What's wrong with this picture...

[dhyatt]

The picture below has a glaring problem. What is it???

http://carypolitics.org/images/kerryskeet.jpg

[Mark]

He's still wearing the "Live Strong" bracelet on the "wrong" arm?

[dhyatt]

Nope - although that is a good catch :-)

[Anonymous]

no finger on the trigger?

[dhyatt]

no finger on the trigger?

Bingo! It's supposed to be an 'action shot' showing him shooting skeet but it's totally staged! What a fraud!

[Wuptdo]

Don,

Now you need to add either "POW" or "BAM-BAM" as sound graphic. Like the old "Batman" TV show :wink: .

Now if I was the rangemaster, I would also have Mr. Kerry wearing shooting glasses and ear protection. And the civilians standing beside him would definately be standing behind him. Sort of reminds me of this guy a long time ago, who was also running for President, but in this case, he was tank commander.

Wuptdo B-)

[Brent]

I would make the same observations as Wuptdo (no eye/ear protection, spectator position) also.

And I wonder if his "aiming" eye is also closed, like the one facing us? :lol:

[Anonymous]

Ok, now that the NRA supported right of this forum have done their own version of Dan Rather, I suggest that the picture be looked at more closely, I think, if I am not mistaken and the last time I checked, that besides our thumb we have 4 other fingers on our right hand. Now look at the picture. Notice please that only three of Kerrys fingers are showing which means simply in skeet shooting, which requires rotating the gun with shoulder movement and up and down with arm movement, that placing your "trigger finger" on the trigger during such movements is an unsafe way to handle a gun when "locating" the skeet. Once the skeet is located with the eye and the shooter is ready to take the shot, the "trigger finger" slides down over the trigger for the shot. THE SAFE WAY TO HANDLE A GUN!

[Anonymous]

also, on his right hand is a rubber band that he uses for his 3 X 5 index cards he uses for notes

[Anonymous]

oops, meant to type left wrist

see, the right can be wrong and left can be stated as right and the right may not include all the details and the left can be misunderstood.

such is political debate.....enjoy

[Anonymous]

as to the eye and ear protection, I am sure that years back it was the republican business owners and manufactures that promoted and spent the extra money to protect the user / worker from eye and hearing injury.....just like these same users were warned about how asbestos and PCB's were a health risk. right...I find it interesting that today, these same type of business owners and manufactures promote this type of protection for one primary reason ....ot avoid getting sued!

and as for these worker protections, Republicans have a solution. Just take your manufacturing plant to a different country where this extra protection money does not need to be spent on "protection" for the user / worker. Free enterprise! Free Market! right....NO, IT'S CORPORATE GREED PURE AND SIMPLE!

[dhyatt]

Ok, now that the NRA supported right of this forum have done their own version of Dan Rather, I suggest that the picture be looked at more closely, I think, if I am not mistaken and the last time I checked, that besides our thumb we have 4 other fingers on our right hand. Now look at the picture. Notice please that only three of Kerrys fingers are showing which means simply in skeet shooting, which requires rotating the gun with shoulder movement and up and down with arm movement, that placing your "trigger finger" on the trigger during such movements is an unsafe way to handle a gun when "locating" the skeet. Once the skeet is located with the eye and the shooter is ready to take the shot, the "trigger finger" slides down over the trigger for the shot. THE SAFE WAY TO HANDLE A GUN!

Nice try but his hand is too far back on the stock for his index finger to reach the trigger correctly. At best, he might be able to 'pull' the trigger with the tip of his finger instead of squeezing it.

[kellyc]

Ya know you guys seem awfully paranoid about this Kerry guy. I mean jeez maybe he's just posing with gun who knows. Maybe he just got done pumpipng the gun I dont know....but you guys seem awfully Ratherish...looking for anything, anything at all.

[dhyatt]

Ya know you guys seem awfully paranoid about this Kerry guy. I mean jeez maybe he's just posing with gun who knows. Maybe he just got done pumpipng the gun I dont know....but you guys seem awfully Ratherish...looking for anything, anything at all.

