Which camera for nude photography?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I really need something that will impress the girls.
49 answers Last reply
More about which camera nude photography
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Plonker wrote:
    > I really need something that will impress the girls.

    Start with a brain transplant, and don't use another from Abby Normal!
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Plonker wrote:
    > I really need something that will impress the girls.

    Anything with a long lens; evidently, you can't impress them in *other*
    ways...


    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Get one of them Tru Viewer toy stereoscopes, and tell them you're
    taking 3d pictures of them. I'm sure your girls won't see through it.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> writes:

    > I really need something that will impress the girls.

    You want a fairly long zoom; something in the 80-200 range.
    Preferably a push-pull design.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    You think you're going to impress the girls by being nude while you
    take photos of them?!?!? Sorry, that will scare them off!
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    >Anything with a long lens; evidently, you can't impress them in *other*
    >ways...


    It ain't the focal length, it's the aperture.

    Chicks dig the big glass.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Don't forget the Vaseline - I mean for rubbing around the edges of your
    daylight filter to add a soft edge to the photos, of course.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    It's NOT the camera, it's HOW you USE it!
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> writes:
    >
    >
    >>I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >
    >
    > You want a fairly long zoom; something in the 80-200 range.
    > Preferably a push-pull design.


    But you need a Nikon so you can spot meter. :-)
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    wilt wrote:
    > You think you're going to impress the girls by being nude while you
    > take photos of them?!?!? Sorry, that will scare them off!
    >

    Unless he has a VERY unusual tripod. :-)
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    OK, here's the deal. You're getting a ton of really bad advice, with the
    recommendations for digitals, 35mm, and all that small girly-man trash. Get
    a Sinar 8x10 view camera. It's huge, you can hide under the block cloth
    while you're focusing/ogling, and that way, they can't see you drooling. And
    stuff. If you can't get your hands on a view camera, the Mamiya RZ67 is very
    impressive looking. And, if you hire someone with a brain, can produce
    excellent images. Plus you can get the huge lenses, as well.

    Now go. Drool.

    "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote in message
    news:42f0dcf6$0$11062$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
    >I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> skrev i meddelandet
    news:42f0dcf6$0$11062$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
    >I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >
    You need a camera with the lens pointing 45 degrees up.
    Thats the only thing you need to impress a blond.


    Story.
    - Do you know where a blond put her legs to impress?
    - Behind the ears.

    Pepe
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    So properly named. Goodbye Plonker!

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote in message
    news:42f0dcf6$0$11062$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
    > I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote in message
    news:42f0dcf6$0$11062$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
    >I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >
    Don't you receive any SPAM?

    They are always trying to sell stuff that is supposed to impress the girls.

    If you do buy some, let us know how well it worked.

    Roy G
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
    news:11f1p7k435pn856@corp.supernews.com...
    > Plonker wrote:
    >> I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >
    > Anything with a long lens; evidently, you can't impress them in *other*
    > ways...
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    > Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

    Don't forget to put a filter on the front.
    Jim
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    and now for a serious answer (tho i doubt it was a serious question)

    It doesnt really matter - get something with connection to external flash -
    like a PC synce socker or a hotshoe - that way you can connect to studio
    flash

    I've used 3 different Olympus 7XX uz cameras to produce the images (nude and
    otherwise) on my site - i like Olympus - but its 'horses for courses.'

    Rich
    www.digitalmood.co.uk


    "Jim" <oldman@invalid.not> wrote in message
    news:3le3v3F12be76U1@individual.net...
    >
    > "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
    > news:11f1p7k435pn856@corp.supernews.com...
    >> Plonker wrote:
    >>> I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >>
    >> Anything with a long lens; evidently, you can't impress them in *other*
    >> ways...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    >> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
    >
    > Don't forget to put a filter on the front.
    > Jim
    >
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Rich,
    Of course it wasn't a serious question.... You have to answer tongue in
    cheek :-O Seriously
    Paul


    Rich wrote:
    > and now for a serious answer (tho i doubt it was a serious question)
    >
    > It doesnt really matter - get something with connection to external flash -
    > like a PC synce socker or a hotshoe - that way you can connect to studio
    > flash
    >
    > I've used 3 different Olympus 7XX uz cameras to produce the images (nude and
    > otherwise) on my site - i like Olympus - but its 'horses for courses.'
    >
    > Rich
    > www.digitalmood.co.uk
    >
    >
    >
    > "Jim" <oldman@invalid.not> wrote in message
    > news:3le3v3F12be76U1@individual.net...
    >
    >>"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
    >>news:11f1p7k435pn856@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >>>Plonker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >>>
    >>>Anything with a long lens; evidently, you can't impress them in *other*
    >>>ways...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    >>>Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
    >>
    >>Don't forget to put a filter on the front.
    >>Jim
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Paul

    Are you suggesting that the original post was a bit of a needle dick?

