Re: Sometimes stupid loses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Walter Banks, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    Neil Harrington wrote:

    > > And nobody hates the government worse that those on the dole from it. The
    > > whole country is going broke, and the only thing they can think to do is
    > > steal more money from the ones who worked and saved and invested in
    > > american business to get it. Kill the goose that lays the golden egg. What
    > > a bunch of idiots!

    >
    > The consequences of all this were pointed out a couple of centuries ago,
    > both here and in Britain:
    >
    > "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald
    > the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin
    >
    > "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
    > exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from
    > the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
    > candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the
    > result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
    > followed by a dictatorship. . . ." -- Alexander Fraser Tytler


    "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
    on what to have for dinner."

    For most of the last decade politics in the US has been ruled by wolves. What
    is happening in the ME could happen in the US and to some extent already
    has through the tea party and Wisconsin public service

    Inspite of some good intentions Bush tax cuts didn't create any jobs but the
    left the country in debt and but was a windfall to many.

    The general decline in infrastructure is starting to show to the point where
    economic development is no longer possible in many area's. Unemployment
    in MI is at an all time high but most of new car development has moved
    out of state.

    The declining education standards will make it not possible to staff many
    jobs even if they were to exist. Look at Wisconsin in 20 years and how
    difficult to create new economic development.

    Real recovery will take more than a generation and will only be possible
    with serious long term planning by politicians who value their country more
    than composing the next caustic sound bite.

    I need more coffee.

    w..
     
    Walter Banks, Mar 28, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Walter Banks" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    >> > And nobody hates the government worse that those on the dole from it.
    >> > The
    >> > whole country is going broke, and the only thing they can think to do
    >> > is
    >> > steal more money from the ones who worked and saved and invested in
    >> > american business to get it. Kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
    >> > What
    >> > a bunch of idiots!

    >>
    >> The consequences of all this were pointed out a couple of centuries ago,
    >> both here and in Britain:
    >>
    >> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
    >> herald
    >> the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin
    >>
    >> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
    >> exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse
    >> from
    >> the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
    >> the
    >> candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the
    >> result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
    >> followed by a dictatorship. . . ." -- Alexander Fraser Tytler

    >
    > "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
    > on what to have for dinner."
    >
    > For most of the last decade politics in the US has been ruled by wolves.
    > What
    > is happening in the ME could happen in the US and to some extent already
    > has through the tea party and Wisconsin public service


    Can you clarify what you mean by "to some extent already has through the tea
    party and Wisconsin public service"?
    What was done in Wisonsin is nothing different than what was done to federal
    workers when Jimmy Carter was president.

    > Inspite of some good intentions Bush tax cuts didn't create any jobs but
    > the
    > left the country in debt and but was a windfall to many.
    >
    > The general decline in infrastructure is starting to show to the point
    > where
    > economic development is no longer possible in many area's. Unemployment
    > in MI is at an all time high but most of new car development has moved
    > out of state.
    >
    > The declining education standards will make it not possible to staff many
    > jobs even if they were to exist. Look at Wisconsin in 20 years and how
    > difficult to create new economic development.
    >
    > Real recovery will take more than a generation and will only be possible
    > with serious long term planning by politicians who value their country
    > more
    > than composing the next caustic sound bite.


    Politicians create more problems than they solve. Recovery will happen in
    the private sector, not by the hand of government.

    > I need more coffee.
    >
    > w..
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Mar 28, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:

    > > "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
    > > on what to have for dinner."
    > >
    > > For most of the last decade politics in the US has been ruled by wolves.
    > > What
    > > is happening in the ME could happen in the US and to some extent already
    > > has through the tea party and Wisconsin public service

    >
    > Can you clarify what you mean by "to some extent already has through the tea
    > party and Wisconsin public service"?
    > What was done in Wisonsin is nothing different than what was done to federal
    > workers when Jimmy Carter was president.


    In both cases large groups of people feel that their political voices were not
    heard. Publicly most people in the US want government spending to be
    under proper control. Privately they want a country with a future.

    In the long run most wealth is created through value added efforts. Wealth
    redistribution to the rich comes in the form of private taxes as goods and
    services travel through the economy and wealth distribution for the middle
    class and poor folks comes in the form of entitlements.