One important difference. I look only at Kerry. What he says, what he does. I take anything that's said about him (including the Swift Boat ads) as 3rd party info and evaluate it accordingly. Kerry is his own worst enemy. His pandering, indecisiveness, and ease with which he publicly takes both sides of almost every issue are his undoing. The thing I don't understand is why is his campaign allowing this? Gore got blistered for showing up in obviously out of character skin tight jeans and Kerry is using the same basic approach of trying to be something he's not. I guess that's becuase if everyone really knew what he truly is, he'd stand less of a chance than he does now - which isn't much.

[kellyc]

You would have thought that party would have figured it out with the Dukakis(sp?) in the tank shots. As a normal person I would say just be yourself, and stop being what you think I want to see. Its a really difficult concept isnt it.

[dhyatt]

Ok, now that the NRA supported right of this forum have... [snip]... THE SAFE WAY TO HANDLE A GUN!

I suppose he just 'forgot' ...

http://carypolitics.org/images/kerrytrigger.jpg

[dhyatt]

You would have thought that party would have figured it out with the Dukakis(sp?) in the tank shots. As a normal person I would say just be yourself, and stop being what you think I want to see. Its a really difficult concept isnt it.

Evidently. I think that's one reason why a lot of people personally like Bush - even those that vehemently disagree with his policies. He is what he is and he doesn't pretend to be something he's not.

[Anonymous]

I'm not so certain that the tip of his finger is actually touching the trigger...could be just to the side of it (you know, like the way your finger is when you pick your nose....and yes it would be better if his finger was up a bit, but without 3-D the pic is pretty hard to tell.

[Anonymous]

Nice try but his hand is too far back on the stock for his index finger to reach the trigger correctly. At best, he might be able to 'pull' the trigger with the tip of his finger instead of squeezing it.

For more gun handlng lessons....the first pic is a natural shooters position. What happens next with most guns is the thumb operates the "hammer" of the gun. This being a shot gun, there is many times a safetly lever at the back of the barrel which is operated by the thumb

In order to get the thumb there, the wrist must move up for the thumb to reach the hammer and the trigger finger moves forward at the same time to reach the trigger and take the shot

[Anonymous]

The second picture seems to indicate to me that his thumb is moving forward to most likely re apply the safety lever after a shot (the lever) is visible in this picture. This does cause the trigger finger to go forward and of course as long as it does not wrap around the trigger, the gun should not discharge.

[Anonymous]

Don, you should rename this threat "How Democrats and Republicans see the same picture in different ways"

[Anonymous]

threat.....I meant thread....freudian slip?

[dhyatt]

The second picture seems to indicate to me that his thumb is moving forward to most likely re apply the safety lever after a shot (the lever) is visible in this picture. This does cause the trigger finger to go forward and of course as long as it does not wrap around the trigger, the gun should not discharge.

You could be right about the safety since it appears to be a Remington Mod 32 (probably a newer 332) O&A. Hard to tell for sure without a better picture...

[Anonymous]

The picture below has a glaring problem. What is it???

He is holding the gun backwards. The barrel end should be in his mouth. What a goof!

[Anonymous]

Ok, now that the NRA supported right of this forum have done their own version of Dan Rather, I suggest that the picture be looked at more closely, I think, if I am not mistaken and the last time I checked, that besides our thumb we have 4 other fingers on our right hand. Now look at the picture. Notice please that only three of Kerrys fingers are showing which means simply in skeet shooting, which requires rotating the gun with shoulder movement and up and down with arm movement, that placing your "trigger finger" on the trigger during such movements is an unsafe way to handle a gun when "locating" the skeet. Once the skeet is located with the eye and the shooter is ready to take the shot, the "trigger finger" slides down over the trigger for the shot. THE SAFE WAY TO HANDLE A GUN!

Does this imply the left is now admitting Rather's evil motives?

[johnb]

The best pic of a politician with a gun was the one with Algor holding up an M16 looking up the barrel.

Priceless.

[Anonymous]

Kelly wrote


You would have thought that party would have figured it out with the Dukakis(sp?) in the tank shots. As a normal person I would say just be yourself, and stop being what you think I want to see. Its a really difficult concept isnt it.