    Rich
    www.digitalmood.co.uk


    "Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
    news:EIydnaUDL752wW_fRVn-tA@comcast.com...
    > Rich,
    > Of course it wasn't a serious question.... You have to answer tongue in
    > cheek :-O Seriously
    > Paul
    >
    >
    > Rich wrote:
    >> and now for a serious answer (tho i doubt it was a serious question)
    >>
    >> It doesnt really matter - get something with connection to external
    >> flash - like a PC synce socker or a hotshoe - that way you can connect to
    >> studio flash
    >>
    >> I've used 3 different Olympus 7XX uz cameras to produce the images (nude
    >> and otherwise) on my site - i like Olympus - but its 'horses for
    >> courses.'
    >>
    >> Rich
    >> www.digitalmood.co.uk
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Jim" <oldman@invalid.not> wrote in message
    >> news:3le3v3F12be76U1@individual.net...
    >>
    >>>"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:11f1p7k435pn856@corp.supernews.com...
    >>>
    >>>>Plonker wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >>>>
    >>>>Anything with a long lens; evidently, you can't impress them in *other*
    >>>>ways...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>--
    >>>>E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    >>>>Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
    >>>
    >>>Don't forget to put a filter on the front.
    >>>Jim
    >>>
    >>
    >>
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    No, not at all. I have no knowledge of the OP anatomy, nor do I want
    any. But he does seem to have a sense of humor.
    Paul


    Rich wrote:
    > Paul
    >
    > Are you suggesting that the original post was a bit of a needle dick?
    >
    > Rich
    > www.digitalmood.co.uk
    >
    >
    >
    > "Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:EIydnaUDL752wW_fRVn-tA@comcast.com...
    >
    >>Rich,
    >>Of course it wasn't a serious question.... You have to answer tongue in
    >>cheek :-O Seriously
    >>Paul
    >>
    >>
    >>Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>>and now for a serious answer (tho i doubt it was a serious question)
    >>>
    >>>It doesnt really matter - get something with connection to external
    >>>flash - like a PC synce socker or a hotshoe - that way you can connect to
    >>>studio flash
    >>>
    >>>I've used 3 different Olympus 7XX uz cameras to produce the images (nude
    >>>and otherwise) on my site - i like Olympus - but its 'horses for
    >>>courses.'
    >>>
    >>>Rich
    >>>www.digitalmood.co.uk
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"Jim" <oldman@invalid.not> wrote in message
    >>>news:3le3v3F12be76U1@individual.net...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:11f1p7k435pn856@corp.supernews.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Plonker wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Anything with a long lens; evidently, you can't impress them in *other*
    >>>>>ways...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>--
    >>>>>E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    >>>>>Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
    >>>>
    >>>>Don't forget to put a filter on the front.
    >>>>Jim
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> writes:

    > I really need something that will impress the girls.

    A Box Brownie of course...

    Sheesh, don't they teach 'em anything these days.

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Wit, wisdom and not taking yourself too seriously. With those
    qualities the size of your "camera" won't matter.

    On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:04:24 +0200, "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote:

    >I really need something that will impress the girls.
    >
  22. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Paul Schilter wrote:

    > But you need a Nikon so you can spot meter. :-)

    You have a one track mind.

    The most important thing is a lens hood and a professional looking tripod.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:33:04 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

    >Paul Schilter wrote:
    >
    >> But you need a Nikon so you can spot meter. :-)
    >
    >You have a one track mind.
    >
    >The most important thing is a lens hood and a professional looking tripod.


    If you use Penthouse mag as a guide,
    the most important feature would be extreme close-up.


    <rj>
  24. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:33:04 +0000, SMS wrote:

    > Paul Schilter wrote:
    >
    >> But you need a Nikon so you can spot meter. :-)
    >
    > You have a one track mind.
    >
    > The most important thing is a lens hood and a professional looking tripod.
    Don't forget the dirty mac and dark glasses.
    --
    Neil
    Delete delete to reply by email
  25. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    I find that what works best is a small light camera with auto focus and
    romote trigger....then you scoot it along the ground until its in position
    and fire away! Its best to get one with low light abilities as using a flash
    can lead to problems.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Neil Ellwood wrote:

    > Don't forget the dirty mac and dark glasses.

