looks like a fun picture.

I am curious,
Is it beneficial to shoot open to 2.8 for a nightscape photo vs say f5.6 for example? and perhaps 20 seconds? I suppose ISO change would depend on camera capabilities.

That is a debatable opinion and likely incorrect from my perspective, especially when you are referring to political labels. (which seems obvious on this thread alone but likewise on about every political discussion thread I have ever seen.) What is a conservative? You might get a dozen definitions from asking 20 people what a liberal is or what a republican is or what a democrat is.





I admit that for current day discussion this can be a challenge however I do believe there is a "rational" answer to be explained below.

I have for more than 10 years now realized and come to the conclusion that labels are confusing.






Define Conservative (another confusing label), and which conservatives are you talking about?



I can not speak with authority on the use of a word by people today, only the speaker could clarify what it means when they use such a word. However I can say that I believe words do have meanings, especially when it comes to contracts and documents. Regardless of what definition is applied today....A document and contract should only have the definition and meaning it had when originally written, otherwise what value are words, contracts and documents if we can all choose how they are interpreted for our own benefit?

I do not deny the confusion and changed meanings of words as applied today compared to what they meant during signing of the declaration of independence and the united states constitution. However, the meanings of the words as applied in the document are clear....The word Democracy IS NOT in the constitution and was spoken of with disregard by the founders for the most part. The word Republic was used and IS IN the document.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers/federalist-10-democracies-have-ever-been-spectacles-of-turbulence-and-contention

It is correct that there are some aspects of Democracy but only to the extent that individual rights are not violated.

However the word in the Constitution is...... Republic and Republican form of government... (and no that does not mean Republican party)

As far as I am concerned both parties are destroying liberty and the real war is quite clear in my mind. The war is between individual rights and Statism, or two other words that best compile the true issues and confusion of all the other labels....INDIVIDUALISM VS COLLECTIVISM.

liberal vs conservatism, democrat vs republican, these are essentially distraction from the real underlying issues of Individualism (supported by the Original intent of the Constitution (and any changes "pursuant thereof" ) and Collectivism.

Party leadership from both parties have helped lead us from being the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation in a short period of time. Both have helped deteriorate our liberties and increased centralized government power and collectivism. It can be argued until blue in the face about which party did it more and with which issues but either way elected politicians from both parties have ignored the intent of the document the swore an oath to uphold and defend.

Therefor a valuable discussion is one which correctly understand INDIVIDUALISM and individual rights and recognizes the people as sovereigns and discussion of the Proper Role of government ( which are the principles in which the founding father largely rediscovered. )

The constitution I believe did a wonderful job defining proper role of government. The problems we have now are not because of the constitution, but because the principles and intent of it are not understood, practiced or believed.

If we enforced the original the document and its original intent we would have a representative republic however, since we do not enforce it, I would tend to agree that we now are largely becoming more of a tyrannical government. with strings pulled often by wealthy.

Words and definitions change over time...for example the word "liberal" is not used to mean the same as it did at the time of signing of the united states constitution.

If you find old Army training manuals originally and factually called the united states a republic, but later changed to Democracy. try a view of this 1828 dictionary....

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,republic

It depends on which political spectrum you subscribe to, but this video has some interesting facts and suggests That all "isms" that support moves toward total government are left wing...and those who believe in NO government are right wing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

It means what it meant to the founders.

Laws of Nature and Natures God...explaided in simple terms by Bastiat in his Treatise titled THE LAW.

Just laws are based on natural rights....a democracy is nothing more than mob rule and popular rule. But the constitution tells the government they can not violate natural rights and are restricted to powers that the people possess and therefor delegate to government. Government should not be anything consented by the governed...it should only be as I just described with the qualifying word "JUST powers" consented (delegated) to the governed.

Yes...not as many victims as socialism but still criminal in my mind.

I suppose everyone has their own definition...but according to Bernie it would be.

Regardless of what you call it...we are in a Country that violates property and natural law. We are in a country that has a tyrannical government that does everything the King did when the declaration was established.

We are not in a country of government restrained by the people enforcing the limitations on government. (Article 1 Section 8 )

A thief is bad, a person who hires his politician to do the stealing for him is equally bad if not more so.

I will say it for them...without emoticons....

Nothing!

yeah...goods coming from outside the states not taxing people within...you were correct there were some tax attempts but as I have stated, ....This does not justify socialism or an income tax.

That would make you feel better if it were actually true...haha

I am illiterate when it comes to link posting on here

for imports...no?

I do believe you correctly said there were taxes in 1790"s

(not 1790) However your debate sk**ls don't give you much credibility or invitation to anyone wanting to listen.

regarding a history of taxes....

https://mises.org/library/rocky-road-american-taxation#11