McCain's heroic backdrop

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I don't see what is a "mistake" about this image....



I do seem to remember it looking like a green screen behind him, which was annoying.
Click to expand...

And that alone makes it a mistake, even if none of the other discussion about it is valid. Especially after the previous "green screen speech" fiasco. Someone should have realized it and avoided it.



Also making it a mistake (if you assume that it's just a random photo, and isn't meant to be Walter Reed Medical Center) is the fact that they put up an image that was so confusing to so many people, which is what caused this whole discussion to start. People these days are smart enough to know that events like a party's candidate nomination speeches are highly choreographed, and that generally, NOTHING is done without meaning or reason. For example, the image with the flagpole had the meaning and purpose of tying into his patriotism theme. So what was the meaning of this one? If the meaning isn't obvious, the American public is going to try to dig to find it out. (Case in point--After Palin referred to a "haberdasher from Missori" in her nomination acceptance speech, without mentioning who that haberdasher was, Google and other search sites reported that searches for the meaning of "haberdasher" (someone who sells mens clothes) and for the name of a "haberdasher from Missouri" (Harry Truman) went through the roof.)



This means that the person putting together the images needed to know the meaning of each and present them in such a way that the meaning was clear to the audience. And if there was no meaning, they needed to do the diligence to verify that some other meaning couldn't be implied by the audience. In this case, that meant finding out what the building is. If they had done their job, they would have realized that a building with the name "Walter Reed" in it is going to lead to exactly the kind of reaction it did. True, it's not as bad as if they had inadvertently selected a "random" photo that happened to be of, say, Enron headquarters, but nonetheless, if this is truly just a random photo, this whole hullabaloo could have been avoided if the appropriate campaign workers had just done their job. And therefore, from this perspective as well, it was a mistake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He spoke of schools and education for about a min and half.



Here is his full speech in text.



TT was correct, it was just a group of pictures, some of them referred to what he was talking about and some about nothing at all.
 
After Palin referred to a "haberdasher from Missori" in her nomination acceptance speech, without mentioning who that haberdasher was, Google and other search sites reported that searches for the meaning of "haberdasher" (someone who sells mens clothes) and for the name of a "haberdasher from Missouri" (Harry Truman) went through the roof.
Click to expand...



This is evidence of the dumbing-down of Americans, people in general, and proof our school systems are going down the crapper.



Do have to give these people some credit, they were able to "turn-on" their computers (or their 6 year old left it on), search google, and get an answer. Just wonder how many attempts it took for them to get the spelling of "haberdasher" close enough for google to recognize it ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V.

No matter who made the mistake, or who hired the person who made the mistake, or who was supposed to oversee the person who made the mistake, really makes no difference since is was such a minor error and of no political significance. John McCain does not micromanage his campaign and I doubt that any of the ccandatates have had the time to micromanage these kinds of insignificant details



Like I said, That minor mistake in the photo of WRAMC in no way reflects on McCain, or his ability to be President and certainly does not have any indication that he will appoint a staff of incompentent people.



If this photo mixup is the only mistake McCain or Obama ever make as President, or if the members of the President's cabinet or Whitehouse staff make in the next 4 years, then I would say we have witnessed a miracle



...Rich



 
Like I said earlier, I don't think that it was a mistake, but rather a coincidence. I think this is yet another case of the media attempting to stir up controversy, or find flaws with McCain where one doesn't exist. If you watched the entire speech, you would've seen that this was just one random photo in a slideshow containing many different pictures from around the USA.



Some dumba$$ reporter probably wondered what that building was, found out that it was a school in CA named after Walter Reed, and then attempted to insinuate that the McCain campaign either screwed up or intentionally attempted to mislead the public into believing that this was WRAMC. And then, as I stated in another thread, the short-attention span, sound-bite public (including many here on this site) took it as gospel and it mushroomed; instead of just dismissing and ignoring it for what it was, pure dog squeeze.
 
Seriously, I hate when the media tries to bash the manchurian candidate McCain. Why can't they just focus on bashing Barack Hussein Bin-Al-Obama Stiqui-Iqui Bin Biden Ladin to make them Republicans happy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think the press should bash any candidate or make a big deal out of trivial things that have nothing to do with their candidacy for President. What does Obama's middle name have to do with his abillity to be President? What does Palins pregnant daughter have to do with her candidacy for VP? What does the number of houses McCain has have to do with his candidacy for President?



Why not tak a novel approach and just judge the candidates based on their character, and where they stand on the issues that are important to you. In the end it's just your opinion vs someone elses opinion. I know I have never changed my mind or made up my mind about a candidate based on the what the media reports about these trivial things.



Would you not vote for a candidate because you don't like their name? Would you not vote for a candidate because his has 7 houses, or his VP candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter?? None of those are issues that concern me or the rest of America. Only small minded idiots think those non-issues are important.



...Rich
 
I don't think the press should bash any candidate or make a big deal out of trivial things that have nothing to do with their candidacy for President.
Click to expand...



