Wirehead Studios

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=44183 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44183)


Even if it's not owned by the person, imagine that!  So someone breaks into your house and accidentally drops his Saturday Night Special, and you report the burglary, guess what's going to happen?  This doesn't even mention that what may be legal today could be outlawed tomorrow, and if it's done quietly then they can seize your home, car, or whatever without due process.  This is also why firearms registration is bad.  If they know you have a legal firearm today and outlaw it later, guess what?  You can kiss your assets goodbye, and we head further toward the police state.  Anyone who lives in New Jersey and reads these forums should think about this really carefully, and anyone who thinks government isn't afraid of an armed revolt at some time in the future should really  think hard about this.  They'd have nothing to fear from a peaceful citizenry if they weren't up to no good, but they are and they know it.

I've heard some crazy things. This is the worst so far.

I use a Katana for home defence. no good against a 38 mind.

but you have to see it from the cops there side .

cop sees a ferrari with open roof parked on the street .
cop likes the car .
cop drops his own gun in the car ( out of sight )
owner comes back and drives off .
police persuits him and  puts him to the side of the road .
inspects the car and finds his "own " gun
ferrari is now property of the state ( or just the cop ) :p
police = happy .

That is why we need to limit the government while we can. Between raising taxes and this liberal idiological idea that guns are evil and not people the government has more and more control. No guns for people = no defense = increase taxes = more government power over us, it's that simple.

Aye.  The question is, what are people doing about it?

Absolutly nothing. Sorry to say but the average person is a dumb-ass in these kinds of things. Everyone should be educated.

Now that is just insane. Let's face it, there isn't a police force in the world that isn't as bent as a nine pound note.

I use a hatchet. The thick end, though, and I haven't needed to use it in anger yet. ;)

 :offtopic: Washu: Why is "liberal" such a dirty word? What you see above is not liberalism at work. A liberal society (or any which takes the 2nd Amendment as is), while not specifically condoning, would permit the posession of firearms. The above borders on fascism.

Some of these outrageous inquiries and ideas seem to come from the head of a liberal more often then any other political beleif system.

Ah, you replied already. D'oh. See above. ;)

People who come up with these half-cocked ideas are not truly liberal. I for one do not condone guns, but that is MY personal opinion. I'm not about to condemn those who do, which is what this idiot is doing among other things. If that's liberalism, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.

The government is afraid of a revolt, at least gun control worked for stalin and hitler lets stay tuned and watch how this turns out with bush, HEY maybe we could like LMFAO live in a society that you have no rights and arent treated like a human and everyone like lives in fear, oh yeh that sounds like a good idea for a movie but it will happen unless you shoot any sporker that invades your home without a warrent LMFAO you can just say that you thought it was a burgler or better yet say you thought it was a terrorist LOL. HAha terrorits bs im not scared of an enemy across seas they can go spork off im more afraid of my government then some punkass terrorist newb LOL. O_o     :huh:  :huh:  :huh:

:offtopic: I'm tired of always hearing 'liberal' used in an evil sense. I'm a liberal... granted I'm not far left, but I am a leftist. I have no problem with guns whatsoever.

I also get called a communist due to my views on other things.

Going by this, I should be the most hated American in the country. If that's the case, then so be it. I'll hate the country just as much as it hates me.

This is.... I don't even HAVE to say anything. The situation speaks for itself.

I think I should offer some clarification on this.  The modern usage of the term liberal typically refers to Left-wing establishments that are, in fact, pro-socialist to the point of bordering on fascism.  The worst examples would be the Moveon.org crowd, Michael Moore, Barbara Boxer, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, the Violence Policy Center, PETA, the Sierra Club, People for the American Way, the editorial/opinion staffs of the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, Time Magazine, Newsweek, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, National Public Radio, etc.  It's the leadership and establishment, and underhanded methods they employ that are usually the target of the criticism.  However, this would also include far-left extremist followers, like a lot of the anti-war protesters from Berkely, and let's not forget the faculties of highbrow academic institutions, like Yale, Harvard, Berkely (again), etc.  If you want a picture of the kind of individual that the label "liberal" applies to in the modern sense all you have to do is turn on a syndicated talk radio program like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage (yikes!), or the like.  Granted, they're strongly conservative, but the best way to find out who's being called what is to look at their critics.  At least you gain some context that way.  The people that the modern "liberal" term applies to is a far different group of people and philosophy from what the original word meant.  A modern "liberal" is not specifically a "generous person" (though some may be generous), nor are they necessarily pro-liberty, as the word itself would imply.  This is merely confusion about semantics within the modern political climate.

