If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer

"Cynicor" <j...tru.p..in.RemoveThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote in message
news:w76dnQS6zIcitEnbnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Annika1980" <annika1980.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1188265100.492927.239310@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 27, 9:24 pm, "William Graham" <w....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Pull out, and then go back in? - that doesn't make sense.....
>>> Makes more sense than staying there and getting more and more soldiers
>>> killed for nothing.
>>
>> Another military genius who'll vote for Hillary.
>
> Hillary's an idiot. I can't believe she called for a coup against Maliki.
> NOT HELPFUL.

Not helpful indeed, but Hillary's not an idiot. I wish people would stop
calling elected politicians idiots and morons. Whatever else they may be,
those things they are not.

>
>> Pull out, give the enemy plenty of time to consolidate their position,
>> gain strength and weapons -- and THEN go back in? That's your idea of how
>> to avoid "getting more and more soldiers killed for nothing"?
>
> Who's "the enemy"? As soon as we leave, native Iraqis are going to make
> short work of foreign fighters. Other than that, both Sunni and Shia want
> us out, and all we can do by staying is choose sides in a civil war.
>
>> Gee . . . I wonder why our generals never thought of that during World
>> War II when things were going badly for us.
>
> WWII was a fight to protect our country. The Iraq War isn't.

WWII wasn't a war that was any of our business in the first place -- it has
been described as a continuation of WWI after a 20-year hiatus, and to a
considerable extent that is true. WWI wasn't any of our business either --
it was purely a European squabble, and it was the emtanglement of European
alliances that made it a world war. None of those alliances originally
(i.e., in 1914) involved the U.S. We should have stayed out of it.

WWII was not "a fight to protect our country." It was a war that FDR badly
wanted to get us into, and finally did.

I agree with you on the Iraq war. Even if Saddam had had WMDs, as everyone
(Democrats too) believed he had, without a delivery system for them he was
no obvious threat to us -- though he probably was to Israel. That's the one
thing that rabid nut case Cindy Sheehan got right.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C2F9C497.383ED%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 8/28/07 8:36 AM, in article
> mbudnUZMT_8guUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com,
> "Neil Harrington" <not DeleteThis @home.today> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Annika1980" <annika1980 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1188265100.492927.239310@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 27, 9:24 pm, "William Graham" <w... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pull out, and then go back in? - that doesn't make sense.....
>>>
>>> Makes more sense than staying there and getting more and more soldiers
>>> killed for nothing.
>>
>> Another military genius who'll vote for Hillary.
>>
>> Pull out, give the enemy plenty of time to consolidate their position,
>> gain
>> strength and weapons -- and THEN go back in? That's your idea of how to
>> avoid "getting more and more soldiers killed for nothing"?
>>
>> Gee . . . I wonder why our generals never thought of that during World
>> War
>> II when things were going badly for us.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
> I'm beginning to think that "Annika" and "Rita" are two personality
> disorders in the same body who enjoy fighting and agreeing with each
> other.
>
> Picture Siamese Twins joined at the pelvis.
>
> LOL!

That sounds about right to me too.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
news:13d983qav007976@news.supernews.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>>> No, I'm sure she'll pull out and regroup while letting the animals
>>> kill each
>>> other. She will then come in fighting a war the proper way since
>>> she has more balls than Bush.
>>
>> So now you're a big Hillary fan. Was it one day ago or two that you
>> were saying Hillary would be a disaster?
>
> LOL! You are a very funny man, for sure. I'm not a Hillary fan, but I
> will
> tell you that she would have done a much better job than Bush.

Hillary has never done anything but push people aside who were between her
and the TV cameras. If you think otherwise, please list her accomplishments
in Congress in the space below.

1. __________________________________

2. __________________________________


> Bush was a
> failure all his life. He has never accomplished anything good on his own.

He's made millions in business. He doesn't grub for a few bucks on eBay and
call that a business. See the difference?


> You never did answer the question of what good did Bush do for this
> country?

1. Lowered taxes

2. Reversed the Clinton economic and stock market downslide

3. Gave the country a strong economic expansion, creating millions of new
jobs

4. Got the Dow Jones Industrials up 40% even *with* the market's fall after
9/11

(Note: Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are all largely in consequence of No. 1. Neither
Hillary nor any other Democrat will do anything like that for the country.)

5. and 6. Nominated Supreme Court justices Alito and Roberts, taking the
high court out of the hands of activists with leftist looney agendas

Those are for starters, anyway. Now you can go ahead and list Hillary's
accomplishments in Congress.