Kelly, by all indications I see in the picture, it looks like Kerry is being himself. He knows how to handle and shoot the gun (although closing the left eye is proof that he has not competed professionally.) Many "businessmen" often go to gun clubs to shoot "Skeet" or "clay pigeons" as they were once called. The suggestion that democrats do not believe in guns is, by these pictures, yes Don is a photo opp to show the contrary.

So Kelly,allowing me for a moment to suggest that I may be right, why, if in fact he does shoot skeet and wants the american public to know that he uses and respects guns, is it so wrong showing with in this way? Is it not being himself?

Besides, I would much rather discuss the multiple meanings of "going topless" even if the Yellow Jeep is the picture you care to explain! You see, just as the pictures, there is always more than one interpretation!

[kellyc]

I go topless in my jeep as often as possible. I am of course referring to the Wrangler's top...not mine

[kellyc]

Kelly, by all indications I see in the picture, it looks like Kerry is being himself. He knows how to handle and shoot the gun (although closing the left eye is proof that he has not competed professionally.) Many "businessmen" often go to gun clubs to shoot "Skeet" or "clay pigeons" as they were once called. The suggestion that democrats do not believe in guns is, by these pictures, yes Don is a photo opp to show the contrary.


Because if this is what he truly does, then hopefully he is responsible enough to know not to shoot with out ear and eye protection. As someone who wants to be our top leader, he should be setting an example of gun safety, not carelessness.

Kelly

[Anonymous]

Kelly wrote


he is responsible enough to know not to shoot with out ear and eye protection.

Well, lets examine this. When hunting, it is:

the ears that hear the noise
that get the hunter to look in the direction
that get to eyes to see and then shoot the fowl

While a guns discharge is most likely above the acceptable db level, plugging one's ears takes away from accomplishing the goal of (possibly) supplying food for a family table

Eye protection somehow suggests that all the issues that are supposed to discharge out the front of the gun could possibly discharge out the back and get into the eyes. While flash, sparks and gun power (not to mention the projectile) could get into ones eyes, to presume that this might happen as a reason to wear eye protections does not say much for a persons confidence in the gun they are shooting

As to the top off your Wrangler's, I hope you don't "drive dirty" That is, you listened to your mother and always have on "clean" undies in case you end up in the hospital emergancy room. (Wrangler, don't forget, is also a brand of Blue Jeans!) One again more than one way to interpret a "picture"!...Just depends on your state of mind!

[Brent]

Well, lets examine this. When hunting, it is:

the ears that hear the noise
that get the hunter to look in the direction
that get to eyes to see and then shoot the fowl

Wow, I thought he was shooting skeet, not hunting?!?

[Anonymous]

ah...now we can weigh in on what is "outside" the picture as well!

How do you know there was not a picture of Osama Bin Laudin being pulled behind a airplane?

The point of shooting skeet, BTW, is to make a better marksman out in the wild....where the fowl are! (and when the skeet is launched ...the launcher makes noise!)

[johnb]

Because Osama is the expected late October "surprise"....he'll be caught days before the election just to give Bush a boost....didn't you get that memo?

You folks just don't keep up with the high quality conspiracy theories do you?

[Brent]

The point of shooting skeet, BTW, is to make a better marksman out in the wild....where the fowl are! (and when the skeet is launched ...the launcher makes noise!)

Actually, many people do it just for competition or enjoyment and not as "hunting practice". The point is that when you're on a range, you ought to be wearing ear and eye protection. My commentary actually isn't about Kerry; I don't really care all that much about what the photo says or means politically. I do care that I help teach Boy Scouts that the only smart thing to do is wear eye and ear protection when shooting, and then this photo shows a would-be president who for whatever reason doesn't bother to do that. Just like I would care if I saw Bush bicycling or rock climbing without a helmet. It's dumb and a bad example.

[Brent]

ah...now we can weigh in on what is "outside" the picture as well!

How do you know there was not a picture of Osama Bin Laudin being pulled behind a airplane?

