12 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Not really, eight years of silence about trump’s violent rhetoric, trumps the sudden concern for political violence. I agree both sides need to tone it down, but let’s stop pretending that it’s been anything close to equal. 

while i agree that both sides need to knock it off, i'm not under any pretenses that it's equal.  

i'm also not naive enough to believe that will it stop, especially from the cucks.

32 minutes ago, binkybink77 said:

I’d say Biden didn’t mean to get Trump shot because he said bullseye instead of crosshairs but probably his supporters speak Joe so they knew what he meant. Every time I hear that phrase I envision Trump being strung up on a dartboard  

Well then. Now I know what to get you for our anniversary

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Show me the examples of leading Democrats calling for Republican politicians to be killed/attacked. Trump called for Clinton to be killed. Mocked the attack on Paul Pelosi. MTG called for Pelosi to be killed. If it is on both sides, you definitely have examples. FFS -- Trump was OK with people trying to hang his own VP.

And no, comments by celebrities aren't what we are talking about. Unless we want to start bringing up Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, etc.

There's no example of Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. calling for violence. 

This will be a bit of a wait.

I think you all need to remember that Vikas is a pretty staunch conservative on most issues. Every time he supports the Democrats it takes about 15 minutes off of his life. 

2 minutes ago, paco said:

Well then. Now I know what to get you for our anniversary

currently unavailable. no doubt there are couple posters in here who have one of those. 

But Biden used the term bullseye. 
 

 

18 minutes ago, binkybink77 said:

Oh please it is inflammatory on both sides. Choosing one Biden remark as an example of how it’s not is disingenuous. Supporters on the left, politicians, celebs, social media, etc has people whipped into a frenzy with very little attempts from either side to cool tensions, call for peace and cooperation amongst various opinions or to treat each other civilly. Look at how the 2 debated each other - it was embarrassing. You have women running around claiming they need to delete period tracking apps from their phones or the government will accuse them of abortions and throw them in jail. I can’t even deal with one side claiming moral high ground over the other in this regard. People in this thread alone highlighting what was better about Hitler. 
 

So you just stop it already.

Both sides BS is just an excuse for one side to continue with their abhorrent rhetoric. So keep doing you...

25 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I think you all need to remember that Vikas is a pretty staunch conservative on most issues. Every time he supports the Democrats it takes about 15 minutes off of his life. 

I don’t need to be reminded of that. And I agree with him that Trump himself is more guilty of overtly inflammatory language than his counterparts. Trump supporters like that he speaks out against the lunacy of the left. I don’t. I don’t like Donald Trump, his personality or how he conducts himself both politically and personally. But I’m not just going to ignore the absolute insanity that comes from the left and how they have their own manner of stoking those flames, fear mongering, racial baiting, and using marginalized groups for political gain, creating a culture of victimhood all while looking you in the eye and feigning concern. It’s sinister and deliberate. The right fires back by supporting a candidate who isn’t afraid to "call it out” and "tell it like it is” because their opinions are silenced everywhere else as being bigoted, fascist, literally Hitler. The left has a much bigger and louder platform and support online and in the media. They just do and pulling out Ted Nugent as the counter argument to that just highlights how weak a point that is. Nothing that I’m pointing out means I support the way Trump conducts himself. 
 

I will not sit by and pretend one side is better or worse because I see what is happening and how out of control it is. 
 

I don’t post much anymore because I literally have no time to. But when I do, there are far more posters on the right that I don’t ever respond to, engage with or entertain in any way. There are like 2 others outside of that I don’t engage with because they are just lame. I only point it out to show that I am not attempting to play one side over the other. It’s just my opinion and observations that it’s all out of control. 
 

And I don’t have time to go back and forth beyond that today. We haven’t had power in 2 days, paco is on the road and I need to get my daughter to her PT. 
 

Have fun making the same arguments to each other back and forth all day dorks! 