    Much of the failure of most of the economic incentives is a relatively few
    people discovered how to redirect much of the money to places it was
    never intended to go. Bush one time payment, paid off credit cards and
    other personal debt. Tax cuts did not create more jobs but made some
    companies and individuals better off.

    The balance of payments may actually be self correcting. The US dollar
    may become either too unstable or too low in value to finally block inputs
    resulting in more local small industry.

    w..
     
    Walter Banks, Mar 28, 2011
    #3
  4. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:

    > > "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
    > > on what to have for dinner."
    > >
    > > For most of the last decade politics in the US has been ruled by wolves.
    > > What
    > > is happening in the ME could happen in the US and to some extent already
    > > has through the tea party and Wisconsin public service

    >
    > Can you clarify what you mean by "to some extent already has through the tea
    > party and Wisconsin public service"?
    > What was done in Wisonsin is nothing different than what was done to federal
    > workers when Jimmy Carter was president.


    In both cases large groups of people feel that their political voices were not
    heard. Publicly most people in the US want government spending to be
    under proper control. Privately they want a country with a future.

    In the long run most wealth is created through value added efforts. Wealth
    redistribution to the rich comes in the form of private taxes as goods and
    services travel through the economy and wealth distribution for the middle
    class and poor folks comes in the form of entitlements.

    Much of the failure of most of the economic incentives is a relatively few
    people discovered how to redirect much of the money to places it was
    never intended to go. Bush one time payment, paid off credit cards and
    other personal debt. Tax cuts did not create more jobs but made some
    companies and individuals better off.

    The balance of payments may actually be self correcting. The US dollar
    may become either too unstable or too low in value to finally block imports
    resulting in more local small industry.

    w..
     
    Walter Banks, Mar 28, 2011
    #4
  5. Walter Banks

    Peter N Guest

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:35:04 -0500, Walter Banks
    <> wrote:
    > Inspite of some good intentions Bush tax cuts didn't create any

    jobs but the
    > left the country in debt and but was a windfall to many.



    > The general decline in infrastructure is starting to show to the

    point where
    > economic development is no longer possible in many area's.

    Unemployment
    > in MI is at an all time high but most of new car development has

    moved
    > out of state.



    > The declining education standards will make it not possible to

    staff many
    > jobs even if they were to exist. Look at Wisconsin in 20 years and

    how
    > difficult to create new economic development.



    > Real recovery will take more than a generation and will only be

    possible
    > with serious long term planning by politicians who value their

    country more
    > than composing the next caustic sound bite.


    The tax cuts should have been made at the corporate level. How many
    hundreds of thousands of. Jobs have been lost and moved overseas, so
    that multi-national corporations can legally avoid our tax rate of
    35%. IIRC GE pays an effective rate of about 2% and Cisco about 20%
    While I am not certain of the actual rates they pay, I know they pay
    substantially less than 35%.

    --
    Peter from my Droid
     
    Peter N, Mar 29, 2011
    #5
  6. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    Neil Harrington wrote:

    > > In both cases large groups of people feel that their political voices were
    > > not
    > > heard. Publicly most people in the US want government spending to be
    > > under proper control. Privately they want a country with a future.

    >
    > Why do you separate those two items into "publicly" and "privately" when
    > they are two sides of the same coin? If government spending isn't brought
    > under control the country doesn't have much in the way of a future, absent
    > revolution of course.


    They are slightly different things. Government spending is a problem just
    stopping government spending will not solve the country with a future problem.
    The remaining problems to assure a future requires vision and to some extent
    strategic spending. One very good example is education. A good education
    system is required to provide a more capable employee half a generation
    into the future. Stopping spending on education now will have a positive
    impact on the economy for 15 or 20 years and then will be a problem
    that will take 15 or 20 years to fix.

    Road systems and other transportation infrastructure could be privately
    owned and effectively paid for by private taxation on the economy. It is
    a complex trade-off between lower taxes, capital cost, return on investment
    and toll revenue. This approach would make the cost of entry for a new
    business higher (higher transportation costs) it also is an economic sector
    that is now controlled by individuals. In Ontario some roads are privately
    owned some are public.

    > > In the long run most wealth is created through value added efforts. Wealth
    > > redistribution to the rich comes in the form of private taxes as goods and
    > > services travel through the economy and wealth distribution for the middle
    > > class and poor folks comes in the form of entitlements.