    Why would someone need an Apple Computer, much less a dirty one?
  27. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    kashe@sonic.net wrote:
    > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:18:04 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
    > <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
    >
    > >I find that what works best is a small light camera with auto focus and
    > >romote trigger....then you scoot it along the ground until its in position
    > >and fire away! Its best to get one with low light abilities as using a flash
    > >can lead to problems.
    >
    >
    > Yes, unless the nude shot is for biblical porn and you need a
    > burning bush.


    sorry, i'm a bit confused. are you talking about president bush
    visiting new orleans or is this something entirely different?
  28. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    I hate nude photography - too damn drafty.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
    news:vAGVe.13444$p%3.57659@typhoon.sonic.net...
    > Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >
    > > Don't forget the dirty mac and dark glasses.
    >
    > Why would someone need an Apple Computer, much less a dirty one?
  29. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:18:04 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
    <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

    >I find that what works best is a small light camera with auto focus and
    >romote trigger....then you scoot it along the ground until its in position
    >and fire away! Its best to get one with low light abilities as using a flash
    >can lead to problems.


    Yes, unless the nude shot is for biblical porn and you need a
    burning bush.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote:

    >Which camera for nude photography?

    I find that I take better pictures with my clothes on!
  31. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Gary Edstrom wrote:
    > "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote:
    >
    >> Which camera for nude photography?
    >
    > I find that I take better pictures with my clothes on!

    Seems to me, uni-gender speaking, a nude photographer should be
    mindful of sharp edges and possible pinchings. Not to mention the
    items that oveheat with continuous use...
  32. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote in news:42f0dcf6$0$11062$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:

    > I really need something that will impress the girls.

    Lots of money, girls like the bling bling.

    Get a Canon 1Ds MkII + Canon 85 f1.2L lens and some big studio lights.

    Have the girls picked up by limo and brought around to your studio. The
    studio should be large, expensive and in the good area of town. Have
    Champaign and strawberries on hand in your studio (and in the limo).

    Also you should dress in Amani and wear a Rolex.

    The only other advice that I can think of is that when the girls are naked
    and you are taking pictures, don't masturbate over the girls - they
    probably would not be impressed by that.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
    "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
    young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
    for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
    Maskerade
  33. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Gene Palmiter wrote:
    > > There's no "hate" out there for Bush.
    > > More the case that the guy who's steering the ship of state
    > > may no quite be up to the job. And we're a bit nervous.
    > >
    > >
    > > <rj>
    >
    > The unfortunate truth is that almost everything bad you hear about Bush is
    > true while the same cannot be said about Clinton. Clinton has personal
    > failings that only became a public liability when the Neocons made them so.
    > Bush's failings more directly effect his job and the country. Moreover;
    > Clinton really seemed to want to do what was best for the most people while
    > Bush is out to benefit the elite. Ones motives are important...and if your
    > motive for lying cheating and stealing is to line your pockets and those of
    > your friends you give up a few feet of the moral high ground.


    well, i actually think bush and clinton's motives are fairly similar --
    they both want to help people -- but their methods are vastly
    different. e.g. clinton thinks tax cuts decrease tax revenue, whereas
    bush thinks tax cuts increase tax revenue. (with the current 1/2
    trillion deficits (not including the iraq war nor katrina) -- i'd say
    tax cuts decrease tax revenue.)

    in broad terms there are two kinds of republicans snaking around
    washington. both groups agree on the talking points (e.g. tax cuts
    increase tax revenue, being compassionate means not helping people,
    slamming my fist into your stomach hurts me more than it hurts you,
    minimum wage means maximum wage, etc.). one group knows it's bullshit
    but don't give a damn because they hate the idea of paying for other
    people's stupidities with their tax dollars, while the other group
    truly believes the campaign slogan bullshit.

    i think bush falls into the latter camp.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > There's no "hate" out there for Bush.
    > More the case that the guy who's steering the ship of state
    > may no quite be up to the job. And we're a bit nervous.
    >
    >
    > <rj>

