It's industrial sabotage

When you support a non-conservative, you can't be a conservative.
In a universe of absolutes perhaps, but not ours. (Reaching)
The lesser of two evils ALWAYS results in evil.
Meaning what???? This establishes nothing about Rush's politics. (Reaching)
$20 says if Rush was elected, he'd do the exact same things that
Dubya is doing.
This establishes nothing about Rush's politics. It just establishes that you are willing to lose a meager $20 bucks on an event that will likely never occur. Rush has repeatedly said he has no interest in political office. (Really, really reaching)
Dubya and Rush are false conservatives.
This isn't one of those kinds of things where DavidP says it so it must be. You have to back it up, which you haven't.

After several attempts to have you point out some of Rush's political beliefs, it's clear your not, so I'm outta this thread.

You can finish off by talking about Bush again. It will be a nice ending.

Rush is a conservative, live with it. You can't change it, and you certainly aren't making the case otherwise.

I"m done...

VES
 
Vern,

Debating this topic with DavidP is like debating a robot preprogramed to say one thing over and over and over. You say something to it and it repeats itself again and again and again and again. . .

Face it David. Anyone who says Reagan wasn't a conservative needs to check into the looney bin. I'm still waiting for you to reply to the facts about Reagan's presidency I wrote about below. I hope you include some actual facts for once.
When you support a non-conservative, you can't be a conservative.
In a universe of absolutes perhaps, but not ours. (Reaching)
The lesser of two evils ALWAYS results in evil.
Meaning what???? This establishes nothing about Rush's politics.
(Reaching)
$20 says if Rush was elected, he'd do the exact same things that
Dubya is doing.
This establishes nothing about Rush's politics. It just
establishes that you are willing to lose a meager $20 bucks on an
event that will likely never occur. Rush has repeatedly said he
has no interest in political office. (Really, really reaching)
Dubya and Rush are false conservatives.
This isn't one of those kinds of things where DavidP says it so it
must be. You have to back it up, which you haven't.

After several attempts to have you point out some of Rush's
political beliefs, it's clear your not, so I'm outta this thread.

You can finish off by talking about Bush again. It will be a nice
ending.

Rush is a conservative, live with it. You can't change it, and you
certainly aren't making the case otherwise.

I"m done...

VES
 
Reagan ran up the largest deficits in history at that time. That's HARDLY conservative.

You can't cut taxes and not cut spending. Not if you're a conservative.

QED
Now, what exactly did he accomplish? Let's go one by one. First
he lowered taxes by a huge amount. When Reagan entered office in
1981 the highest marginal tax rate was around 92%. When he left it
was around 30%. Looks like he did what he said he'd do there,
David.

Next, he took a military that had been devastated by low moral,
poor pay, old equipment, and increasing budget cuts that had
happened after the Vietnam war and the Carter presidency, and
turned it into the finest military in the history of the planet.
When Reagon took office, the Soviets were spending 50% more on
military spending than we were. They were the dominent force in
the world at the time in conventional weapons. Reagon fixed that
and made our military what it is today. Looks like he did what he
promised again, David.

Moving on to opposing the Soviet Union and communism. When Reagan
entered office the Soviet Union was expanding everywhere. They
already had control of all the countries behind the iron curtain,
had succeeded in North Korea, Vietnam, and were beginning to
encroach on South America in El Salvador and others. Reagan
brought the Soviet Union to its knees in the 8 years he was in
office. He wasn't afraid to stand up to them. He knew their
economy was in shambles and the policy of detente was only helping
them recover and enslave the Soviet people even longer. He fought
them in Grenada, El Salvador, and forced them to spend themselves
into bankruptcy with his military build up. He refused to deal
with Gorbachev in Iceland when Gorby offered Reagan the largest
cutback in nuclear armaments EVER. All Gorby wanted in return was
for Reagan to give up his "Star Wars" project. Reagan looked him
in the eye and said, "No." The Soviet Union ceased to exist two
years later. Millions of people were freed from the bondage they
had endured since the end of World War II and Stalin's evil regime.
Looks like Reagan delivered BIG TIME on this one, David.

As far as making the federal government smaller, Reagan did his
best to ensure that the federal govenment took less money from the
people in taxes so that more money would be available for the
state, county, and city governments. Reagan believed that
government should be as close to the people as possible. Shrinking
the federal government did not happen when he was president even
though he tried. You have to remember that the Democrats
controlled both the house and the Senate during his years in
office. The fact that he got done as much as he did was a miracle.