>
>> Do you still think Louis Farrakhan would be the best president of
>> all, if only his health were better?
>
> He's the man with the plan. If he were president 30 years ago he would
> have
> tamed the white devil and have ungrateful cowards such as yourself in the
> fields picking lopes instead of sitting on your fat parasitical ass
> collecting social security and other benefits allotted for the grateful.

<guffaw!>

He'd have had everyone named Goldberg, Silverstein or Berkowitz fleeing the
country for their lives, is what he'd have done. Remember, Rev. Farrakahn is
a great admirer of Hitler and has about the same affection for Jews and
their "gutter religion" (his words).
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

On 8/29/07 12:15 PM, in article
HJCdnWvvz6syNEjbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d.TakeThisOut@comcast.com, "Neil Harrington"
<not.TakeThisOut@home.today> wrote:

>
> "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
> news:13d983qav007976@news.supernews.com...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>
>>>> No, I'm sure she'll pull out and regroup while letting the animals
>>>> kill each
>>>> other. She will then come in fighting a war the proper way since
>>>> she has more balls than Bush.
>>>
>>> So now you're a big Hillary fan. Was it one day ago or two that you
>>> were saying Hillary would be a disaster?
>>
>> LOL! You are a very funny man, for sure. I'm not a Hillary fan, but I
>> will
>> tell you that she would have done a much better job than Bush.
>
> Hillary has never done anything but push people aside who were between her
> and the TV cameras. If you think otherwise, please list her accomplishments
> in Congress in the space below.
>
> 1. __________________________________
>
> 2. __________________________________
>
<snip>

It would be a race between her and our own Honorable Representative Shelia
Jackson Lee, who at one time wondered if the Mars Rover could find the
cameras left their by the Apollo Astronauts.

Here is another one of her gems...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33896

Compared to this one, Hillary is a sheer GENIUS!
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

"Cynicor" <j...tru.p..in.DeleteThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote in message
news:1qSdnWsqZ4GDsUnbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Annika1980" <annika1980.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1188265663.934688.237890@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 27, 5:10 pm, "William Graham" <w....DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not only was it not a lie....It was true.....There is more than enough
>>>> evidence that Saddam had WMD's which he stashed in Syria while Bush was
>>>> waving his big stick.......
>>>> Satellite photos show whole warehouses disappearing just before the
>>>> invasion
>>> I saw Santa Claus in my living room once.
>>
>> If he comes back, ask him to give you a clue.
>
> So if Saddam DID have biochem weapons (something we still can't
> demonstrate), what purpose would deposing him and sending the country into
> anarchy serve? Versus having a despot controlling them and being hostile
> to al-Qaeda, as Saddam was?

You're absolutely right. Bush's dream of a friendly democracy in the Middle
East was a worthwhile goal if it could have worked, but unfortunately seems
to be a pipe dream. We'd be better off today if Saddam were still there and
running things. His *people* would not be better off of course, but
considering the aftermath of the war and their general behavior I don't much
give a damn about them.

I do care about all the Iraqis who've been slaughtered trying to get their
country together in an orderly and peaceable way, but it looks like they may
all have died in vain. As a nation, they appear to *prefer* a brutal strong
man as a leader, and I suspect they'll continue to misbehave until they get
the next one. It is not an encouraging picture. But I sincerely hope I'm
wrong.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