    The unfortunate truth is that almost everything bad you hear about Bush is
    true while the same cannot be said about Clinton. Clinton has personal
    failings that only became a public liability when the Neocons made them so.
    Bush's failings more directly effect his job and the country. Moreover;
    Clinton really seemed to want to do what was best for the most people while
    Bush is out to benefit the elite. Ones motives are important...and if your
    motive for lying cheating and stealing is to line your pockets and those of
    your friends you give up a few feet of the moral high ground.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <tc3We.5988$XO6.869@trnddc03>, Gene Palmiter
    <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

    > The unfortunate truth is that almost everything bad you hear about Bush is
    > true while the same cannot be said about Clinton. Clinton has personal
    > failings that only became a public liability when the Neocons made them so.
    > Bush's failings more directly effect his job and the country. Moreover;
    > Clinton really seemed to want to do what was best for the most people while
    > Bush is out to benefit the elite. Ones motives are important...and if your
    > motive for lying cheating and stealing is to line your pockets and those of
    > your friends you give up a few feet of the moral high ground.

    Keep voting for the Democrats...they need at least a few people who
    will.
  36. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    <RJ> mentioned in passing :
    >
    > There's no "hate" out there for Bush.

    Google "I hate Bush".
  37. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Bill,
    I thought he was against stem cell research?
    Paul


    Bill DeWitt wrote:

    snipped

    >
    > Bush has vastly increased spending for ......(snipped)...... stem cell research
  38. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Fletis,
    Well there are degrees of liberalism and conservatism. You wouldn't
    just say, let the New Orleans people take care of themselves it's not
    our problem, would you? I find that extremes in almost any position
    don't usually work. Something a more moderate approach work more
    consistently.
    Paul


    Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

    snipped

    > I guess I'm in that camp too. I hate paying for other people's
    > stupidity. If you think it should be your neighbor's burden, you're
    > a liberal.
    >
    >
  39. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Bill,
    I don't hate him, don't really hate anybody. OTOH I don't have respect
    for him and the decisions he's made. But this isn't to say he hasn't
    done some good things as well.
    Paul


    Bill DeWitt wrote:
    > <RJ> mentioned in passing :
    >
    >>There's no "hate" out there for Bush.
    >
    >
    > Google "I hate Bush".
    >
    >
  40. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Paul Schilter"

    > Fletis,
    > Well there are degrees of liberalism and conservatism. You wouldn't just say, let the New Orleans people take care of themselves
    > it's not our problem, would you? I find that extremes in almost any position don't usually work. Something a more moderate
    > approach work more consistently.
    > Paul


    I don't agree with the premise of part of your question. Conservatism
    doesn't necessarily mean 'let the poor bastards die'.


    > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
    >
    > snipped
    >
    >> I guess I'm in that camp too. I hate paying for other people's
    >> stupidity. If you think it should be your neighbor's burden, you're
    >> a liberal.
    >>
  41. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    SMS mentioned in passing :
    >
    >>
    >> Since the tax cut has increased revenue, what is the "real,
    >> immediate and negative effect of the tax cuts on the deficit"?
    >
    > There is no evidence at all that the tax cuts have produced any
    > revenue.

    Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue has increased. The mechanics
    are obvious and well described. When the results meet the predictions of the
    hypothesis, one generally concludes that the best explanation has been
    found.

    > You simply do not know whether the revenue would have been
    > higher or
    > lower without the tax cuts.

    Well, since those who believe differently predicted that revenues
    would -not- rise, and those for the cut predicted that it would, I have to
    say that this is another win in the "for"column.

    > Supply-side economics have been thoroughly
    > discredited,

    False. "Supply side economics" has been thoroughly propagandized against
    by the left, but, like any science, it works whether you believe in it or
    not.

    >so the evidence would be that tax cuts do NOT increase
    > revenue.

    So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax cut?
    Remarkable.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    i already did elsewhere in this thread. ...ok, enough of him.

    far better to contemplate the portfolio of some guy named marsel van
    oosten (whom i don't know) that i came across tonight. the sheer
    quality and variety of his work is astonishing (be sure to check out
    the "his royal highness" pic -- reminds me a certain japanese
    politician)

    here's the link:

    http://www.nikonians-images.com/galleries/showgallery.php?ppuser=4302&cat=500&password=
  43. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Bill DeWitt wrote:

    > So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax cut?
    > Remarkable.

