Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course there is "still Photography" here is a definition to help you out!
Still life photography is the depiction of inanimate subject matter, most typically a small grouping of objects that are either human-made or "natural."
Still life photography, more so than other types of photography, such as landscape or portraiture, gives the photographer more leeway in the arrangement of design elements within a composition.
Still life photography is a demanding art, one in which the photographers are expected to be able to form their work with a refined sense of lighting, coupled with compositional skills.
The still life photographer makes pictures rather than takes them. Knowing where to look for propping and surfaces also is a required skill.
In addition to knowing the fundamentals of photography, still life photographers have studio-lighting skills and the ability to use large-format view cameras.
Do you grasp the difference between still life as a subject for photography and the fact that there are no more professional photographer grade digital cameras made that only take still pictures? Apparently not.
Yeah, well, the press loved Clinton until he got elected. I don't think inauguration day was done when they started finding fault. They never loved Bush II, but at least they weren't like jackals, until the second Oath of Office was done.
Honeymoon is over.
So much for the openness and transparency. I guess that is another Obama smoke and mirrors act.
Ah, mind pointing out what important policy decision were being made during the impromptu swearing in? All this is much ado about nothing is about a photo-op!
Nickeldude, you don't have a subtle bone in your body.
If you can't grasp that every interaction has multiple undercurrents, and that a lot more was going on here than just what was verbally spoken, then you should celebrate your "smashing of the noobs." It's an empty victory, though, since it's only in your own mind.
Well aight check this out dawg, first of all, you throwin' too many big words at me, and because I don't understand 'em I'm gonna take 'em as disrespect. Watch ya mouth.
But really nothing is going on here other than Obama trying to show his real side to the press, not the facade that we've had to live with when Bush was president.
I wish more presidents didn't... then we might actually have a separation of church and state, the way our founding fathers intended. But it's quite obvious why he had to swear in a 2nd time anyway... did you not receive the memo?
It's petty the minor qualms people misconstrue in their futile efforts to nitpick at the president admist so much 'change' in the making already...
-closure of Gitmo
-seeks to close other CIA secret prisons
-freezing of certain WH employees' salaries
-nsa exposed unauthorized spying
-new whitehouse.gov
-reversed ********'s restrictions on Freedom of Information Act requests as well as changes to the Presidential Records Act to facilitate disclosure and transparency
-new WH robots.txt for greater [indexed] disclosure
The list goes on... but alas, you and silly butt choose to focus on... this? Mmmkkkay.
Our founding fathers intended no such thing as "Separation of Church and State" in the way that you think they did. Rather, the Constitution simply states that Congress shall make no law respecting an estblishment of religion. In other word, no "official state Church" as the Church of England was, and still is. They in no way intended to keep religion out of politics in the way that people today seem to think.
Show me in any founding document, the phrase "Separation of Church and State". Further, show me some writings from any of the founders that advocated for checking religious beliefs at the door of the schoolhouse, or Congress.
There aren't any. Further, judges have declared in decisions that "we are a Christian nation". Do the research. Learn.
I think the problem is that Barack talks about transparency too much. Instead of talking about it just be transparent. By talking about it too much he will cause people to start nit-picking about it when they feel he isn't being up front.
Well, that flies in the face of Presidential history. The US doesn't have Question Time and the only time the President is required to address anyone is during the annual State of the Union Address.
You need to go back and not only read the Constitution, but the history of presidents and the press. To save you a little time just go back and review the Reagan years. The media has a unfettered right to tell the story, but no one is required to give it to them in the first place.
Did you READ my posts? I NEVER said the President was required to answer. But the press has an obligation to ask questions whenever the opportunity arises. And how he President answers, if he refuses to answer, is part of the story as well.
Regarding this incident, first the President goes to the press corps pre-press conference. Why? If you think it is only because he wants a friendly moment to get to know these people, then you are being naive. Obama was checking the temperature of the water, getting a feel for how the press was reacting to his first days as President, and taking a read on who he was going to call on during the press conference. The Politico reporter who asked about Lynn knew that his chances of being called on during that press conference were as about as good as a snowball's in Cancun. He seized the opportunity to put the question out there because it's a good question that needed to be out there. Because not getting an answer serves Politico's agenda. Because maybe, just maybe, one of the reporters to get the opportunity to ask President Obama a question might be intrigued enough to ask this question again. The situation was much more layered than a right-wing reporter being rude to the President. And just because someone reports for a conservative audience doesn't mean his questions are bad questions.
There seems to be a large contigent who think that partisan politics are great as long as your party is in power. Partisan politics stink. They stink when conservatives diminish the questions liberals ask because they are about liberal issues, and they stink when liberals diminish the questions of conservatives because they are conservative questions. The questions should stand on their own merit. How President Obama is going to reconcile his ideals (in this case, reigning in the power of lobbyists) against the reality of ruling is a good question, to liberals and conservatives alike.
But really nothing is going on here other than Obama trying to show his real side to the press, not the facade that we've had to live with when Bush was president.
A lot was going on there. It just wasn't overtly expressed.
I support and voted for Obama, but I personally think it's fine for the press to question/criticize him. For one thing, it proves Obama isn't the press's "darling" as so many have accused. For another, only by taking our politicians to task over things we question can we keep them honest. Or as honest as possible.
There's nothing wrong with questioning the moves or motives of any politician including the president; in fact we have a very long history of exactly that in this country.
A lot was going on there. It just wasn't overtly expressed.
Sources? O wait its just your own opinion that you're spouting. When Obama is dodging questions left and right and refuses to ever talk to the press, then come back and you will have a point. But for now, you're just a slightly misguided citizen that is probably just too paranoid after the last 8 years. Can't say I blame you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