The same holds true for the current definition of the term "conservative".  A modern conservative isn't necessarily a tight-wad asympathetic big-business capitalist.  Most are just independent individualists who want the government (and most everyone else) to butt out of their lives and their bank accounts so they can live life, raise their families in relative peace.  Many happen to have strong religious beliefs, but not all, and a lot tend to live in more suburban or rural areas as opposed to the big cities.  As for the "talking heads" of the conservative movement, I've already named them, as well as the liberal establishment, so there's plenty of sources to look at if you want to see.  A really good way to see liberal vs conservative demonstrated in a rather raw manner is to watch a program like Hannity and Colmes on the Fox News channel.  Hannity is as conservative as you can get, Colmes as liberal, and they take opposite sides of issues 100% of the time.

Now are all conservatives or liberals bad?  Certainly not.  It's the leadership, and the party-line agendas that have to be examined, as well as those individuals advancing them.  One should also note that not all Democrats are liberal, and not all Republicans are conservative.  It just tends to be the most vocal of either crowd are the extreme left and right because they are diametrically opposed to each other and those are the ones that get the air time.  Remember also that if one set of interests funds members of a specific party, their opponents will most likely fund members of the opposite party.  If the interests were reversed you'd have conservatives lauding the Democrats instead of some Republicans, and vice-versa with the liberals.  It's just how the chips fell as opposed to any kind of fundamental party ideology.  If you want proof of that, look at the history of the political parties prior to the Civil Rights movement, and see who was opposed to civil rights legislation and who was advancing it then, and then examine the modern party affiliations of the so-called civil rights activists.  You might be surprised what you see.

Myself, I tend to be more conservative most of the time in the fact that I hold the following views:

I am pro-firearm (self defense), pro-national defense, pro-self sufficiency, pro-life.  I believe government should not spend money that does not belong to it unnecessarily.  I believe government is not trustworthy.  I believe government is accountable to (and should be held accountable to) the people, and that a smaller government is more beneficial for this reason.  I believe the legislative system should represent the will of the people, but also what is right and just.  I believe the judicial system should follow the law, and be fair and impartial.  I believe government has no right in forbidding religious expression from public places, and I believe people should have liberty to make their own decisions in life as opposed to be dictated to by the government in regards to what is right and what is wrong.  I am not against waging war, so long as it is done effectively and as a last resort to solving problems, and is followed through to completion.  I believe in peace through benevolent intent, backed by the threat of swift and decisive force should that peace be violated by someone else.  I believe freedom is a God-given right to every living thing, and that no institution or government has a right to strip any freedom from any individual without the explicit consent of those governed.

At the same time, I also believe those who are down and out should not be abandoned, but helped to get back on their own feet, as long as they eventually do so and not just sponge off the system.  I believe man shouldn't wreck the natural world, development should be limited, and I'm entirely distrustful of corporations.  I'm neither capitalist nor communist, I think both systems suck rotten eggs.  I believe the wealthy do have a responsibility to assist those less fortunate, however I do not think government should force them to do it through high penalizing taxes (since the government will just suck the money up itself anyway) but instead incentives should be offered that do not depend on the government managing the money.  I am tolerant of other belief systems, cultures, and philosophies - so long as nobody tries to dictate to me that I should accept them as true if I disagree with them.  Discuss, debate, share, but if you cram it down my throat don't cry when I rip yours out for it.

Some things I will clash with liberals almost all the time with, others I will rub conservatives the wrong way.  It comes from being my own bird instead of just following someone else's thinking and "taking a side".  As a rule I don't like the activist portion of the liberal crowd, nor do I like the elitist portion that thinks they know better how to run people's lives.  I don't like that attitude in anyone, regardless of political affiliation and I'll call both sides on it when I see it, but I tend to get into arguments with liberals a lot more often than I do conservatives.

