View Full Version : Retired Army Officer: DHS Must Surrender Their War Weapons to Dept. of Defense
Well written letter.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/retired-army-officer-dhs-must-surrender-their-war-weapons-to-dept-of-defense/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44mfyiQSmPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgMD66_yBu0
Richard :munchin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgMD66_yBu0
Richard :munchin
What's bullshit- the letter, Obama saying the civilian force needs to equipped as well as the Military, or the DHS materiel/ordnance stockpiling?
Stiletto11
03-24-2013, 15:57
Should we replace the "Redcoats" with the "Brownshirts?" Just like the Geico commercial; Paul Revere with a cell phone. On a serious note, the letter in my opinion is spot on. No tin foil hat here just examining the evidence.
Dozer523
03-24-2013, 17:35
Bulls!t. The letter, and the author.
I think the content is pretty goofy. But that is his privilege -- to be a goofy as he wants.
But not in the uniform of an United States Army Officer. Nope.
Even though he is retired he should still adhere to the rules concerning proper wearing of the uniform. He couldn't make a political statement in uniform while on Active Duty, same applies retired. He may have bought the uniform but he doesn't "own" it. Put on a nice blazer and a striped tie.
I'm sure Paul Revere didn't have a cell phone and most lizards can't really talk.
So I think we should start our own Civilian Police force and start requesting some of this money. What do you guys think? We'll only hire vets. While we're at it let's go after the TSA contract with mostly disabled vets. :D
Destrier
03-24-2013, 18:20
We could start with schools Alelks.
The letter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgMD66_yBu0
I'm sure Paul Revere didn't have a cell phone and lizards can't really talk.
Are you sure about the lizards?
Link (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuck-you_lizard)
I remember the Vietnam vets telling me about them. :lifter
Are you sure about the lizards?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuck-you_lizard
I remember the Vietnam vets telling me about them. :lifter
If you've ever spent time in the TLCVN (Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam) AO, you'll have heard the "Ahhhhhhhhhh-kakakakaka-fuku-fuku-fuku" call of those Tokay Gecko lizards when they've been disturbed. :D
Richard :munchin
What's bullshit- the letter, Obama saying the civilian force needs to equipped as well as the Military, or the DHS materiel/ordnance stockpiling?
We need to follow Pelosi's Obama Care line of thought on this in that we'll need to let DHS grow and stockpile whatever it is to find out what they are going to with the resources.
So we're isolated at Lop Buri, Thailand. Joint op with Thai Marines. 5/19th teams being supported by 1st Gp. After the briefback, the 1st Gp Cmdr gets up to speak. Every time he speaks. I mean every time he opens his mouth, this fuck-you lizard goes off. Of course the lizard has figured out his perch behind the portrait of the King is inviolate. Stiff upper lip and all that what.
I suspect the 1st Gp S-2 complicity in this, but my lizard lips are sealed.
So we're isolated at Lop Buri, Thailand. Joint op with Thai Marines. 5/19th teams being supported by 1st Gp. After the briefback, the 1st Gp Cmdr gets up to speak. Every time he speaks. I mean every time he opens his mouth, this fuck-you lizard goes off. Of course the lizard has figured out his perch behind the portrait of the King is inviolate. Stiff upper lip and all that what.
We experienced the same thing when Buddha Grant, our B TM SGM, came up-country to our camp to chew our @$$es. A fond memory. :cool:
Richard :munchin
Are you sure about the lizards?
Link (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuck-you_lizard)
I remember the Vietnam vets telling me about them. :lifter
Never heard about those until now.
Of course, I had to research one out ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5uyHtWCIXU
Could this be one?
:munchin
If you've ever spent time in the TLCVN (Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam) AO, you'll have heard the "Ahhhhhhhhhh-kakakakaka-fuku-fuku-fuku" call of those lizards when they've been disturbed. :D
Richard :munchin
My older brother was in 5th GP during Vietanam. He told me a story about the Howler Monkeys. They were trying to break contact at night and on their egress out of the AO they stopped and wouldn't you know it, just above them were Howler Monkeys. Of course the monkeys started sounding off and if you've never heard a Howler Monkey let's just say they sound MUCH larger than they are. Fortunately everything went well but they so much wanted to shoot those bastards (the monkeys).
Howler Monkey Sound Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vxlnZ8BihI)
ZonieDiver
03-26-2013, 11:11
Should we replace the "Redcoats" with the "Brownshirts?" Just like the Geico commercial; Paul Revere with a cell phone. On a serious note, the letter in my opinion is spot on. No tin foil hat here just examining the evidence.
People wearing tinfoil hats rarely realize that they have them on. I'm not saying that you are wearing one in this thread; I'm just stating what I've noticed over time.
