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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> US ELECTION '08
Pages:   ... [58]
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 1435, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/14/2008 05:54:46 PM · #26
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
In college my first final was a two hour essay on a one sentence question. Poly. Sci. 100, question was "" All power comes out of the barrel of a gun." Mao. Discuss".

So it's talk or kill.


If that was the question then your prof got the quote wrong. Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." That's not just a subtle difference in meaning.

ETA: Still, I'd bet it was a very interesting discussion.

Message edited by author 2008-10-14 17:56:29.
 10/14/2008 06:00:34 PM · #27
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
In college my first final was a two hour essay on a one sentence question. Poly. Sci. 100, question was "" All power comes out of the barrel of a gun." Mao. Discuss".

So it's talk or kill.


That's only one side of it. It should be talk, kill or die.
 10/14/2008 06:07:44 PM · #28
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I fail to understand how we have gotten to the point where a political argument is nothing more than counting coup on those who are representing the opposing viewpoint.

I spent a while in D.C. and had alot of friends who worked as aides to congressmen, and almost to a man they were good smart people who could have been making more money doing something else, somewhere else, and the represenatives they worked for' worked longer days and though more about the "folks back home" than they ever did while they were amassing the fortunes that allowed them to run for congress. Either side of the isle, like it or not, these are some amazingly dedicated people.

To read the popular press however is to paraphrase Joe Jackson, it isn't about ideology, its a question of right and wrong. Most of the way America looks at politics on television and the internet has more in common with the way wrestling announcers on Friday night smackdown talk about Chris Jericho vs. CM Punk, than the Lincon-Douglas debates. If we can only focus on nasty inuendo and chipping small flaws off those we don't support instead of supporting the policies and programs of the candidate we do support, then we deserve the sad state our nation is in.

As Menken put it ""For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Try harder.

I've felt this way for a while now too. It drives me nuts that "NEWS" consists of a play by play regurgitation of who did what in the daily political horse race instead of spending their time reporting about what the candidates' real policy differences actually are and the potential impact they may have on the country. Too much entertaining with too little educating & informing in the media. Still, the trillion dollar question is 'how do we solve that problem when the news agencies benefit more financially by feeding our most base desires for gossip?'
 10/14/2008 07:48:49 PM · #29
Well ok but looking at it from a survival perspective it is talk then kill. No one just chooses to die unless they have some serious mental issues. Now with that said you may still die, but that is not a choice most make. It is their failure to kill the opponent in the matter at hand that leads to them being killed.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
In college my first final was a two hour essay on a one sentence question. Poly. Sci. 100, question was "" All power comes out of the barrel of a gun." Mao. Discuss".

So it's talk or kill.


That's only one side of it. It should be talk, kill or die.
10/14/2008 07:50:23 PM · #30
There is a third less humain way of going about it too. Kill your enemy then you don't have to talk. Then place your people in their peoples place..
 10/14/2008 11:25:35 PM · #31
Originally posted by coronamv:
Exactly my point. I can tolerate your view point but you must also tolerate mine. The truth is we both want our way and neither are willing to tolerate the other. So then it becomes a war since diplomacy has failed once again. Thus the one with the biggest military wins.


That would be China, right?

Ray
 10/14/2008 11:27:34 PM · #32
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by coronamv:
And three tolerance is a two way street. If you expect me to tolerate your ideals and viewpoints then you must do the same for mine. If not then don't expect tolerance.


...but it is quite difficult to tolerate intolerance.

Ray


So you're intolerant of intolerance yet intolerance is what you won't tolerate....:-)


Actually NO.., perhaps you missed the "quite difficult" part.

Ray
 10/14/2008 11:39:47 PM · #33
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by coronamv:
And three tolerance is a two way street. If you expect me to tolerate your ideals and viewpoints then you must do the same for mine. If not then don't expect tolerance.


...but it is quite difficult to tolerate intolerance.

Ray


So you're intolerant of intolerance yet intolerance is what you won't tolerate....:-)


Actually NO.., perhaps you missed the "quite difficult" part.

Ray


Actually it was in jest but I'll rephrase. You find it quite difficult to tolerate intolerance because if you are intolerant of intolerance that makes you intolerant which you can't tolerate.
 10/15/2008 10:16:09 AM · #34
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well ok but looking at it from a survival perspective it is talk then kill. No one just chooses to die unless they have some serious mental issues.


So all martyrs are mentally ill?
 10/15/2008 01:16:08 PM · #35
Good try linking Obama with Clinton, Hawk, but Clinton cheated on his wife. Clinton failed to accept culpability for his misdeeds. You don't have anything close to that on Obama.

Ayers is a politically active figure in Chicago who's already paid his dues for his crimes. There is no evidence that he was close to Obama. The only ties are through political events. You paint Obama's attempts to underplay the connection as "lies" when they are typical political maneuvers. Particularly hypocritical in light of McCain's aggressively dishonest campaign.

