Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 19:38 tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote : > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:13:01 -0400, "David Ruether" ><d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > >>I will add that I don't think Glenn Beck is either >>stupid or misinformed. He knows exactly what he is doing, which >>is rabble-rousing-for-ratings. He risks the wellbeing of the nation >>(and of its people) for his own financial gain (as does Rupert >>Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, and far too many others). > > Of course he's not stupid. He's studied the ways of the snake oil > merchants of old and built a fortune on those techniques: it doesn't > matter what's in the bottle, it's the hype that you use to sell it > that brings in the money. > > Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and others of that ilk have taken a page out > of Sen Joseph McCarthy's book and packaged their snake oil around the > spectre of Communism under every bed. > PLONK you too. -- - Jane Galt
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 20:38 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9EB06FC2C2DJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D9E7A8A1381EJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "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 >> >> See, Jane, you can't even evaluate a whole country properly when you've >> got a ton of time and the vast resources of the internet at your >> disposal... >> >> How the hell are you going to correctly size up how to react to a >> hostile situation in the time it takes to strike a match, and you don't >> have all the facts clearly out in the open... > > You realize that you're essentially saying that you dont trust people to > make the judgements necessary to even defend themselves, right? > No, not at all. I told SD in this very thread I'd feel a lot safer if we had a lot more trained cops, retired officers / military types wandering around packing pistols, even living right next door... I just get a bit edgy when people paint an entire nation unfavourably because of a perceived discrepancy in beliefs, belittle their neighbours because they won't offer support for packing legislation, and in general display a rather immature attitude... Those people should not be carrying. > That leaves us all as simpering pacifists, at the mercy of any thug that > comes along. I've witnessed your types, on the UK groups, people who think > that defending oneself is "playing judge, jury and executioner" and > deprives said thug(s) of their right to a trial. Immature attitude: I rest my case... > > The very inspiration for this essay: http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html > > > So how do you trust mobs of people, when the inclination for "group evil" > is added to the mix? > You really should take a remedial reading course... Voters do not equate to mob evil... > > > > > -- > - Jane Galt Take Care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 20:46 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9EB13458BB3JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> I have no problem with a bill of rights, but I do care what rights are >> contained in it, how they are interpreted, and the ramifications of bad >> judgement... > > IOW you're contradicting yoourself yet again. I do but, except...I dont. > > Our Bill of Rights is written in very plain english, it needs no > "interpreting", in fact that very notion came with the start of the > "Progressive" movement about 110 years ago, of a flexible "living" > Constitution that could be molded to the socialist agenda. > > Before that, the purpose of the Supreme Court was to test laws to see if > they > met Constitutional muster. > >> The funny thing is that you don't realize one of your Libertarian buddies >> might just be YOUR worst enemy, much more likely than a proponent of >> democracy... > > Oh? How are people who are against the initiation of force, my enemies? > > "Who is a libertarian? > A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under > any > circumstances, to ***initiate*** force against another human being, or to > advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this > principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail > to > act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may > claim." -- L. Neil Smith > > No, I'll stick with seeing my enemies as those who are fine with > initiating > force against me, and/or delegating its initiation. > > > > -- > - Jane Galt > A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under > any > circumstances, to ***initiate*** force against another human being, or to > advocate or delegate its initiation. Those So, why the need to pack a piece? I've know a lot of Libertarians, and most seem to like guns in general, and carrying them "for protection" in particular... Yet, in a post you posted earlier in this thread, you said your State is so much more friendly since people started carrying, "because you just never know who's packing." To me, that sounds like you're in favour of the violent affects associated with pistol packing, in effect initiating violence against others... You don't actually have to show it to use it in a violent, offensive manner... Take Care, Dudley
From: Peter on 21 Jun 2010 20:46 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9DE0C8339FEJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote : > > i >> >> YOU HAVE ***GOT*** TO BE JOKING!!!! You have just lost ALL >> credibility by referencing that liar, G. B. GET REAL! He is demonstrably >> a dangerous, dissembling, malevolent idiot! NOTHING he says should be >> believed if you have ANY sense at all! > > You've never watched a single show, I take it. > > I suppose all idiots have lots of their books that are #1 NYT Best > Sellers? > > How many is he up to now? 6? 7? > > > The left smears anyone they disagree with, I know that for sure. > The extreme right is just as bad. Both extreme left and extreme right ridicule are ridiculing fears for the purpose of forwarding personal agendas. Why must there be only left and right. Whatever happened to the recognition that not everybody has identical ideas and philosophies and still be well intentioned decent people. Barry Goldwater is turning over in his grave over how his concepts have been twisted. Limbaugh, Beck and company appeal to people because they over simplify things. Even at a college level the emphasis is on the "how to" courses and the liberal arts courses, such as Oriental philosophy, art history, etc. are discouraged as being fit only for elitists and "liberals." -- Peter
From: LOL! on 21 Jun 2010 21:34
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:27:04 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >I'd be more likely to believe a government source... ;) Brainwashed: 101 LOL!!!!!! |