"William Graham" <weg9.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IbSdneBshtAoGknbnZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <not.RemoveThis@home.today> wrote in message
> news:U-ydnUKnpr5PqEnbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Cynicor" <j...tru.p..in.RemoveThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote in message
>> news:DZydnQN3P5pu-k7bnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> William Graham wrote:
>>>> "Cynicor" <j...tru.p..in.RemoveThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:l5mdnWegBYvzzU7bnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>> William Graham wrote:
>>>>>> "Cynicor" <j...tru.p..in.RemoveThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote in message > Can you
>>>>>> name any "non-socialists" in the running? Can you explain why
>>>>>>> "socialism" is a scare word? I'm much more afraid of totalitarianism
>>>>>>> than "socialism".
>>>>>> I'm not....Socialism is much worse.....It steals from those who do
>>>>>> all the work, and gives it to those who sit on their asses.....What
>>>>>> could be worse than that? Even under totalitarianism there are
>>>>>> incentives for the people to work and get rich....Under socialism,
>>>>>> there is no incentive to do anything......
>>>>> Would you define the United States as a socialist nation at present?
>>>>
>>>> Tough question....It is too socialist for my taste, but then I am a
>>>> radical rightist who thinks the government should confine itself to
>>>> matters of defense.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you can see where I'm headed with this...
>>>
>>> You said that socialism is much worse than totalitarianism. If our
>>> nation is (as you said in the part I just snipped) 50% socialist, and
>>> Saddam's was totalitarian, then by your reasoning wouldn't we be almost
>>> as bad off as Iraqis were under his rule? And yet, no one would argue
>>> that we were in any way comparable.
>>>
>>> That's why I feel that "socialism" is a scare word.
>>
>> To some degree it is, just as "fascism" is, but "socialism" is generally
>> much more appropriately applied.
>>
>> I'm not sure if the "worse than" question is appropriate. Socialism and
>> totalitarianism are certainly not mutually exclusive, as witness National
>> Socialism under Hitler or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under
>> Stalin et al. Socialism is essentially collectivist in nature, i.e. to
>> some degree the individual must be subordinated to the state
>> (euphemistically, "the people").
>>
>> On the other hand, there are socialist states such as Sweden which seem
>> quite benign, at least to outsiders, though I understand many Swedes have
>> grumbled about it.
>>
>> I doubt there's any democracy today that does not have some definite
>> socialist elements, so it's really a matter of degree that's argued over.
>> And it largely depends on whose ox is gored, as the saying goes. Social
>> Security for example is mostly a socialist scheme. I'm retired, and
>> collect Social Security, but it's by far the smallest of my sources of
>> income. I'm mildly in favor of it. If it were more important to me than
>> it is, I'd be more in favor of it; if it didn't benefit me at all, I
>> wouldn't like it at all.
>>
>> That's democracy for you.
>>
>> Neil
>>
> The problem is, it isn't a self-sustaining source of income....It depends
> on those working and paying into it....By itself, it couldn't possible pay
> you (and me) what it is paying. So, in reality, it is just another
> socialist Robin-Hood program.....

Right. It wasn't really a sound scheme in 1935, and has become worse over
time as our congresscritters have added more "free" goodies to it.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh.DeleteThis@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:13db44mn07gvn75@corp.supernews.com...
> Frank Arthur wrote:
>> "Pudentame" <no.one.DeleteThis@no.were.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:46d50f3e$0$32499$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Frank Arthur wrote:
>>>> Look at that long list of Al Sharpton bullshit spamming to multiple
>>>> photo newsgroups.
>>> Shit happens.
>>
>> Correct. And that's why I flushed a number of those by using Block and
>> not have to see s--- again.
>
> Typical liberal moonbat.
>
> C.

<guffaw!>

Well, you're certainly even-handed, no one can take that away from you.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> All kidding aside, that's something I've wondered about
>> occasionally. Does anyone make cameras adapted to accommodate
>> left-handed people?
>
> I don't see how the handedness actually matters on cameras; *both*
> hands are doing critical fine-control tasks.
>
> Now, the *eye* side matters. I'm left-eyed, and get lots of nose
> grease on the LCD, and mostly have to leave the 5-way selector locked
> on my D200 (or my focus point gets bumped around).

YES I have the exact same problem. I realize my nose is squooshing the
selector around!
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