Conservatives are stumbling because they can't believe that someone who is black *AND* a Democrat is a morally upstanding citizen and father. Tough luck, fellas. That's what you're up against this year.

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 13:16:55.
 10/15/2008 02:00:36 PM · #36
The pigeons coming home to roost? Saw a funny-but-sad Daily Show last night, wherein Jon Stewart likened the McCain campaign to Frankenstein's monster, and made a good case for the comparison. The McCain Camp created the monster. McCain and Palin have tacitly encouraged the mob. Now new clips show McCain himself taken aback by the ignorance and volatility of his own supporters and unable to contain the monster. One clip showed McCain trying to take back the microphone from an old woman who said she heard Obama was "an Arab." (McCain said "No" he's a "family man.")

Congressman John Lewis: "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all.

And from liberal MSNBC reporter Keith Olbermann: "Sen. McCain, your supporters, at your events, are calling Obama a terrorist and traitor and are calling for him to be killed. And yet you keep bringing back these same rabid Right Wing nuts to deliberately stir these crowds into frenzies. And then you take offense when somebody who remembers the violence in our political past, calls you on it."

Full Olbermann commentary.

EDIT: I want to add that I've seen clips of Obama supporters booing when McCain is mentioned; however, no threats of violence that I'm aware of, and furthermore, I saw a recent clip of Obama telling his supporters not to boo.

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 14:09:18.
 10/15/2008 02:37:45 PM · #37
Olbermann's great. Wow. Talk about not pulling punches while sticking to the facts.
 10/15/2008 02:56:14 PM · #38
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well ok but looking at it from a survival perspective it is talk then kill. No one just chooses to die unless they have some serious mental issues.


So all martyrs are mentally ill?


Of course! LOL!
 10/15/2008 03:20:47 PM · #39
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well ok but looking at it from a survival perspective it is talk then kill. No one just chooses to die unless they have some serious mental issues.


So all martyrs are mentally ill?


Of course! LOL!


Why? Because their beliefs don't match yours? ;o)
 10/15/2008 03:43:38 PM · #40
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well ok but looking at it from a survival perspective it is talk then kill. No one just chooses to die unless they have some serious mental issues.


So all martyrs are mentally ill?


Of course! LOL!


I think most Christian's might take offense to this, for a start.
 10/15/2008 04:08:18 PM · #41
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well ok but looking at it from a survival perspective it is talk then kill. No one just chooses to die unless they have some serious mental issues.


So all martyrs are mentally ill?


Of course! LOL!


I think most Christian's might take offense to this, for a start.


Geez, lighten up. I thought suicide was a sin. When you choose to become a martyr, you choose death. No? I was giving a smart ass answer to a smart ass question (as evidenced by my LOL). People really seem to be so freaking sensitive these days.

Edit to add: Let loose the lions!

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 16:09:02.
 10/15/2008 04:36:19 PM · #42
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well ok but looking at it from a survival perspective it is talk then kill. No one just chooses to die unless they have some serious mental issues.


So all martyrs are mentally ill?


Of course! LOL!


I think most Christian's might take offense to this, for a start.


Geez, lighten up. I thought suicide was a sin. When you choose to become a martyr, you choose death. No? I was giving a smart ass answer to a smart ass question (as evidenced by my LOL). People really seem to be so freaking sensitive these days.

Edit to add: Let loose the lions!


Who's being sensitive and why was it a smart ass question?

Let us all be brave enough to die the death of a martyr, but let no one lust for martyrdom


Message edited by author 2008-10-15 16:39:50.
 10/15/2008 04:59:25 PM · #43
Originally posted by Louis:
Olbermann's great. Wow. Talk about not pulling punches while sticking to the facts.

Yes, he works hard at sticking to the facts and is quick to correct himself if he errors. At times, I find Olbermann and Rachel Maddow lay the mockery on a bit thick, and I wish they would save their scorn for the worthier political outrages. However, as opposed to the pundits at Fox Noise, I don't think they deliberately mislead.

Re the smear campaign, here's an interesting video clip of Maddow interviewing Cleveland Plain Dealer (and Pulitzer Prize winning) writer Connie Schultz. Schultz is a reasonable voice in all the hubbub. Be warned, though, the clip starts with footage of an Iowan preacher leading McCain supporters in prayer before the senator's speech. His "message?" That supporters of Allah (among others) want Obama to win. It's really disgusting. Hey, isn't Obama a Christian?

Oops, forgot the LINK.

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 16:59:57.
 10/15/2008 05:13:41 PM · #44
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Louis:
Olbermann's great. Wow. Talk about not pulling punches while sticking to the facts.

Yes, he works hard at sticking to the facts and is quick to correct himself if he errors. At times, I find Olbermann and Rachel Maddow lay the mockery on a bit thick, and I wish they would save their scorn for the worthier political outrages. However, as opposed to the pundits at Fox Noise, I don't think they deliberately mislead.