I won't expound upon what liberals tend to think as a rule because I don't want to turn this into any longer a post than it already is, and besides that I'm sure there should be people here who consider themselves to be more liberal who might not mind sharing their own views.  I'd prefer that to some of the more vicious arguments I've been party to in the past.  :)

I agree with every word said here.

I find myself arguing with conservatives a lot, but I also agree with most of what Pho said, including the part about waging war justly (this pretty much condemns the war in Iraq by default but I'll save that for a more appropriate thread ;) ). I consider myself a socialist and as such am also weary of big business, government and the global distribution of wealth.

As for political ideologies, there is only one endorsed by those in positions of power the world over:
?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$!!!

Well, as far as Iraq goes, I had no trouble with Saddam being ousted, with or without WMD's, but I believe he should have been ousted in 1991 for invading Kuwait in the first place instead of "contained".  The problem to me is, how did the entire world get it wrong for so many years, and if people thought as far back as 2001 that he honestly had the things, and why does the US have to take all the flak for this kind of error?  What about the Oil for Food corruption, why isn't anyone (except the right-wing crowd) outraged about that?  I suppose it's just that people dying from bombs and bullets is more of a news maker than people dying from corruption and greed.  Personally I think the latter is more insidious because it's much more subtle.

I still suspect that he had at least some weapons program and that a lot of material was shipped accross the border to Syria prior to the war, and there's even been some satellite photos of questionable sites in Lebanon where it's rumored some chemicals may have been stored.  I'm not so sure on the storage, but there were a hell of a lot of trucks that crossed the border, and UN inspection-tagged missile parts have been found in all sorts of places around the world.  What I don't understand is why nobody in the administration has come out and spoken up if there are indeed materials in Syria or Lebanon.  You'd think they would want to say "See?  See?  We found them!", although that would also mean for consistency's sake they'd have to invade Syria and Lebanon, which it appears there is absolutely no support for, and it would have broad repercussions in the Arab world.  I was quite pleased with the initial progress of the war, but this ongoing, never-ending insurgency is intolerable and inexcusable.  This is no way to fight a war.  The longer it goes on, the more of a drain it becomes.  They should have sealed the borders and systematically mopped up the bad guys months ago.  The only strategy here appears to be that of prolonging the conflict.  I have a serious problem with that.

what do you think about the military base closings to save up money in the long-run, and spending an additional $80 BILLION on this war?

the reason I oppose the Bush administration is because all the spending is going towards bullshit. I feel sorry for the next bastard that takes office and has to contend with Dubya's deficit. :(

Lewis Black said it best about the 2004 election...

"were those not the two most uninspiring presidential candidates ever?"

I'm not going to bullshit you people and say Kerry was the solution... everyone knows he was a terrible candidate, and with the republican-dominated house and senate, he'd never get anything passed anyway. I don't understand why there has to be such a massive divide between the two sides, why republicans and democrats have to mudsling so much. I just wish the division would end and they'd just stop trying to get revenge on one another for Nixon/Clinton by literally undoing everything that each side has done.

in ways, I feel the war was justified... we needed to shake things up in the middle east. but 2 years now, and we're still iceskating uphill trying to bring democracy to a portion of the world where it just simply WILL NEVER work. I don't find the spending of billions of dollars and the loss of American soldiers lives (and let's not forget what Rumsfeld said about our military.. "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." .. ya, Rumsfeld cares about our military... cares enough to stamp the death certificates.

now come forth right-wingers and rape me with your guns and crosses.

In regards to the 2004 election... I felt the same way then as I did in 2000. Give Clinton a 3rd term!

I do agree that bringing Democracy to that part of the world won't work.. especially with us being the influence.. since we're hated so much over there. After we do get everything organized... I doubt we can just pull out.. as that would give opposition a chance to strike again. We'd have to always be over there, either until they get a good enough army of their own, or until we stop caring. That being said, even after they do get an army.. I doubt they'd stop attacking. The Iraqis would be viewed as US puppets.

Don't mind me.. just saying what's on my mind. *goes to sleep*

OIL

Yup.