Uh...I guess I believed the anonymous weenie who doesn't identify himself/herself when he/she stated, way back on page 1, that Kerry was shooting skeet...

[Anonymous]

Brent Wrote


...I guess I believed the anonymous weenie who doesn't identify himself/herself when he/she stated, way back on page 1,

Just for some food for thought.

This thread has the third highest views of the most recent 50

This thread is tied for third in the most recent 50 in highest replies

There was good observation from several different posters with a good mix of humor by Kelly, Johnb and Anom.

I was driving the thought stimuating point that people, depending on perspective, see things differently,

The reason I beleive this thread has the stats it does is because it did not degenerate into slamming the poster making the observations.

I can not speak for Don H, and while he makes his position and convictions known, I think it is his desire to have this as a place where multiple viewpoints are expressed

I have purposely remained anonymous to see how far "discussion" would go before personal attacks took over. I have, over the past few months been told by a number of people who do read this board that they are hesitant to post because of the personal attacks they see.

All this being said, I make the following point as an opinion of circumstances, and not as a personal attack

I feel that a good example to anyone, "including" the boy scouts, is for a person to lead by example and stand up and promote personal convictions with logic and fact, rather than attacking and belittling others about theirs Respectfully disagreeing is one this, name calling is far another.

If what this place is about is discussion of viewpoints and opinions, the fastest way to not have diversity in such is to attack the messengers willing to engage and offer a different perspective.

Just my 2 cents

[kellyc]

My personal conviction is that he should be following propery safety. He's not hunting, he's at a range.

[dhyatt]

My original post was about the fact that I considered the picture to be a staged photo-op. The following picture, taken on the same day, actually shows him really skeet shooting - no 'fans' in the background and obviously more authentic. The purpose of this exercise was to show the futility of such photo-ops. People see what they want to see and these kinds of pictures usually turn off as many people as they turn-on...

http://carypolitics.org/images/kerryactuallyshooting.jpg

[Anonymous]

Don H Wrote


People see what they want to see and these kinds of pictures usually turn off as many people as they turn-on...

A great statement Don! I would also say that many could substitute your word "pictures" for "statements" and "documents" and "commercials" and "advertising" and "publicity stunts" and many more.

The key is that those turned on or off generally, in my opinion, have already made up their mind. The true question is "how does things like this example of pictures you have provided have an impact on the undecided?

[dhyatt]

Don H Wrote


People see what they want to see and these kinds of pictures usually turn off as many people as they turn-on...

A great statement Don! I would also say that many could substitute your word "pictures" for "statements" and "documents" and "commercials" and "advertising" and "publicity stunts" and many more.

The key is that those turned on or off generally, in my opinion, have already made up their mind. The true question is "how does things like this example of pictures you have provided have an impact on the undecided?

That's a really tough question because many are 'undecided' simply due to the fact they either don't know much about the candidates and/or don't feel like paying attention. Without these kinds of 'stunts', some candidates may never get much name recognition and yet the stunts themselves are bound to turn off some undecided voters.

This is one reason why incumbency is normally such a huge advantage. A relatively unknown candidate faces larges hurdles when trying to make a name for themselves without turning people off in the process. In smaller towns (CARY circa pre-1995), candidates could go door to door or get their name out via word of mouth through the business community. These days, it mostly has to be done through hard and soft mail (postal and email), phone calls, radio, TV & yard signs. Most voters don't like any of those venues so candidates often get stuck in a d@mned if you do and d@mned if you don't scenario. And voters often just pick the candidate that, through some sort of osmosis, they decide they 'like' the best.

[johnb]

So Don, would you agree then that when an incumbent looses it's pretty unusual and it is a rather brutal and unarguable repudiation of that candidate by the electorate?

:twisted:

[dhyatt]

So Don, would you agree then that when an incumbent looses it's pretty unusual and it is a rather brutal and unarguable repudiation of that candidate by the electorate?

:twisted:

Ah... Well....I think I'll take the 5th ;-)

[johnb]

Nice.