    And they also increased after tax increases. You try to make
    corellations that fit your far-right agenda, but they are untrue.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    SMS mentioned in passing :
    >
    > Bill DeWitt wrote:
    >
    >> So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax
    >> cut? Remarkable.
    >
    > And they also increased after tax increases.

    Show that. Show a significant increase out of porportion to the increase
    of the GDP immediately after a tax increase. I would be interested.

    But assuming you can ... there is certainly more than one reason that
    revenues may increase (as any HS economics class will teach you), but the
    presence of other variables does not negate the primary variable. When there
    is money available for reinvestment, wise business practice is to reinvest.
    That creates more income, resulting in more income taxes. When the mechanism
    can be shown, the correlation is most likely to be true.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Bill DeWitt wrote:

    > Waitwaitwait WAIT a minute! The challenge is, Name a real, immediate and
    > negative effect that tax cuts has on the deficit. Not vaguely discuss
    > dependence on foreign banks or disaster relief funding. Explain how
    > increased revenues make the deficit worse.

    Once again, there is no evidence that tax cuts increase revenue. Revenue
    also went up after tax increases by Bush Sr and Clinton. You've got to
    stop listening to Rush, and do some reading!
  46. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    SMS mentioned in passing :
    >
    > Bill DeWitt wrote:
    >
    >> Waitwaitwait WAIT a minute! The challenge is, Name a real,
    >> immediate and negative effect that tax cuts has on the deficit. Not
    >> vaguely discuss dependence on foreign banks or disaster relief
    >> funding. Explain how increased revenues make the deficit worse.
    >
    > Once again, there is no evidence that tax cuts increase revenue.

    So you say (against all logic), but nonetheless, they did go up. How is
    that bad for deficits?
  47. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:15:23 -0400, "Bill DeWitt"
    <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote:

    >SMS mentioned in passing :
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Since the tax cut has increased revenue, what is the "real,
    >>> immediate and negative effect of the tax cuts on the deficit"?
    >>
    >> There is no evidence at all that the tax cuts have produced any
    >> revenue.
    >
    > Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue has increased. The mechanics
    >are obvious and well described. When the results meet the predictions of the
    >hypothesis, one generally concludes that the best explanation has been
    >found.
    >
    >> You simply do not know whether the revenue would have been
    >> higher or
    >> lower without the tax cuts.
    >
    > Well, since those who believe differently predicted that revenues
    >would -not- rise, and those for the cut predicted that it would, I have to
    >say that this is another win in the "for"column.
    >
    >> Supply-side economics have been thoroughly
    >> discredited,
    >
    > False. "Supply side economics" has been thoroughly propagandized against
    >by the left, but, like any science, it works whether you believe in it or
    >not.

    Bullshit. The propaganda is with the right for prosituting
    real science to political ideology.

    Democrats provided numbers on the welfare issue. Instead of,
    as science would demand, refuting numbers with numbers, Bush simply
    (well-chosen word) replied, "Fuzzy math. Fuzzy math" and the wackos
    still voted for him. Hell of a scientist, that Bu(ll)sh(it).

    >
    >>so the evidence would be that tax cuts do NOT increase
    >> revenue.
    >
    > So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax cut?
    >Remarkable.
    >
  48. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <u93si1lmqqb4mqbbj1sur95s0j83g8fcgv@4ax.com>, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

    > > False. "Supply side economics" has been thoroughly propagandized against
    > >by the left, but, like any science, it works whether you believe in it or
    > >not.
    >
    > Bullshit. The propaganda is with the right for prosituting
    > real science to political ideology.


    Don't Bill's arguements sound suspiciously like those used by the guy who
    promotes Sigma cameras?
  49. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Bill DeWitt <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >SMS mentioned in passing :

    >>> Since the tax cut has increased revenue, what is the "real,
    >>> immediate and negative effect of the tax cuts on the deficit"?
    >>
    >> There is no evidence at all that the tax cuts have produced any
    >> revenue.
    >
    > Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue has increased.

    That explains why federal revenues have fallen in response to Bush's
    tax cuts.

    > The mechanics
    >are obvious and well described.

    If one ignores reality.

    > When the results meet the predictions of the
    >hypothesis, one generally concludes that the best explanation has been
    >found.

    And when the results contradict the claims, then the right-wing spins
    the facts and lies.

    >> Supply-side economics have been thoroughly
    >> discredited,
    >
    > False.

    It has. It doesn't work. It's a scam.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    rfischer@sonic.net
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Cameras