Re the smear campaign, here's an interesting video clip of Maddow interviewing Cleveland Plain Dealer (and Pulitzer Prize winning) writer Connie Schultz. Schultz is a reasonable voice in all the hubbub. Be warned, though, the clip starts with footage of an Iowan preacher leading McCain supporters in prayer before the senator's speech. His "message?" That supporters of Allah (among others) want Obama to win. It's really disgusting. Hey, isn't Obama a Christian?

Oops, forgot the LINK.


Adherents will pray to their own god, whether it's "Hindu, Buddha, or Allah?" Er, "Hindu" isn't a god's name. This guy's a minister of some kind? "I pray you will step forward and honour your own name?" Uhhh... exactly how is that supposed to happen? Smiting a few of those "other" adherents in some spectacularly bloody way, I suppose. What a generalized load of nonsense.
 10/15/2008 05:24:05 PM · #45
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Louis:
Olbermann's great. Wow. Talk about not pulling punches while sticking to the facts.

Yes, he works hard at sticking to the facts and is quick to correct himself if he errors. At times, I find Olbermann and Rachel Maddow lay the mockery on a bit thick, and I wish they would save their scorn for the worthier political outrages. However, as opposed to the pundits at Fox Noise, I don't think they deliberately mislead.

Re the smear campaign, here's an interesting video clip of Maddow interviewing Cleveland Plain Dealer (and Pulitzer Prize winning) writer Connie Schultz. Schultz is a reasonable voice in all the hubbub. Be warned, though, the clip starts with footage of an Iowan preacher leading McCain supporters in prayer before the senator's speech. His "message?" That supporters of Allah (among others) want Obama to win. It's really disgusting. Hey, isn't Obama a Christian?

Oops, forgot the LINK.


Olbermann is great for pointing out the things republicans and what the far right are doing that don't always get covered but he is anything but balanced in his coverage. You'll never see him cover anything that might hurt Obama or anybody deemed important on the left.
10/15/2008 05:29:46 PM · #46
Originally posted by yanko:
Olbermann is great for pointing out the things republicans and what the far right are doing that don't always get covered but he is anything but balanced in his coverage. You'll never see him cover anything that might hurt Obama or anybody deemed important on the left.

Yes, I've frequently acknowledged that Olbermann is a biased liberal. That he is so while still retaining integrity is one of the reasons I can watch him. And Maddow will frequently have conservative guests who she will disagree with but actually *gasp* treat with respect.
 10/15/2008 05:32:26 PM · #47
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by yanko:
Olbermann is great for pointing out the things republicans and what the far right are doing that don't always get covered but he is anything but balanced in his coverage. You'll never see him cover anything that might hurt Obama or anybody deemed important on the left.

Yes, I've frequently acknowledged that Olbermann is a biased liberal. That he is so while still retaining integrity is one of the reasons I can watch him. And Maddow will frequently have conservative guests who she will disagree with but actually *gasp* treat with respect.


You mean shouting matches that Olbermann's whipping boy buddy, O'Reily gets into with his guests are not respectable? :P
10/15/2008 05:34:18 PM · #48
Originally posted by yanko:
You mean shouting matches that Olbermann's whipping boy buddy, O'Reily gets into with his guests are not respectable? :P

Yikes! Now that guy gives me an ulcer. :-) And yeah, Olbermann has gotten a lot of mileage out of making fun of him. It's almost too easy. :-D
 10/15/2008 05:56:30 PM · #49
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by yanko:
Olbermann is great for pointing out the things republicans and what the far right are doing that don't always get covered but he is anything but balanced in his coverage. You'll never see him cover anything that might hurt Obama or anybody deemed important on the left.

Yes, I've frequently acknowledged that Olbermann is a biased liberal. That he is so while still retaining integrity is one of the reasons I can watch him. And Maddow will frequently have conservative guests who she will disagree with but actually *gasp* treat with respect.

I remember when Olberman was the ONLY breath of fresh air on cable news who was willing to seriously question the Iraq war and point out the many serious ways Bush has been undermining the constitution. Sometimes I am not thrilled about obvious logical fallacies and stretched information he sometimes uses to make a point, but overall he seems to have a great deal more integrity for sticking to the truth (including being intellectually honest with the use of 'true' statements) than O'Reily, Limbaugh, Valentine, and many of the other conservative media icons.

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 17:56:55.
 10/15/2008 06:32:36 PM · #50
I bet both of these candidates hate YouTube. Just a few of the many gaffes these candidates have made:

Obama's:

My Muslim faith??
He's visited 57 states. Maybe he's a time traveler?
Huh? He apparently needs some sleep.
Double speak?

McCain's:

McCain does not know Shiite Shi'a from Sunni
Iraq/Pakistan border? Maybe he's a time traveler too?
Karzai is now President of IRAQ
Putin President of Germany
Obama isn't an arab, he's a family man.

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 18:34:50.
Pages:   ... [58]
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:21:26 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:21:26 AM EDT.