And finally, Reagan appointed many conservative judges to the
federal bench. One of the best was shot down by the liberal
hysterics in the Senate. Robert Bork was one of the finest federal
judges and constitutional scholars at the time. He still is.
Sandra Day O'Conner on the other hand has been so-so. She gets
more liberal by the year. I'd have to say she was a mistake, even
though she has come down on the right side on many occasions. But
Reagan did follow through on his promise to appoint judges to the
bench who followed the constitution and not a liberal agenda. And
the economy went from shambles to booming. It lasted all the way
through George H.W. Bush's administration and most of Clinton's. I
would say that he followed through on the conservative things he
said he'd do, David.

I just have to ask again where you are coming from? Can you refute
anything I have said with facts or are you going to continue with
the stupid little one-liners? And please quit with the "Nuff said"
line. It's irritating.
Can you believe the comment DavidP made
about Ronald Reagan PRETENDING to be a conservative?
--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with
years of training and experience in such things.
--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.
 
You think Reagan is a conservative, even though he ran up the highest deficits in history at that point in time. Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.

A true conservative would cut taxes AND cut spending.

If Congress tries to pass too much funding, then a conservative would VETO it. Even if that meant the government shuts down.

Keep on believing that if you vote for Socialist B instead of Socialist A that you're getting conservatism. You're not.

The country heads further and further into liberalism/socialism with each passing year, regardless of who is in office.

Choosing between Republicans and Democrats is (for the most part) like choosing between northern Canada and northern Russia in the winter. You're gonna FREEZE either way.
Do you really believe that a conservative cannot remain a
conservative if he supports ANYTHING a liberal stands for, even if
the liberal is standing for something conservative? That is
exactly what you are saying by claiming Rush isn't a conservative
bacause he supports Bush. Rush supports Bush on SOME things and
opposes him on others. I would be interested in who you think
would make a great president. If Ronald Reagan doesn't meet your
definition of a conservative, no one will. Ronald Reagan STARTED
the modern conservative movement that is being watered down by all
the spineless Republicans in Washington.

Can you just admit that you don't know anything Rush has said over
the past two years? You are seriously coming off as a flippent
know-nothing with no facts and absurd little one-liners.
--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.
 
I agree with you!

A few weeks ago I discovered a simillar situation in Mazda Protege 5 customer evaluation, where low evaluations presented by "owners" gave this nice car a much lower customer average, that represents something to those who are interested in such a car.

Here is a link to that website (hope, it will work).

It would be difficult to prove such a nasty activities, but the evidence speak for itself.

http://autos.msn.com/userreviews/reviewlist.aspx?idmodel=10477&search=MostRecent&num=50&trim=All&lang=All

Regards,

Breton123
 
That happens a lot - competition ranking down others products. I don't know if that's the case with digital cameras, but it's common practice.
 
Nice to see you didn't address ONE thing I spoke about Reagan accomplishing. Is that all you can do is talk about deficits? I agree that cutting taxes AND cutting spending is the answer to many of our problems. But when the government is already obligated from previous legislation to spend a certain amount of money, the only way to meet those obligations in the short term after cutting taxes is to borrow. That is where the deficits came from! Reagan cut taxes, the government had to borrow the money needed in the SHORT term to cover the loss, which means deficits. But here's the kicker: The tax cuts DOUBLED the tax revenue coming to the government by the end of Reagan's terms. It worked better than anyone's wildest dreams.

The problem was that the polititians in Washington (both Democrats and Republicans) saw all this new money and spent, spent, spent. The other issue was that Reagan saw the Soviet threat as the most important thing facing the nation at the time. Time and again when it came to a choice between spending cuts or cutting back on the military, he always chose national defense. Isn't THAT just as conservative as cutting spending? Let me ask you a question. If you were faced with the choice between cutting spending (and weakening the military by doing so) or spending money to make the military strong in a dangerous time, what would YOU do? I want an answer to this question. Would YOU advocate cutting back on our military NOW with the terrorist threat just because in YOUR conservative world conservatives ALWAYS have to cut spending? My point, David, is that you have a little knowledge about the subject but don't understand anything below just the surface. That's why your replies are 2 sentences long.

As for the QED, your meager and inadequate responses haven't proven anything except your lack of knowledge.

I'll say it again. Anyone who says Reagan wasn't a conservative doesn't know the first thing about the word conservative. It is so absurd I don't really know what else to say. Laughable. It is the equivalent of saying Bill Gates isn't in the computer business.
Reagan ran up the largest deficits in history at that time. That's
HARDLY conservative.

You can't cut taxes and not cut spending. Not if you're a
conservative.

QED
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the country is getting closer and closer to socialism every year. But attributing Ronald Reagan to a socialist is crazy! He fought most of his life against the socialists and communists. He is the ONLY reason the Soviet Union collapsed when it did. There were many reasons for its demise but the BIGGEST one was Ronald Reagan.
A true conservative would cut taxes AND cut spending.