1 minute ago, binkybink77 said:

I don’t need to be reminded of that. And I agree with him that Trump himself is more guilty of overtly inflammatory language than his counterparts. Trump supporters like that he speaks out against the lunacy of the left. I don’t. I don’t like Donald Trump, his personality or how he conducts himself both politically and personally. But I’m not just going to ignore the absolute insanity that comes from the left and how they have their own manner of stoking those flames, fear mongering, racial baiting, and using marginalized groups for political gain, creating a culture of victimhood all while looking you in the eye and feigning concern. It’s sinister and deliberate. The right fires back by supporting a candidate who isn’t afraid to "call it out” and "tell it like it is” because their opinions are silenced everywhere else as being boob, fascist, literally Hitler. The left has a much bigger and louder platform and support online and in the media. They just do and pulling out Ted Nugent as the counter argument to that just highlights how weak a point that is. Nothing that I’m pointing out means I support the way Trump conducts himself. 
 

I will not sit by and pretend one side is better or worse because I see what is happening and how out of control it is. 
 

I don’t post much anymore because I literally have no time to. But when I do, there are far more posters on the right that I don’t ever respond to, engage with or entertain in any way. There are like 2 others outside of that I don’t engage with because they are just lame. I only point it out to show that I am not attempting to play one side over the other. It’s just my opinion and observations that it’s all out of control. 
 

And I don’t have time to go back and forth beyond that today. We haven’t had power in 2 days, paco is on the road and I need to get my daughter to her PT. 
 

Have fun making the same arguments to each other back and forth all day dorks! 

PT? Girl doing OK? Hope all is well.

or... is it?

40 minutes ago, binkybink77 said:

Oh please it is inflammatory on both sides. Choosing one Biden remark as an example of how it’s not is disingenuous. Supporters on the left, politicians, celebs, social media, etc has people whipped into a frenzy with very little attempts from either side to cool tensions, call for peace and cooperation amongst various opinions or to treat each other civilly. Look at how the 2 debated each other - it was embarrassing. You have women running around claiming they need to delete period tracking apps from their phones or the government will accuse them of abortions and throw them in jail. I can’t even deal with one side claiming moral high ground over the other in this regard. People in this thread alone highlighting what was better about Hitler. 
 

So you just stop it already.

I've quite literally lost count of the "F Joe Biden" and "Let's Go Brandon" flags but can probably count on one hand the amount of anti-Trump memorabilia I've seen. The rhetoric is very clearly skewed to one side.

5 hours ago, vikas83 said:

PT? Girl doing OK? Hope all is well.

She was born premature and spent a month in the NICU. She was only 4lbs when she was born! She has OT and PT for low tone. She is doing incredibly and I’m truly amazed by her every. single. day. Tiny but mighty! (Like her mommy  )

Just now, binkybink77 said:

She was born premature and spent a month in the NICU. She was only 4lbs when she was born! She has OT and PT for low tone. She is doing incredibly and I’m truly amazed by her every. single. day. Tiny but might! (Like her mommy  )

Glad to hear she is doing well! 

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

I've quite literally lost count of the "F Joe Biden" and "Let's Go Brandon" flags but can probably count on one hand the amount of anti-Trump memorabilia I've seen. The rhetoric is very clearly skewed to one side.

I'm sick of all of it at this point. I don't care who started it or who is worse. Our country is falling apart. I can't imagine where we'd be if that kid had been successful. 

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

I'm sick of all of it at this point. I don't care who started it or who is worse. Our country is falling apart. I can't imagine where we'd be if that kid had been successful. 

Probably when Trump can no longer run for president. I can't imagine another person coming along like him for a while.

2 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Probably when Trump can no longer run for president. I can't imagine another person coming along like him for a while.

Do you hear his VP? It’s not just Trump anymore. 

Just now, Paul852 said:

Probably when Trump can no longer run for president. I can't imagine another person coming along like him for a while.

The Vance pick is all about trying to secure MAGA's future hold on the GOP. At this point I have accepted that my party is gone and never coming back.

9 minutes ago, binkybink77 said:

I don’t like Donald Trump,                 But 

2 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Probably when Trump can no longer run for president. I can't imagine another person coming along like him for a while.

Hopefully, but the left needs to get their crap in order, too, and ditch the woke BS. I'd take Clinton or a Jed Bartlet any day of the week. Gender BS, pushing energy tech we aren't ready for, and supporting people pouring across our borders and illegals (not migrants) taking over our damn cities like what is happening in Denver and NYC is utter BS. Both sides have faults. Again, I don't care who is worse I'm sick of both of them. 