:wink:

[Brent]

I feel that a good example to anyone, "including" the boy scouts, is for a person to lead by example and stand up and promote personal convictions with logic and fact

I happen to agree. How does one stand up for and promote one's personal convictions behind a veil of anonymity?

My beef -- and it's been consistent for a very long time on this forum -- is with those who won't put their name with their opinions.

And do you know one of the reasons why?

[Anonymous]

Gee, Brent, you make a good point. It is kind of lame to sermonize about "personal attacks" and "personal convictions" without even attaching a "person" to my posts here. Just my 2 cents.

[Brent]

...because if everybody plays the same game, that kind of hoses up the spirited free debate, also -- that's why. Just my 2 cents, but at least you know whose 2 cents they are.

[johnb]

Correct me if I'm wrong but we've had this dispute/discussion before haven't we? :roll:

[Anonymous]

...getting back to the debate.


Don H Wrote


That's a really tough question because many are 'undecided' simply due to the fact they either don't know much about the candidates and/or don't feel like paying attention

My question is this. Is making public, pictures such as the first or the third of the three posted, an attempt by either side to put a snap shot impression into the mind of the non attentive, unknowing, undecided voter?

[dhyatt]

...getting back to the debate.


Don H Wrote


That's a really tough question because many are 'undecided' simply due to the fact they either don't know much about the candidates and/or don't feel like paying attention

My question is this. Is making public, pictures such as the first or the third of the three posted, an attempt by either side to put a snap shot impression into the mind of the non attentive, unknowing, undecided voter?

Come on! You know the answer to this. Of course they are. These particular pictures were designed to appeal to those 'undecided' who also happen to be NRA members. There has to be at least 3 or 4 ;-)

[Anonymous]

Yes, but Don, the debate has shown that the "photo" opp can be shown as going BOTH WAYS.

So the next comparison is this.

Kerry obviously thought of this as a appeal to the undecided (3 or 4) NRA people, but you pointed out how a "negative" "take" on a picture can be used against him (Photo #1 no finger on the trigger)

My question is now, does each side look for the negative more and promote there own positive less?

Is that how an effective campaign works in todays world?

[dhyatt]

[snip]

My question is now, does each side look for the negative more and promote there own positive less?

Is that how an effective campaign works in todays world?

I think the short answer is yes but the question really goes to the heart of human nature. I think people in general notice 'negative' things more often and easily than they do 'positive' things. I find I seldom notice when someone obviously goes out of their way to put a shopping cart back in the corral, but I almost always notice when they're left in the middle of the parking lot. I quickly forget when someone lets me in front of them in heavy traffic but I lament hours later how 'some a@@ cut me off and almost caused an accident'.

Campaigns usually exploit negatives and prey on fears because they rely on people noticing what things might harm them in the short run more than those things that might help them in the long run. It takes a little thought to see how spreading democracy helps us in the long run just as it takes a little thought to know how sky high deficits can hurt down the road. Constant negative drumbeats from the media serve only to make the situation worse - even though bad news sells more papers.

The very worst part of all this is the way liberals have served to support the notion that everyone is a victim. When things go bad, it's always someone elses fault. When things are good - that person (or company) is just lucky. Over time, this psychology of defeat (as I like to call it) serves to convince people that they have little control over their life. And when you feel you don't have control over your own life, you are attracted to those cynical politicians who claim they'll take care of you and somehow fix everything, with someone else's money, all the while telling you what to do and how to think. Since you don't have any control over your own life anyway, it's comforting to have someone take care of it for you.

Think about this: Cary is one of the safest, nicest places to live in the entire country, which by extrapolation, means it's one of the best places to live in the whole entire world. People still find things to bitch about...

[Anonymous]

Don H wrote


The very worst part of all this is the way liberals have served to support the notion that everyone is a victim. When things go bad, it's always someone elses fault. When things are good - that person (or company) is just lucky. Over time, this psychology of defeat (as I like to call it) serves to convince people that they have little control over their life. And when you feel you don't have control over your own life, you are attracted to those cynical politicians who claim they'll take care of you and somehow fix everything, with someone else's money, all the while telling you what to do and how to think. Since you don't have any control over your own life anyway, it's comforting to have someone take care of it for you.