Rich, you're kidding, right...
 
Would you not vote for a candidate because you don't like their name? Would you not vote for a candidate because his has 7 houses, or his VP candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter?? None of those are issues that concern me or the rest of America. Only small minded idiots think those non-issues are important.
Click to expand...



Actually, that is a big thing the rumor mongers thrive on. Why are there emails floating around saying...



OBAMA BIn laDEN (Using Obama's name and Biden's Name)



Republicans are anti-gay, but doesn't Dick Cheney have a Lesbian Daughter? Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.



We make fun of Al Gore because he claims to be a Environmentalist yet lives in a house that is way too big and puts out way too much pollution.



It is the American way.



After all, lets not forget that many voters in America will not vote for Obama simply because he is black and his name sounds too much like a terrorist. Never mind that there is a chance he could be the best president this country could ever seen. Likewise, McCain could be the best.



I agree with you. People need to look at the person and not the exposed scandals that are either dug up or made up.



Unfortunatly, I think the average American is too stupid to think independently. Too many think that just because it is legal does not mean it is right. They also think if you make it illegal, people will stop doing it.



We know how well anti-drug laws are working. I know darn near everyone here when they were underage, they never took one sip of alcohol. It was against the law.





Tom



 
I should have said, "Many Republicans are known as being anti-gay".



Especially the current administration.





Tom
 
Les, No I am not kidding. The media should only report the facts, and only the facts that pertain to the issues, not rumors or about the candidates family members who are not running for office



As for Republicans being anti-gay, I think it's individuals who choses to be ani-gay. I also think because some individuals do not believe in a gay lifestyle does not mean they are anti-gay.



I am not Jewish and do not have the same beliefs as Jewish people do, bu I am not anti-Jewish. I am anti-fanaticism (sp) be it regious, racial, Republican or Democrtatic or otherwise.



...Rich
 
RichardL says:
I also think because some individuals do not believe in a gay lifestyle does not mean they are anti-gay.
Click to expand...



Oh really?



Richard also said:
I am not Jewish and do not have the same beliefs as Jewish people do, bu I am not anti-Jewish.
Click to expand...



That's a good example. I guess it all comes down to what "believe" means in your first statement. For example: Do you believe in a Jewish lifestyle from the standpoint that Jewish people have a right to pursue such a lifestyle and should not be ridiculed or otherwise unfairly treated because of it?



Consider your answer to that question, then ask the question again but replace "Jewish" with "gay"...



If you come up with different answers, I expect if you answer honestly then you will, then you are not anti-Jewish, but you probably are anti-gay.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TJR,

I meant what I said. and to make it a lifestyle issue: I do not believe in the gay life-style, but I am not anit-gay. Someone sexual orientation has nothing to do with their worth, intelligence, an the ability to contributre to sociiety.



I guess I don't see where you are having a problem with that statement?? Why should I change the wording so you can twist it to mean something that I did not intend it to mean? If I had changed the words "Iam NOTR" to "I am" that would also change the meaning of what I said.



I guess that's my biggest problems with politics and some posters here. They attempt to find hidden means or to twist the words so that they appear to have a different meaning. Askin someon to chage a word in their statement so that it can be twisted into a different meaning is pushing it a bit too far !



...Rich
 
Richard L,



I'm not trying to twist anything.



I just don't understand what you mean by "I do not believe in the gay-lifestyle."



For example, many say at a very early age: "I do not believe in Santa Claus"; and when they do that has a pretty well understood meaning. Most will think the person saying that means that the do not believe Santa Claus exists.



Clearly you're not saying that about the gay lifestyle. Clearly it exists and you can agree that it exists, right?



I'm not trying to twist your words. I'm trying just understand them. Their your words. Your statement was ambiquous. You made the statement, followed by an assertion. You opened the door.



Do you mean that you don't "agree" with the gay lifestyle? Do you mean that you don't "support" the gay lifestyle? Do you mean something else?



I'm trying to understand, because depending on what you mean I could have issue with your assertion that you are not anti-gay. For example, someone that doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle to the point that they don't support some of the rights for those that lead it, in my opinion, would be anti-gay.



But ultimately we are talking about labels, and no issues/stances are that easy to label. I'm pro-choice AND anti-abortion, for example...it all depends on the nuance. I can explain why I say that, and when I make such an assertion I do so prepared to make such explainations.



You see my guard goes up (as should most people's) whenever someone says: "You know, I have nothing against XYZ, but...", as more often then not its a thinly veiled attempt to make themselves seem tolerant about something they can't seem to tolerate.



If that's not you then cool! If that is you then cool too!



No malice intented, bud.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If two jewish men wanted to get married and you opposed it woulfd you be anti-jew or anti-gay? :wacko:
 
Reminds me of the one-liner about the poker-player who would only play in games which didn't require a pre-deal wager, and who talked constantly during the games. Apparently he was anti-antes and pro-prose. :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top