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The Vance pick is all about trying to secure MAGA's future hold on the GOP. At this point I have accepted that my party is gone and never coming back.

I feel bad for his wife. He went off the rails past few years. 

55 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Absolutely insane to use a shutter speed that fast for a political rally.  Maybe for a football game or something else you wanted to catch split second action, but using it for a political rally makes exactly zero sense.

Bro it was the middle of the day in the sun.
 

Photog was prob somewhere around f/4-f/8. Shutter speed isn’t a function of motion, it’s a function of light. (It’s that in sporting events you need to capture stuff in motion so the speeds are automatically higher. You’ll notice at sporting events the photos are grainier, this is because the lighting usually sucks so they need to pump up the ISO (indoor games, night games, shadier venues). 
 

Then you have to take into account that the lens was probably a 70-200, so the shutter speed would have had to have been north of whatever the focal length was at, otherwise you’d get blur in the image (this is assuming the photographers were using a FF camera, and why wouldn’t they be).
 

Here’s a photo of Obama meeting the pope outside.

Shutter speed was 1/400.

Heres another one.

Shutter speed was 1/800. 
 

Here’s one from Selma. 

1/500. And notice too that’s with the sun being a backlight.

Of note about the three photos, the aperture’s were closed off (the last one was an f/9, so you’d need to slow the shutter speed down to offset the reduction in light passing through the lens. And even then they’re still a few hundred thousandths of a second.

Now you put in that Pete Sousa was using a Canon, but most staff photographers these days are using Sony, they can really go hog wild on the ISO without worrying about grain, so the higher the ISO the higher the shutter speed. Also Sousa loved taking wider shots. (That man could really compose a frame.) Photo was probably taken somewhere around 200mm, and the photographer from his position would have opened the aperture up so any background would have been blurred out, so he’d need a faster shutter to offset the increase in light.

 

So yeah, it’s entirely possible that a high shutter speed was used, and no you don’t only use a high speed when you want to capture action.

 

1 minute ago, Bill said:

Bro it was the middle of the day in the sun.
 

Photog was prob somewhere around f/4-f/8. Shutter speed isn’t a function of motion, it’s a function of light. (It’s that in sporting events you need to capture stuff in motion so the speeds are automatically higher. You’ll notice at sporting events the photos are grainier, this is because the lighting usually sucks so they need to pump up the ISO (indoor games, night games, shadier venues). 
 

Then you have to take into account that the lens was probably a 70-200, so the shutter speed would have had to have been north of whatever the focal length was at, otherwise you’d get blur in the image (this is assuming the photographers were using a FF camera, and why wouldn’t they be).
 

Here’s a photo of Obama meeting the pope outside.

Shutter speed was 1/400.

Heres another one.

Shutter speed was 1/800. 
 

Here’s one from Selma. 

1/500. And notice too that’s with the sun being a backlight.

Of note about the three photos, the aperture’s were closed off (the last one was an f/9, so you’d need to slow the shutter speed down to offset the reduction in light passing through the lens. And even then they’re still a few hundred thousandths of a second.

Now you put in that Pete Sousa was using a Canon, but most staff photographers these days are using Sony, they can really go hog wild on the ISO without worrying about grain, so the higher the ISO the higher the shutter speed. Also Sousa loved taking wider shots. (That man could really compose a frame.) Photo was probably taken somewhere around 200mm, and the photographer from his position would have opened the aperture up so any background would have been blurred out, so he’d need a faster shutter to offset the increase in light.

 

So yeah, it’s entirely possible that a high shutter speed was used, and no you don’t only use a high speed when you want to capture action.

 

Photo geek talk....

More conspiracy 'insinuations', please!

More!

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

 Shutter speed isn’t a function of motion, it’s a function of light.

It's pretty much the same thing. Lack of light means you need a slower shutter speed, which causes blurring when there's motion. Though I was mistaken earlier , thinking a shutter speed that high was uncommon in full daylight, was thinking of a rule of thumb that applies to video not stills.