|
Anyone Have An Explanation
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 4 2013, 11:39 PM (881 Views)
|
|
colo_crawdad
|
Mar 5 2013, 01:24 AM
Post #21
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
- Neutral
- Mar 5 2013, 12:57 AM
No because it IS fact and supported by many sources. All right wing sources?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 5 2013, 01:28 AM
Post #22
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- Mountainrivers
- Mar 5 2013, 01:20 AM
- Pat
- Mar 5 2013, 01:06 AM
There have been reports in the news of large government purchases of bullets. What they would need with a billion bullets for training seems weird. I don't think it would be a stretch to accept the government is ramping up some for domestic disturbances. We live in very shaky times and we could see some form of economic collapse that disrupts lives beyond comprehension. Thus triggering riots and such. I think it would be stupid to not assign a large risk to this scenario.
Here's an explanation and it's even from a source the righties will like. "Our members confirm what we are seeing is the normal functioning of the Feds’ procurement apparatus. When you do the math in the case of the DHS purchase, even the maximum purchase would add up to less than 1,400 round per year for all 65,000 DHS law enforcement personnel. That doesn’t seem outrageous considering training and qualification requirements." source Stop for a second and think about this Neal. We went from 0 to 65,000 federal employees assigned to a new agency in a matter of a few years. If you divide by 50 states, that's over 1,000 in each state. And one could argue we have nothing to show for it. Zip.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Mar 5 2013, 01:35 AM
Post #23
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Pat
- Mar 5 2013, 01:28 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Mar 5 2013, 01:20 AM
- Pat
- Mar 5 2013, 01:06 AM
There have been reports in the news of large government purchases of bullets. What they would need with a billion bullets for training seems weird. I don't think it would be a stretch to accept the government is ramping up some for domestic disturbances. We live in very shaky times and we could see some form of economic collapse that disrupts lives beyond comprehension. Thus triggering riots and such. I think it would be stupid to not assign a large risk to this scenario.
Here's an explanation and it's even from a source the righties will like. "Our members confirm what we are seeing is the normal functioning of the Feds’ procurement apparatus. When you do the math in the case of the DHS purchase, even the maximum purchase would add up to less than 1,400 round per year for all 65,000 DHS law enforcement personnel. That doesn’t seem outrageous considering training and qualification requirements." source
Stop for a second and think about this Neal. We went from 0 to 65,000 federal employees assigned to a new agency in a matter of a few years. If you divide by 50 states, that's over 1,000 in each state. And one could argue we have nothing to show for it. Zip. I'm not sure, but I think a lot of those employees were already on the payroll and transferred to DHS when the agency was formed. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that we have nothing to show for it. We haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since the agency was created. The Border Patrol is part of the DHS as are several other agencies.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Mar 5 2013, 01:42 AM
Post #24
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- Mountainrivers
- Mar 5 2013, 01:35 AM
- Pat
- Mar 5 2013, 01:28 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Mar 5 2013, 01:20 AM
- Pat
- Mar 5 2013, 01:06 AM
There have been reports in the news of large government purchases of bullets. What they would need with a billion bullets for training seems weird. I don't think it would be a stretch to accept the government is ramping up some for domestic disturbances. We live in very shaky times and we could see some form of economic collapse that disrupts lives beyond comprehension. Thus triggering riots and such. I think it would be stupid to not assign a large risk to this scenario.
Here's an explanation and it's even from a source the righties will like. "Our members confirm what we are seeing is the normal functioning of the Feds’ procurement apparatus. When you do the math in the case of the DHS purchase, even the maximum purchase would add up to less than 1,400 round per year for all 65,000 DHS law enforcement personnel. That doesn’t seem outrageous considering training and qualification requirements." source
Stop for a second and think about this Neal. We went from 0 to 65,000 federal employees assigned to a new agency in a matter of a few years. If you divide by 50 states, that's over 1,000 in each state. And one could argue we have nothing to show for it. Zip.
I'm not sure, but I think a lot of those employees were already on the payroll and transferred to DHS when the agency was formed. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that we have nothing to show for it. We haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since the agency was created. The Border Patrol is part of the DHS as are several other agencies. Were it not for alert passengers, a plane would have been blown up near Detroit. the guy who was riding with the bomb in his crotch that fizzed and melted his nads, was able to avoid Homeland Security. I think that OBL and that group was an anomaly, and that examples like Tim McVey point to the fact in a nation this large, if somebody wants to attack internally, they can. The Homeland Security apparatus is more for show and making people feel better or more safe than it actually accomplishes. And the gods only know how much we are spending on this Bush era invention.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Mar 5 2013, 01:50 AM
Post #25
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Pat
- Mar 5 2013, 01:42 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Mar 5 2013, 01:35 AM
- Pat
- Mar 5 2013, 01:28 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Mar 5 2013, 01:20 AM
- Pat
- Mar 5 2013, 01:06 AM
There have been reports in the news of large government purchases of bullets. What they would need with a billion bullets for training seems weird. I don't think it would be a stretch to accept the government is ramping up some for domestic disturbances. We live in very shaky times and we could see some form of economic collapse that disrupts lives beyond comprehension. Thus triggering riots and such. I think it would be stupid to not assign a large risk to this scenario.
Here's an explanation and it's even from a source the righties will like. "Our members confirm what we are seeing is the normal functioning of the Feds’ procurement apparatus. When you do the math in the case of the DHS purchase, even the maximum purchase would add up to less than 1,400 round per year for all 65,000 DHS law enforcement personnel. That doesn’t seem outrageous considering training and qualification requirements." source
Stop for a second and think about this Neal. We went from 0 to 65,000 federal employees assigned to a new agency in a matter of a few years. If you divide by 50 states, that's over 1,000 in each state. And one could argue we have nothing to show for it. Zip.
I'm not sure, but I think a lot of those employees were already on the payroll and transferred to DHS when the agency was formed. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that we have nothing to show for it. We haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since the agency was created. The Border Patrol is part of the DHS as are several other agencies.
Were it not for alert passengers, a plane would have been blown up near Detroit. the guy who was riding with the bomb in his crotch that fizzed and melted his nads, was able to avoid Homeland Security. I think that OBL and that group was an anomaly, and that examples like Tim McVey point to the fact in a nation this large, if somebody wants to attack internally, they can. The Homeland Security apparatus is more for show and making people feel better or more safe than it actually accomplishes. And the gods only know how much we are spending on this Bush era invention. By that reasoning, you don't need a gun in your home to protect yourself. Any home invasion is an anomaly, and people have been killed in their homes regardless of their ownership of guns. Guns in the home are mostly for show or sport.
|
|
|
| |
|
Neutral
|
Mar 5 2013, 03:15 AM
Post #26
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 61,888
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
Ridiculous comparison MR and I'm sure you know it. lol
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Mar 5 2013, 03:16 AM
Post #27
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Neutral
- Mar 5 2013, 03:15 AM
Ridiculous comparison MR and I'm sure you know it. lol No one would expect you to see the comparison, Neut. It takes a brain.
|
|
|
| |
|
Neutral
|
Mar 5 2013, 03:17 AM
Post #28
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 61,888
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
Now why the need for an insult?
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Mar 5 2013, 03:18 AM
Post #29
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Neutral
- Mar 5 2013, 03:17 AM
Now why the need for an insult?
Take a wild guess.
|
|
|
| |
|
Neutral
|
Mar 5 2013, 03:19 AM
Post #30
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 61,888
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
I don't have to guess, you have done it too many times when hit with a fact.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|