Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 14:02 "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > So, in order to protect the world from a nutcase at the nuke button, you'd > arm everybody with sidearms? > > Once again, LOL, great logic! > > Take Care, > Dudley No, you're right, we should trust any mob large enough to win a vote, and make individual people wear government tracking collars because they cant be trusted. Tell them what they can eat, what they can say, what they can hear and where they can be. That's the eventual outcome of your forced- collectivism, history has always proven that. -- - Jane Galt
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 14:02 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9E76B07DE44JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > >>> From the way this thread has progressed I would say a Nikon is not your >>> best choice. A cannon would be more suitable. >>> >>> -- >>> Pete >>> >> >> LOL... >> >> Love your humour, Pete... >> >> Take Care, >> Dudley > > The marxist snobs, who smear anyone as "stupid" who doesnt agree with > their > tyrannical politiks. > > > > -- > - Jane Galt I just try to point out that carrying a weapon isn't the invinceble shield it's made to look like... Take Care, Dudley
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 14:04 "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > Thank you for providing such a colourful illustration that concealed > carries are not necessary, even in the most dire of circumstances... ;) > You still fail to grasp the concept of a Bill of Rights. People like you should be sent to gulags, and probably will be someday, if your mob rule reaches its inevitable conclusion. -- - Jane Galt
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 14:11 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9E76ECAD002JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> I put more stock in the rule of law, as composed by a democratic >> legislature / committee, than I do in the rule of law as composed by a >> lunatic neighbour with a handgun... >> > > How do you feel about things like: > > * Fiscal Responsibility It's great, as long as EVERYBODY pays a fair part of the cost of running a society where every citizen has a shot at exploring their true potential... > * Constitutionally Limited Government It's great, as long as the limitations don't hamstring the government's ability to provide for the happiness of the free and democratic masses that cast votes... > * Free Markets They're great as long as their are adequate protections against unfair business practices, monopolies, and other forms of fraud / corruption ... > * Smaller government They're great as long as they're big enough to take care of business... > * Individual rights vs mob forced-collectivist rule They're great as long as they don't skew the balance in favour of minority based right by might... > > > > -- > - Jane Galt Take Care, Dudley
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 14:16
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > news:Xns9D9E76ECAD002JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >> >>> I put more stock in the rule of law, as composed by a democratic >>> legislature / committee, than I do in the rule of law as composed by a >>> lunatic neighbour with a handgun... >>> >> >> How do you feel about things like: >> >> * Fiscal Responsibility > > It's great, as long as EVERYBODY pays a fair part of the cost of running > a society where every citizen has a shot at exploring their true > potential... Oh I see. And that "fairness" currently equates to the rich paying 90% of the taxes and the middle income down paying none. And does "where every citizen has a shot at exploring their true potential", does that mean at someone else's expense? Guaranteed outcomes or just equal opportunity? > >> * Constitutionally Limited Government > > It's great, as long as the limitations don't hamstring the government's > ability to provide for the happiness of the free and democratic masses > that cast votes... LOL! Idiot, you just contradicted yourself. Ok, you're for no limits on government then. >> * Free Markets > > They're great as long as their are adequate protections against unfair > business practices, monopolies, and other forms of fraud / corruption > ... Keep up the contradictions, this is very revealing about you. "They're great, but, except...." >> * Smaller government > > They're great as long as they're big enough to take care of business... Whose business? Everyone's? >> * Individual rights vs mob forced-collectivist rule > > They're great as long as they don't skew the balance in favour of > minority based right by might... And you're smearing the individualists like Beck as "stupid". How sad. -- - Jane Galt |