call it now. And the election if it goes like the last two won't tell us much either. I just hope that it doesn't come down to a few hundred thousand votes being the difference. Would prefer a landslide I doub't that will happen but it would be comforting to know that a majority made the choice vs a Supreme Court Justice. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 02:37:05 PM EDT.