"Neil Harrington" <not.RemoveThis@home.today> wrote in message
news:kNKdnQj65fyFAEjbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "William Graham" <weg9.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:mMednS-OF9wFHEnbnZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <not.RemoveThis@home.today> wrote in message
>> news:0cCdnbpnmqyKhEnbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "ASAAR" <caught.RemoveThis@22.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rgd6d39tg4t1r1rvgop5tt2kl3vn0kqndn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:49:39 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It's amazing how little you know about the real Bush that
>>>>>> you so idolize. In his own family he was considered to be the
>>>>>> "black sheep", and at least one younger brother seems to 'fondly'
>>>>>> remember Shrub's penchant for shooting at them with his BB gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, wow! Shooting at them with his BB gun! What a horrible, brutal,
>>>>> heinous act! Even worse than being squirted with a water pistol!
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Squirt guns don't "put your eyes out". Didn't you see
>>>> "A Christmas Story" or hear parental horror tales?
>>>
>>> About BB guns? No, didn't. But there are all sorts of horror stories
>>> about things happening to children. The fact is that childhood is a very
>>> dangerous time for a number of reasons. When I look back at my own I'm
>>> almost inclined to shudder at the number of near misses. But none of
>>> them involved BB guns, and like most kids I knew, I had a BB gun and
>>> occasionally we did shoot at each other. Getting hit with a BB is not
>>> ordinarily a terrible experience. I remember one kid shooting a girl in
>>> the ass and she wasn't even aware of it (she was wearing blue jeans at
>>> the time).
>>
>> If that was in Lynbrook, New York in 1950, that was me.....And the girl
>> was Patsy K........She was sweet on me.....:^)
>
> <chuckle>
>
> No, this was in Connecticut, late '40s I think, but by coincidence the
> girl's name was Pat also.
>
> Lynbrook, eh? I'm an ex-Long Islander myself. Lived in Oceanside until age
> 16 (1945). Went back there about 20 years ago to see the old place, and
> that was a terrible mistake. Where I lived there were only two houses
> visible from ours, and meadows all the way to the horizon, with sailboats
> on the bay visible in one direction. I went back and found the meadows all
> drained and blocks and blocks of houses packed together there. Really
> depressing.
>
> But in my childhood and early youth there, it was a wonderful place to
> grow up.
>
> Neil
>
Well, I'm not sure I'd say Lynbrook was a "wonderful place to grow up", but
I did go back there in the early 90's and all the empty lots had been built
up with houses.....All the old trees were gone, and the saplings had become
large trees. Nobody I had ever heard of was still living there, so I'd say
that it was a mistake also....(for me to go back, I mean) It's funny the
things you remember when you're 5 to 15 years old, and the things you never
noticed......In that respect, going back is an interesting experience.....
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

"Neil Harrington" <not.RemoveThis@home.today> wrote in message
news:xOGdnfrhZKRtPkjbnZ2dnUVZ_uejnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Cynicor" <j...tru.p..in.RemoveThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote in message
> news:w76dnQS6zIcitEnbnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "Annika1980" <annika1980.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1188265100.492927.239310@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Aug 27, 9:24 pm, "William Graham" <w....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Pull out, and then go back in? - that doesn't make sense.....
>>>> Makes more sense than staying there and getting more and more soldiers
>>>> killed for nothing.
>>>
>>> Another military genius who'll vote for Hillary.
>>
>> Hillary's an idiot. I can't believe she called for a coup against Maliki.
>> NOT HELPFUL.
>
> Not helpful indeed, but Hillary's not an idiot. I wish people would stop
> calling elected politicians idiots and morons. Whatever else they may be,
> those things they are not.
>
>>
>>> Pull out, give the enemy plenty of time to consolidate their position,
>>> gain strength and weapons -- and THEN go back in? That's your idea of
>>> how to avoid "getting more and more soldiers killed for nothing"?
>>
>> Who's "the enemy"? As soon as we leave, native Iraqis are going to make
>> short work of foreign fighters. Other than that, both Sunni and Shia want
>> us out, and all we can do by staying is choose sides in a civil war.
>>
>>> Gee . . . I wonder why our generals never thought of that during World
>>> War II when things were going badly for us.
>>
>> WWII was a fight to protect our country. The Iraq War isn't.
>
> WWII wasn't a war that was any of our business in the first place -- it
> has been described as a continuation of WWI after a 20-year hiatus, and to
> a considerable extent that is true. WWI wasn't any of our business
> either -- it was purely a European squabble, and it was the emtanglement
> of European alliances that made it a world war. None of those alliances
> originally (i.e., in 1914) involved the U.S. We should have stayed out of
> it.

Had we "stayed out" of either of those wars, we would not have an
independent country right now.....Germany and the Axis powers would have
taken over the world in WW-I, and either Germany or Japan would have taken
over the world in WW-II. Isolationism has been an impossible policy for over
100 years now. - If we were to turn our backs on the rest of the world, they
would eventually come here to get us. It is a lot easier to take over Iraq
as we did that it would be to fight off the Islamic hoards who will
eventually be armed with nukes in another 50 years or so.....An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure....The
Democrats who just want us to wring our hands and whimper, and "stay out of
everyone else's business" are WRONG. That policy would be a resounding
loser....We have no choice but to watch, and interfere with, what they are
doing over there.....The world has become far too small for us to be able to
do anything else.
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

"Neil Harrington" <not DeleteThis @home.today> wrote in message
news:pbWdnRJPObKXMUjbnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "> I do care about all the Iraqis who've been slaughtered trying to get
> their country together in an orderly and peaceable way, but it looks like
> they may all have died in vain.