If Congress tries to pass too much funding, then a conservative
would VETO it. Even if that meant the government shuts down.

Keep on believing that if you vote for Socialist B instead of
Socialist A that you're getting conservatism. You're not.

The country heads further and further into liberalism/socialism
with each passing year, regardless of who is in office.

Choosing between Republicans and Democrats is (for the most part)
like choosing between northern Canada and northern Russia in the
winter. You're gonna FREEZE either way.
Do you really believe that a conservative cannot remain a
conservative if he supports ANYTHING a liberal stands for, even if
the liberal is standing for something conservative? That is
exactly what you are saying by claiming Rush isn't a conservative
bacause he supports Bush. Rush supports Bush on SOME things and
opposes him on others. I would be interested in who you think
would make a great president. If Ronald Reagan doesn't meet your
definition of a conservative, no one will. Ronald Reagan STARTED
the modern conservative movement that is being watered down by all
the spineless Republicans in Washington.

Can you just admit that you don't know anything Rush has said over
the past two years? You are seriously coming off as a flippent
know-nothing with no facts and absurd little one-liners.
--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with
years of training and experience in such things.
 
You cut OTHER things. If Congress won't cut those things, then you VETO the spending bills. If the spending goes through, then you VETO the tax decreases.

You cannot ever get out of debt if you keep piling on more debt.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Clinton's supposed budget surpluses allegedly came because of the delayed economic impact of Reagan and Bush. Funny thing is, in those supposed years of surpluses, the debt actually INCREASED. Smoke and mirrors.

Dubya, Reagan, and Daddy Bush all talked conservative. Just like Rush (who supports them). But they can't walk the talk.

Year after year, we drift FURTHER from the Constitution.
Let me ask you a question. If
you were faced with the choice between cutting spending (and
weakening the military by doing so) or spending money to make the
military strong in a dangerous time, what would YOU do? I want an
answer to this question. Would YOU advocate cutting back on our
military NOW with the terrorist threat just because in YOUR
conservative world conservatives ALWAYS have to cut spending? My
point, David, is that you have a little knowledge about the subject
but don't understand anything below just the surface. That's why
your replies are 2 sentences long.
--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.
 
If Reagan was a conservative, why did we drift closer to socialism under his reign?

Unless he vetoed every piece of legislation that allowed us to drift further into socialism, and had it overruled by Congress, then he has no excuse.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the country is getting closer
and closer to socialism every year. But attributing Ronald Reagan
to a socialist is crazy! He fought most of his life against the
socialists and communists. He is the ONLY reason the Soviet Union
collapsed when it did. There were many reasons for its demise but
the BIGGEST one was Ronald Reagan.
--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.
 
It took us over 200 years to get to where we are now. It will take a lot more than one president to reverse everything that has happened since FDR expanded the federal government. One man can only do so much. Reagan did more in his eight years for conservatism than anyone will ever know. History will be the judge.
Unless he vetoed every piece of legislation that allowed us to
drift further into socialism, and had it overruled by Congress,
then he has no excuse.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the country is getting closer
and closer to socialism every year. But attributing Ronald Reagan
to a socialist is crazy! He fought most of his life against the
socialists and communists. He is the ONLY reason the Soviet Union
collapsed when it did. There were many reasons for its demise but
the BIGGEST one was Ronald Reagan.
--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with
years of training and experience in such things.
 
I've missed the date to pay the hosting fee and the domain name was expired. I pay the fee but I need to pay for reopening the domain name, so I use a new domain name, I'm so busy at the start of the school year and not yet deal with my site. I'll post it later, I've improve the chart further in order to get better test result, I've also retest my Canon system (just came back from Canon service, there is improvement on AF accuracy) and Nikon system, I'll post those result summary too.

Use the following link temporary:

http://www.hkdotnet.com/Francis%20Photography%20channel/AF_Test/
Can you repost?

Thanks,
MAC
Canon is too busy now to deal with their 10D focus issue so their
employee are not available to come here, and they tried hard for
long but couln't find out similar AF issue in Nikon DSLR. (LOL)

A child will believe you!
At a local camera store today they explained to me that many of the
camera issue discussions on these forums are bieng pushed by
persons being paid to do so. So there you are. Thats the answer
  • all of you with problems are hired by Nikon, Fuji, etc just to
make up stories and post them here.
Don't feel sorry for MiniMe any more. He is now a millionaire
living the good life in the Bahamas.
Thought you would enjoy the info.
Steve
--
I had to move up when I couldn't get flash bulbs for the Brownie
anymore.
http://www.pbase.com/stevebrown
--
Nikon F100, Nikon FM3A, Canon EOS 1V
Olymbus 3030, Nikon 995, Canon G2
Radio call sign VR2XEE
Handheld ham transceiver - Yaesu VX-5
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
--
Nikon F100, Nikon FM3A, Canon EOS 1V
Olymbus 3030, Nikon 995, Canon G2
Radio call sign VR2XEE
Handheld ham transceiver - Yaesu VX-5
 
PR don't be too serious.