    >
    > Can you explain that a little more clearly? What are "private taxes" and how
    > do they produce "wealth distribution to the rich"?


    Private taxes are the elements of the economy that are controlled by private
    interests but is some way are essential components for citizens. When these
    parts of the economy becomes unregulated or mostly so the costs and quality
    of these services are no longer can be controlled by those who use them.
    The US more than most countries has off loaded public taxes to private
    companies providing services and at the same time has also given up the
    freedom of much of the political control over these services. At the local
    level public utilities water, power, communications and broadcasting. There
    can be other forms of this as well in banking and insurance.

    I have had a hard time understanding the US concept of freedom in many
    area's. (I also lived in the US for 3 years and grew up 18 miles from the
    US border) One of the things that I fail to understand is how essential
    services that are privately controlled are viewed as more free than political
    accountability. The multi-year health care debate is a classic example of
    this. In the US private companies have routinely interfered in health
    services of individuals and no political force in Canada is powerful e
    enough to interfere with our health care. I don't want to start a debate
    on this now. It has been debated here long enough.


    > > Much of the failure of most of the economic incentives is a relatively few
    > > people discovered how to redirect much of the money to places it was
    > > never intended to go.

    >
    > To a considerable extent you're probably right, but that was predictable
    > from the beginning, wasn't it? It's what usually happens when the government
    > redistributes wealth with what are always represented as good intentions.
    > What happened to most of the taxpayers' dollars that the gummint poured by
    > the boatload into countries in desperate straits from Somalia to Haiti, for
    > example?


    > > Bush one time payment, paid off credit cards and
    > > other personal debt. Tax cuts did not create more jobs but made some
    > > companies and individuals better off.

    >
    > Tax cuts made a lot of us better off, at least until the stock market peaked
    > in October 2007, and of course the bursting of the housing bubble. GDP grew
    > at an average rate of 2.2% between 2001 and 2008.


    Tax cuts made a lot of individuals better off by transferring the tax load
    into the future. If Bush had been able to plan forward for a solid
    economic outlook that accounted for the effects of making the
    US less marketable in a global marketplace then the tax cuts
    would have been good. In real terms most Americans did not
    benefit from the Bush tax cuts. American industry continued to
    decline and unemployment rose.

    The Bush tax cuts delayed a lot of essential spending needed to
    maintain a healthy economy. Bridge failures heighten the problem
    but was small dollars compared to creating a real high speed
    communication network for example. The US private industry
    failed to step up to the plate on this. Even short term changes
    were not implemented until very late like electronic ticketing.

    The full accounting of the Bush tax cuts is at least 10-15 years away.

    > The U.S. economy grew 19%
    > over the Bush years, better than France, Japan, Italy and Germany though
    > growth was good in those countries too.


    How much was the change in GDP due to value added to products
    in the US. I don't know but I suspect that it was proportionally
    less than EU countries and Japan.

    > >
    > > The balance of payments may actually be self correcting. The US dollar
    > > may become either too unstable or too low in value to finally block
    > > imports
    > > resulting in more local small industry.

    >
    > That the U.S. dollar will continue to decrease in value there isn't much
    > doubt. That may indeed lower imports, but I don't know about the "resulting
    > in more local small industry" part.


    At some point imports will mot be attractive to the US and the people
    who are currently selling at flea markets will be creating small local industry.
    A real example of this is Walmart that transfers dollars to the Chinese
    economy for good below cost that takes money out of the US economy.
    The low cost goods benefits every individual short term who buys these
    products. (Zero sum game) but long term the plant down the road closes
    and your brother in law is out of a job and the same dollars are financing
    economic grow in another country.

    There is a great sunset tonight and this is photography group

    w..
     
    Walter Banks, Mar 30, 2011
    #6
  7. Walter Banks

    Peter N Guest

    On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:04:16 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:
    > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    > news:2011032922563916807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > > On 2011-03-28 16:41:59 -0700, Peter N <photo.maven

    @fakeverizon.net> said:
    > >
    > > <<< Le Snip >>>
    > >> The tax cuts should have been made at the corporate level. How

    many
    > >> hundreds of thousands of. Jobs have been lost and moved

    overseas, so that
    > >> multi-national corporations can legally avoid our tax rate of

    35%. IIRC
    > >> GE pays an effective rate of about 2% and Cisco about 20%
    > >> While I am not certain of the actual rates they pay, I know

    they pay
    > >> substantially less than 35%.