Right, oil, and that's why Iraq's oil production is lower than before the war began, and why people are complaining about gasoline being so freaking expensive?  Seriously, if you're going to pick a reason, at least do some research and stop buying the damned soundbites!  Oil is not the reason, I don't care how many times people try to make the connection it just isn't there.  It's a nice cover for what may be some other underhanded agenda, but results speak for themselves.  The oil isn't flowing, so look elsewhere for the real explanation.

mecha:  Actually I'm in agreement with you on a lot of what you said.  I was aghast at the proposed base closings.  To me it's suicidal behavior.  You do not win wars by shipping your entire military overseas, engaging them in a long, drawn out, and apparently endless conflict, and then cutting back on your available forces while engaged in a war that will take "as long as it takes".  What's the difference if you lose troops through casualties or budget cuts?  Losses are still losses, and small armies, historically, have a much poorer chance of winning than larger ones.  Sure, a smaller, well-equipped and well-trained force can beat a larger one, but recent events don't give me much faith in the command staff at the Pentagon right now.  This is as bad as McNamara's "Whiz Kids".  There are too many damned theory boys and not enough experienced veteran soldiers in charge.  This whole situation is a recipe for disaster.  Either somebody in the Pentagon is really, really stupid, or this is a deliberate set-up to weaken the US military.

Yes, Bush is running up a good tab, but I don't care about the $80 billion to fund the war.  I'm more peeved about the $400 billion Medicare prescription drug bill that nobody wanted, nobody really needs, and is going to cost 100 times that much in the long run.  You want to talk about wasteful spending?  This was the stupidest idea to come across in a long time, and for what?  To appease Ted Kennedy?  I don't think putting Clinton back in the White House is any good idea either.  Anyone forget the base closings under him?  Anyone forget what a dismal failure Bosnia was?  How about Mogadishu?  How about Albright giving the North Koreans a nuclear reactor on a silver platter?  Oh look, now they have nuclear weapons, oh boo hoo!  They didn't play nice like they said they would![/sarcasm]  Don't allow dislike for the current administration to blind you to the mistakes and poor judgement of previous ones.  Remember that Clinton is out for one person and one person only - Clinton.  The same is true for Hillary.  Forget this at your own peril in 2008.

You want to talk about regime change?  Just throw all of them out.  I've seen enough of politicians on every side, and I'm quite content in the conclusion that humans attempting to govern themselves with politicians is the most failed and idiotic concept of all time.  All they do is mess everything up and point fingers at each other for it.  Bah, they're all guilty!  Out with the lot of them says I.

I still pay $2.13 a gallon for gas. If you ask me gas prices went up for the war effort. Oil is not the issue. That is the quick and easy excuse for this whole conflict instead of analyzing the real issues on why we are there.

The oil isn't flowing right now because there's virtually no infrastructure left in Iraq for anyone to do business with. Petrol prices are increasing just like in 1991. If oil isn't the reason, then why haven't the coalition taken out other dictators by force like Mugabe, why wasn't Bin Laden caught ages ago and why were previous conflicts such as the one in the former Yugoslavia allowed to continue for so long without anyone doing anything? Answer: no profit. I am not one for jumping on bandwagons and this is no exception, but it doesn't take much working out. Are all of those oil fields being sabotaged just for the sake of vandalism? I think not.

All this considered, I totally agree with Pho's last paragraph.

Let's not forget who was profitting from Saddam's oil before the war as well.  Just count the countries that opposed the war, who kept dragging their feet on enforcement of the UN resolutions.  The blood for oil began long before any bombs fell, only the US wasn't making any profit from any of it, its opponents were.  What I don't understand is why the corruption isn't getting any of the outrage that the war itself did.  If people don't want blood for oil, does it matter how that blood is being spilled, or by whom, or who's taking the money to the bank?  Dead is dead, from bombs or starvation, from conflict or oppression.  How many died because Saddam was pocketing oil sales instead of feeding his people?  How many bureaucrats in the UN, and political officials in countries around the world are guilty in that matter?  The entire situation was and remains intolerable.  Perhaps the war was wrong, at this point I cannot say one way or the other though the results are certainly disappointing to me, but I know without any doubt that profitting illegally from under the table oil sales while you watch people starve and be brutalized under a dictatorship is as wrong as it gets.  Everyone's got blood on their hands from this, not just the US, and nobody's being held accountable for it.  That's the saddest part about the whole thing.  There are no winners in this at all, only casualties.

Werd, yo... werd.

That's all I can say really.