I'd a 10D with AF flaw and returned, what's wrong with that?

I'm a teacher of electronics and a photographer over 25 years, my engineering background and photography experience is much enough for me to discuss such technical problem. I'm in no intention to hurt your Canon heart, leave some space for me OK (LOL)!

I do appreciate your contribution but please discuss in a peaceful atmosphere, if anyword I said make you uncomfortable I appologize for that.

Remember when I said you are a Canon PR and footnoted it as LOL, why I made such humor, it was because you said I'm Canon basher, do you think I spent such money to buy Canon just for bashing it? I like some features of Canon system so this is why I still own the EOS 1V and the 70-200 f2.8L.

In fact, Canon AF accuracy and low light AF ability is not that strong as the Nikon, but Nikon have also their weakness. Tell you one thing, in my photography club (I'm the chairman), Canon users are the majority. What I said in this forum was in the point of technical view, logical and not emotional. I also mentioned some of my friends got good AF 10D, some got 10D with AF issue, some don't care whether their 10D s have AF issue or not. For me, I like technology as I enjoy testing gears (not restricted to photographic gears) with DIY methodology.

I appreciate your contribution here and I don't feel we should have any conflict in this topic, just tell what we know, what we like or not.

Our photography club site: http://www.photopower.org
Our Electronics Technology Education Association site: http://www.eteahk.org
My own site: http://www.hkdotnet.com (under reconstruction)

The first two sites are mainly in Chinese.
Think in the opposite way to see this proposition is a just joke.
Why Canon don't hire people to spread the focus issue of Nikon
camera on nikon forum?

Canon is too busy now to deal with their 10D focus issue so their
employee are not available to come here, and they tried hard for
long but couln't find out similar AF issue in Nikon DSLR. (LOL)

A child will believe you!
Now who would be a likely candidate? Someone who doesn't have the
camera but yet participates in ONLY the 10D focus issue discussions
and used to have a competing camera listed as his "favorite DSLR"
in his signature line (but recently removed that remark) and has
produced a focus chart with which to help promote the 10D focus
issue and likes to throw accusations that OTHERS work for Canon
(perhaps as a smokescreen)?
LOL ;-)
--
Nikon F100, Nikon FM3A, Canon EOS 1V
Olymbus 3030, Nikon 995, Canon G2
Radio call sign VR2XEE
Handheld ham transceiver - Yaesu VX-5
 
If I understand your argument correctly, the anti-focus issue
members are using Ad Hominem tactics because they have no logical
argument against the focus issue.
Technically, I made no argument in my post -- I merely intended to explain a common debate "tactic" which has been around far longer than any of us has been on this planet.

I intended to use the "payroll" example without referring to any particular side. Indeed, one could just as easily accuse either "side" of such nonsense.

Technically, an ad hominem attack can be made for any variety of reasons. Sometime the "logical explanation" doesn't get enough press whereas mud-slinging does.

--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.
 
Remember though that the hammer is indiscriminate. I very intentionally kept my "Ad Hominem" post neutral because both sides of any issue are often easily seduced into such tactics.

Cheers.

-- Lew
Generally, I see someone resorting to such an attack as a sign that
they've been out-argued and/or are wrong but can't admit it to
themselves.
I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.
--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.
 
PR don't be too serious.
I'd a 10D with AF flaw and returned, what's wrong with that?
Nothing except that you refer to your 4 days with the camera as "ownership" and use that claim to bolster your condemnation of it. And that's all you do here which is essentially just "bashing" it.
I'm a teacher of electronics and a photographer over 25 years, my
engineering background and photography experience is much enough
for me to discuss such technical problem. I'm in no intention to
hurt your Canon heart, leave some space for me OK (LOL)!
My Canon heart? LOL
I do appreciate your contribution but please discuss in a peaceful
atmosphere, if anyword I said make you uncomfortable I appologize
for that.
Remember when I said you are a Canon PR and footnoted it as LOL,
why I made such humor, it was because you said I'm Canon basher, do
you think I spent such money to buy Canon just for bashing it? I
like some features of Canon system so this is why I still own the
EOS 1V and the 70-200 f2.8L.
I recall that you started in with the "Canon PR man" but don't recall the "LOL". So you own a Canon film camera and one lens. Whoopie. The fact is that you don't have the 10D and apparently stopped looking for another DSLR for some reason. Now that the D100 is the same price as the 10D and you have Nikon glass, one has to wonder why you persist in kicking the 10D here instead of moving on and getting a D100.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top