    > >
    > > Actually it seems GE paid more like -2% last year considering

    they were
    > > given some $100Mil in tax benefits & credits. So it looks like

    you and I
    > > paid more than GE. I know I did.
    > >
    > > <
    > >

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/on-nbc-the-missing-story-
    about-parent-company-general-electric/2011/03/29/AFpRYJyB_story.html


    > All of which apparently impressed Obama so much that he's appointed

    Jeffrey
    > Immelt "jobs chief" (chairman of the President's Council on Jobs

    and
    > Competitiveness). Immelt is CEO of General Electric.



    >

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-jobs
    -chief----the-ceo-of-ge----pays-no-corporate-taxes/1

    You think that's bad?

    --
    Peter from my Droid
     
    Peter N, Apr 1, 2011
    #7
  8. Walter Banks

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/1/2011 11:57 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:-secrets.com...
    >> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:04:16 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<>
    >> wrote:
    >>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:2011032922563916807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>> On 2011-03-28 16:41:59 -0700, Peter N<photo.maven

    >> @fakeverizon.net> said:
    >>>>
    >>>> <<< Le Snip>>>
    >>>>> The tax cuts should have been made at the corporate level. How

    >> many
    >>>>> hundreds of thousands of. Jobs have been lost and moved

    >> overseas, so that
    >>>>> multi-national corporations can legally avoid our tax rate of

    >> 35%. IIRC
    >>>>> GE pays an effective rate of about 2% and Cisco about 20%
    >>>>> While I am not certain of the actual rates they pay, I know

    >> they pay
    >>>>> substantially less than 35%.
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually it seems GE paid more like -2% last year considering

    >> they were
    >>>> given some $100Mil in tax benefits& credits. So it looks like

    >> you and I
    >>>> paid more than GE. I know I did.
    >>>>
    >>>> <

    >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/on-nbc-the-missing-story-
    >> about-parent-company-general-electric/2011/03/29/AFpRYJyB_story.html
    >>
    >>
    >>> All of which apparently impressed Obama so much that he's appointed

    >> Jeffrey
    >>> Immelt "jobs chief" (chairman of the President's Council on Jobs

    >> and
    >>> Competitiveness). Immelt is CEO of General Electric.

    >>
    >>
    >>>

    >> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-jobs
    >> -chief----the-ceo-of-ge----pays-no-corporate-taxes/1
    >>
    >> You think that's bad?

    >
    > It's all OK with you, is it?
    >
    >


    Not all, but we must keep corporate employment here. A tax cut is a start.
    Private activity bonds are another common method and I would like to see
    interest income from them removed from the AMT.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Apr 2, 2011
    #8
  9. Walter Banks

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/2/2011 11:31 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4d971e71$0$12497$-secrets.com...
    >> On 4/1/2011 11:57 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:-secrets.com...
    >>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:04:16 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:2011032922563916807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>> On 2011-03-28 16:41:59 -0700, Peter N<photo.maven
    >>>> @fakeverizon.net> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <<< Le Snip>>>
    >>>>>>> The tax cuts should have been made at the corporate level. How
    >>>> many
    >>>>>>> hundreds of thousands of. Jobs have been lost and moved
    >>>> overseas, so that
    >>>>>>> multi-national corporations can legally avoid our tax rate of
    >>>> 35%. IIRC
    >>>>>>> GE pays an effective rate of about 2% and Cisco about 20%
    >>>>>>> While I am not certain of the actual rates they pay, I know
    >>>> they pay
    >>>>>>> substantially less than 35%.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Actually it seems GE paid more like -2% last year considering
    >>>> they were
    >>>>>> given some $100Mil in tax benefits& credits. So it looks like
    >>>> you and I
    >>>>>> paid more than GE. I know I did.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <
    >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/on-nbc-the-missing-story-
    >>>> about-parent-company-general-electric/2011/03/29/AFpRYJyB_story.html
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> All of which apparently impressed Obama so much that he's appointed
    >>>> Jeffrey
    >>>>> Immelt "jobs chief" (chairman of the President's Council on Jobs
    >>>> and
    >>>>> Competitiveness). Immelt is CEO of General Electric.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-jobs
    >>>> -chief----the-ceo-of-ge----pays-no-corporate-taxes/1
    >>>>
    >>>> You think that's bad?
    >>>
    >>> It's all OK with you, is it?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not all, but we must keep corporate employment here. A tax cut is a start.
    >> Private activity bonds are another common method and I would like to see
    >> interest income from them removed from the AMT.

