You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Iraq is whispering something
- Thread starter Vinny Gigante
- Start date
This thread should probably be moved to chit-chat.
I believe in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment which, IMHO is about giving US citizens the right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.
Its not about the right to hunt or to target shoot or even to defend yourself from burglars. It is about making the government think twice before they take away your rights.
The first thing tyrants do is to outlaw private ownership of firearms. Hitler, Stalin & (Chretien - well almost).
The point in question is how much firepower do citizens need in order to make the government think twice? Its a good question and I don't know the answer. I would think handguns and a good semi-auto battle rifle would suffice. I don't think you need howitzers and heavy machineguns. Tyrants don't start by bombing people with B-52s. It always starts on a low level. If the government doesn't run into resistance they they get more aggressive. By the time you would need a howitzer - its probably too late.
Others of course may disagree with me, as is their right. One of these days the Supreme Court may straighten it all out (or screw it up).
I believe in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment which, IMHO is about giving US citizens the right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.
Its not about the right to hunt or to target shoot or even to defend yourself from burglars. It is about making the government think twice before they take away your rights.
The first thing tyrants do is to outlaw private ownership of firearms. Hitler, Stalin & (Chretien - well almost).
The point in question is how much firepower do citizens need in order to make the government think twice? Its a good question and I don't know the answer. I would think handguns and a good semi-auto battle rifle would suffice. I don't think you need howitzers and heavy machineguns. Tyrants don't start by bombing people with B-52s. It always starts on a low level. If the government doesn't run into resistance they they get more aggressive. By the time you would need a howitzer - its probably too late.
Others of course may disagree with me, as is their right. One of these days the Supreme Court may straighten it all out (or screw it up).
A lot of you guys saying that the market will rip up are all just hoping that the market will go up. Look at the probabilities here. If one bad thing happens, the market is not going to buy into it. You guys are so biased to the upside. The "unthinkable event" is not going to be a good one, but that is just what you are insisting when you say that the market will rip up.
I honestly think that the most prudent investor should be selling all rallies and shorting any pops in the market, and just in case of any very short term upside takeoffs, investors should protect their shorts with calls or some sort of hedge to protect yourself.
Look at the payout here, if the market goes up, it isn't going to go up that much. If the market goes down, the market will fall apart. That is why I think that investors should have short positions with VERY TIGHT STOPS and/or call options or some sort of hedge. There is just too much money to be made if the market falls apart, and not that much to the upside.
I honestly think that the most prudent investor should be selling all rallies and shorting any pops in the market, and just in case of any very short term upside takeoffs, investors should protect their shorts with calls or some sort of hedge to protect yourself.
Look at the payout here, if the market goes up, it isn't going to go up that much. If the market goes down, the market will fall apart. That is why I think that investors should have short positions with VERY TIGHT STOPS and/or call options or some sort of hedge. There is just too much money to be made if the market falls apart, and not that much to the upside.
the answer B "market goes lower" has the lowest percentage, and so that's exactly what the market has done!
contrarian analysis wins again!
Vinny
contrarian analysis wins again!
Vinny
Quote from Vinny Gigante:
the answer B "market goes lower" has the lowest percentage, and so that's exactly what the market has done!
contrarian analysis wins again!
Vinny
Isn't the question of what would happen if Saddam was killed??
My biggest concern on my shorts is hedging against Saddam getting ousted from power in one form or another. That would be good for a pop im sure. Never mind the fact that there are 100 other militant aholes just waiting to raid his cigar box.
Is it just me, or has anyone noticed that the "observer" is not a fact based on line magazine, but just an opinon based magazine, with most articles having a leftist slant?
Am I supposed to counter the leftist "observations" by posting links to "observations" from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, and Anne Coulter?
Would that make the forum a "fair and balanced" observation source?
Wouldn't it be a much greater challenge for the "linkers" to actually read both extremist perspectives, check the facts, apply reason, and come to your own opinions?
They might just find themselves with other reasonable people who have found their way to the middle of the road, where balanced decisions can be made.
Yes, Observer & Guardian are both putrid far-left rags.
And now, a little balance...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/
http://www.townhall.com/
http://www.debka.com/
And now, a little balance...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/
http://www.townhall.com/
http://www.debka.com/
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Is it just me, or has anyone noticed that the "observer" is not a fact based on line magazine, but just an opinion based magazine, with most articles having a leftist slant?
While the term "news" is one thing, the publications that print "news" are seldom objective.
We see quotes from "the Guardian" and "Observer" all the time. And we don't have to read them to know what the slant on the story will be.
Traderfut, Wild, Fairplay, all the great cut and paste artists know exactly where to get their opinions fortified. Too easy. And too worthless.
Your point is well taken. Anyone who believes that they further their arguments by quoting sources that are never going to look at both side of an issue are wasting all of our time.
Someone posted an editorial today by William Saffire. A welcome and refreshing relief. He will discuss both sides of an issue. And this helps us all to understand what and why there are two sides to virtually every widely debated issue. Seldom is an issue black and white. Unfortunately, we have a lot of black and white thinkers posting here.
Maureen Dowd, who I enjoy greatly, I would not quote to make a point. Any more than I would Rush Limbaugh. But of course, that's me. I would rather be wrong and hear why from other participants than to try and "prove" myself right by just parroting the thoughts of someone else.
Peace,
Rs7