With so many Democrats around, everyone will have, (and usually does) "die
in vain".....It is impossible to get anything done, or complete any policy
with so many nay-sayers busy cheering on the opposition.......
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

"Neil Harrington" <not.DeleteThis@home.today> wrote in message
news:U4qdnUAB8ZWRM0jbnZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "William Graham" <weg9.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:IbSdneBshtAoGknbnZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <not.DeleteThis@home.today> wrote in message
>> news:U-ydnUKnpr5PqEnbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Cynicor" <j...tru.p..in.DeleteThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:DZydnQN3P5pu-k7bnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> William Graham wrote:
>>>>> "Cynicor" <j...tru.p..in.DeleteThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:l5mdnWegBYvzzU7bnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>>> William Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> "Cynicor" <j...tru.p..in.DeleteThis@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote in message > Can
>>>>>>> you name any "non-socialists" in the running? Can you explain why
>>>>>>>> "socialism" is a scare word? I'm much more afraid of
>>>>>>>> totalitarianism than "socialism".
>>>>>>> I'm not....Socialism is much worse.....It steals from those who do
>>>>>>> all the work, and gives it to those who sit on their asses.....What
>>>>>>> could be worse than that? Even under totalitarianism there are
>>>>>>> incentives for the people to work and get rich....Under socialism,
>>>>>>> there is no incentive to do anything......
>>>>>> Would you define the United States as a socialist nation at present?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tough question....It is too socialist for my taste, but then I am a
>>>>> radical rightist who thinks the government should confine itself to
>>>>> matters of defense.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you can see where I'm headed with this...
>>>>
>>>> You said that socialism is much worse than totalitarianism. If our
>>>> nation is (as you said in the part I just snipped) 50% socialist, and
>>>> Saddam's was totalitarian, then by your reasoning wouldn't we be almost
>>>> as bad off as Iraqis were under his rule? And yet, no one would argue
>>>> that we were in any way comparable.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I feel that "socialism" is a scare word.
>>>
>>> To some degree it is, just as "fascism" is, but "socialism" is generally
>>> much more appropriately applied.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the "worse than" question is appropriate. Socialism and
>>> totalitarianism are certainly not mutually exclusive, as witness
>>> National Socialism under Hitler or the Union of Soviet Socialist
>>> Republics under Stalin et al. Socialism is essentially collectivist in
>>> nature, i.e. to some degree the individual must be subordinated to the
>>> state (euphemistically, "the people").
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there are socialist states such as Sweden which seem
>>> quite benign, at least to outsiders, though I understand many Swedes
>>> have grumbled about it.
>>>
>>> I doubt there's any democracy today that does not have some definite
>>> socialist elements, so it's really a matter of degree that's argued
>>> over. And it largely depends on whose ox is gored, as the saying goes.
>>> Social Security for example is mostly a socialist scheme. I'm retired,
>>> and collect Social Security, but it's by far the smallest of my sources
>>> of income. I'm mildly in favor of it. If it were more important to me
>>> than it is, I'd be more in favor of it; if it didn't benefit me at all,
>>> I wouldn't like it at all.
>>>
>>> That's democracy for you.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>> The problem is, it isn't a self-sustaining source of income....It depends
>> on those working and paying into it....By itself, it couldn't possible
>> pay you (and me) what it is paying. So, in reality, it is just another
>> socialist Robin-Hood program.....
>
> Right. It wasn't really a sound scheme in 1935, and has become worse over
> time as our congresscritters have added more "free" goodies to it.
>
> Neil
In fairness to Roosevelt, who started it, it was supposed to just be a
temporary measure to get the retirees through the depression, and then it
was supposed to be stopped. He never lived to see the monster he
created.......
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer 

> All kidding aside, that's something I've wondered about
> occasionally. Does anyone make cameras adapted to accommodate
> left-handed people?

I don't see how the handedness actually matters on cameras; *both*
hands are doing critical fine-control tasks.

Now, the *eye* side matters. I'm left-eyed, and get lots of nose
grease on the LCD, and mostly have to leave the 5-way selector locked
on my D200 (or my focus point gets bumped around).

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b RemoveThis @dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/dd-b
Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-
b.net/photography/gallery
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 >> Stay informed about: If Rev. Al Sharpton Were A Photographer