    >
    > All that sounds perfectly fine to me, but I don't see the connection to the
    > GE situation.


    then you just don't understand the regulatory process and the obvious
    need for understanding the industry being regulated. You fail to grasp
    the balancing act between preventing overreaching and helping to keep
    the business healthy.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Apr 2, 2011
    #9
  10. Walter Banks

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/2/2011 5:34 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4d974634$0$12499$-secrets.com...
    >> On 4/2/2011 11:31 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:4d971e71$0$12497$-secrets.com...
    >>>> On 4/1/2011 11:57 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>> "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:-secrets.com...
    >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:04:16 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:2011032922563916807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>> On 2011-03-28 16:41:59 -0700, Peter N<photo.maven
    >>>>>> @fakeverizon.net> said:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> <<< Le Snip>>>
    >>>>>>>>> The tax cuts should have been made at the corporate level. How
    >>>>>> many
    >>>>>>>>> hundreds of thousands of. Jobs have been lost and moved
    >>>>>> overseas, so that
    >>>>>>>>> multi-national corporations can legally avoid our tax rate of
    >>>>>> 35%. IIRC
    >>>>>>>>> GE pays an effective rate of about 2% and Cisco about 20%
    >>>>>>>>> While I am not certain of the actual rates they pay, I know
    >>>>>> they pay
    >>>>>>>>> substantially less than 35%.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Actually it seems GE paid more like -2% last year considering
    >>>>>> they were
    >>>>>>>> given some $100Mil in tax benefits& credits. So it looks like
    >>>>>> you and I
    >>>>>>>> paid more than GE. I know I did.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> <
    >>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/on-nbc-the-missing-story-
    >>>>>> about-parent-company-general-electric/2011/03/29/AFpRYJyB_story.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> All of which apparently impressed Obama so much that he's appointed
    >>>>>> Jeffrey
    >>>>>>> Immelt "jobs chief" (chairman of the President's Council on Jobs
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>>> Competitiveness). Immelt is CEO of General Electric.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-jobs
    >>>>>> -chief----the-ceo-of-ge----pays-no-corporate-taxes/1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You think that's bad?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's all OK with you, is it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Not all, but we must keep corporate employment here. A tax cut is a
    >>>> start.
    >>>> Private activity bonds are another common method and I would like to see
    >>>> interest income from them removed from the AMT.
    >>>
    >>> All that sounds perfectly fine to me, but I don't see the connection to
    >>> the
    >>> GE situation.

    >>
    >> then you just don't understand the regulatory process and the obvious need
    >> for understanding the industry being regulated. You fail to grasp the
    >> balancing act between preventing overreaching and helping to keep the
    >> business healthy.

    >
    > Huh? I'm talking about Immelt's GE paying not a penny in corporate taxes for
    > 2010 even though it had more than $14 billion in profits. Democratic
    > ex-senator Russ Feingold and the liberal organization Progressives United
    > have started a petition "for Mr. Immelt to resign from his position on
    > President Obama's jobs panel today."
    >
    > http://www.immeltmustgo.com/action/immelt-must-go
    >
    > That's what I'm talking about. I don't know what you're talking about.
    >
    >

    I say low corporate taxes are good for our economy.Immelt is an
    excellent choice for head of the Economic Advisory Commission. Are you
    saying that our President did something right?

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Apr 3, 2011
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tony cooper

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    tony cooper, Mar 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    193
  2. charles

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    charles, Mar 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    209
    Pete Stavrakoglou
    Mar 24, 2011
  3. PeterN

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    PeterN, Mar 26, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    112
    Views:
    1,638
    John Turco
    May 12, 2011
  4. tony cooper

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    tony cooper, Mar 27, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    614
    Views:
    7,046
    John Turco
    May 12, 2011
  5. PeterN

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    PeterN, Mar 27, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    411
    John Turco
    Apr 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page