For the sake of debate I have altered a few words

The very worst part of all this is the way conservatives have served to support the notion that everyone is a victim (of terrorism for one thing). When things go bad, (9/11 of course was others fault, not our own inteligence failures) it's always someone elses fault. (Then of course bad information on decisions to go to war) When things are good - that person (or company) (Bush) is just lucky. Over time, this psychology of defeat (as you called it) serves to convince people that they have little control over their life. (terrorism can and will strike anywhere, "strip" searches of 87 year old ladies are necessary at the airports) And when you feel you don't have control over your own life, you are attracted to those cynical politicians who claim they'll take care of you and somehow fix everything, with someone else's money, (how much does the TSA cost, not to mention the war in Iraq?) all the while telling you what to do and how to think. (Patriot act) Since you don't have any control over your own life anyway, it's comforting to have someone take care of it for you. (We doing the right thing in Iraq, trust us!)

My point here is NOT to argue sides, but provide your same "view" from the other side. I am trying to get admission (as I will here admit myself) that BOTH SIDE DO THE SAME THINGS, PARTICULARY IN CAMPAIGNS!

Swap a few words and liberial becomes conservative, conservative becomes liberial, and the tactics to reach the undecided are both the same.

Is is then just a matter who fights either more dirty or better?

[dhyatt]

Don H wrote

[snip]

My point here is NOT to argue sides, but provide your same "view" from the other side. I am trying to get admission (as I will here admit myself) that BOTH SIDE DO THE SAME THINGS, PARTICULARY IN CAMPAIGNS!

Swap a few words and liberial becomes conservative, conservative becomes liberial, and the tactics to reach the undecided are both the same.

Is is then just a matter who fights either more dirty or better?

I don't there's any question that what you say is true. Here's some evidence: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,133546,00.html

However, I feel there are some dramatic differences in the underlying issues. One side might 'push' fear of terrorists and the other fear of Social Security failure, but I can do something about my finances and I have few people to blame but myself if I don't handle them properly. On the other hand, I rely on the government to protect me from terrorists - to the best of their ability. Defense of the country is rooted in the Consitution, Social Security is not - huge difference IMO.

Since I think we agree all sides use 'negative' campaigning whenever and wherever it might work, I have a different question: Has a candidate ever won a race against a non-compromised incumbent simply be saying "I'm a nice hardworking person, "Joe" has done a decent job in office but I think I can do better and here a few ideas"? If so, I'd like to hear about it - especially if it occurred in a town with more than a handful of people.

It's kind of said in a way to think one could predict whom someone would vote for based strictly on a) which candidate promised the best handouts, and/or b) which candidate did a better job of instilling fear of the opposition.

[Anonymous]

Don H Wrote


Has a candidate ever won a race against a non-compromised incumbent simply be saying "I'm a nice hardworking person, "Joe" has done a decent job in office but I think I can do better and here a few ideas"? If so, I'd like to hear about it - especially if it occurred in a town with more than a handful of people.

The key word is "candidate" ....singular. My point is this. Two candidates, (once which is most likely an incumbent) could agree to run on plans vision and goals. They could, by "rules of fair play" agree to such. But the problem with this is then each will (by the desire to one up the opponent) graduate into fish stories. It starts out as a normal story, but then it becomes difficult to resist the temtation to embellish or take credit where little of none is due.

So you see, while JQ Public HATES the negative, the "positive" easily degenerate into "fish stories" as well.

In the end, it is most important to realize that the undecided will decide by truely gut instinct. Those who's guts believe the first pic was a just a photo opp ( and other supporting evidence) will trust their gut and vote against and those who believe the third pic was genuine ( and other supporting evidence) will vote for.

So now cancel out this group and what do you have left.

Who are these undecided's and how can they be reached?

See what I am getting at. Solid Right, Solid Left, Undecided Right, Undecided Left....(they both cancel each other out) now again I ask, How do you reach the rest, the ones that pay little or no attention and think all or most it politics is a farce or joke? ....but they still vote!

ON WHAT?