Team Sergeant
03-26-2013, 11:39
People wearing tinfoil hats rarely realize that they have them on. I'm not saying that you are wearing one in this thread; I'm just stating what I've noticed over time.
Drone Zones, 2700 MRAPs, tell me ZonieDiver, just what do you suppose the 2700 MRAPs are for? I was not aware America was at war on its own turf? Please tell me the justification for such military grade vehicles? All it shows me is the yellow side and fear of the folks at DHS. I can't wait until all 2700 MRAPs are armed with GAU-21's.
We've discussed this before on this website, how much military equipment does a "federal" agency require to do it's job?
People wearing tinfoil hats rarely realize that they have them on. I'm not saying that you are wearing one in this thread; I'm just stating what I've noticed over time.
Zonie's great-great-great grandpappy to Paul Revere: "Two if by what? Take off your tin-foil tricorn, dude."
Dozer523
03-26-2013, 13:20
Drone Zones, 2700 MRAPs, tell me ZonieDiver, just what do you suppose the 2700 MRAPs are for? I was not aware America was at war on its own turf? Please tell me the justification for such military grade vehicles? All it shows me is the yellow side and fear of the folks at DHS. I can't wait until all 2700 MRAPs are armed with GAU-21's.
We've discussed this before on this website, how much military equipment does a "federal" agency require to do it's job? The US spent $45B on these things and the military has determined we no longer have an active need for them. The Army and Marines have set hopes on the JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle), of the 17,000 of them 11,000 will be mothballed.
I don't know about the war on our own turf, but we do have borders people are demanding be secured. GAU-21's? Haven't seen anything about those -- when I do I'll be surprised, and concerned, too.
Is it possible there is a simple reason for this acquisition? Maybe we have 2700 MRAPs that have done a pretty fair job in an area of the world that is environmentally similiar to the South-west? Maybe it's they are just being inter-agency transferred. Beats letting DHS design and build their own. And way better then turning them into artificial reefs.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-06-16/MRAP-future/55640830/1 In the meantime, he still shouldn't be wearing his Army uniform to promote his political opinion.
The US spent $45B on these things and the military has determined we no longer have an active need for them. The Army and Marines have set hopes on the JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle), of the 17,000 of them 11,000 will be mothballed.
I don't know about the war on our own turf, but we do have borders people are demanding be secured. GAU-21's? Haven't seen anything about those -- when I do I'll be surprised, and concerned, too.
Is it possible there is a simple reason for this acquisition? Maybe we have 2700 MRAPs that have done a pretty fair job in an area of the world that is environmentally similiar to the South-west? Maybe it's they are just being inter-agency transferred. Beats letting DHS design and build their own. And way better then turning them into artificial reefs.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-06-16/MRAP-future/55640830/1 In the meantime, he still shouldn't be wearing his Army uniform to promote his political opinion.
Why secure the borders when you're within a hair's breadth of amnesty? People don't want to see the obvious, because they don't want anything to take them out of their comfort zone.
Here's what they're for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Security against what threat? This:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4944701-503544.html
Is it possible there is a simple reason for this acquisition? Maybe we have 2700 MRAPs that have done a pretty fair job in an area of the world that is environmentally similiar to the South-west? Maybe it's they are just being inter-agency transferred. Beats letting DHS design and build their own. And way better then turning them into artificial reefs.
Unless the new TTP for illegal immigrants/border crossers is emplacing IEDs, there are far better vehicles on the market that are way more maneuverable and that have much better off roading capabilities...
The MAT-V was a step up from its larger/heavier brethren in maneuverability/off roading capability, but I haven't seen what mix of "MRAPs" that DHS expects to get/procure...
ZonieDiver
03-26-2013, 13:55
Zonie's great-great-great grandpappy to Paul Revere: "Two if by what? Take off your tin-foil tricorn, dude."
It would have had to have been a long-distance cellphone call from Ireland!
I didn't comment on the truth or fiction of the reputed 2700 DHS MRAPs, I just commented that those wearing tinfoil don't usually recognize that they have it on, just as IF I am burying my head in the sand, refusing to see 'the truth', I won't realize it either.
That said, I don't know how DHS can be hapless clowns in one breath, and the greatest threat to our liberty in the next. IF they do get 2700 MRAPs, they'll probably drive them into the nearest ditch, won't they.
2700 doesn't sound like enough to take over the Texas, let alone the USofA.
Unless the new TTP for illegal immigrants/border crossers is emplacing IEDs, there are far better vehicles on the market that are way more maneuverable and that have much better off roading capabilities...
Maybe they're for the cartels, like the guns were.
Is it possible there is a simple reason for this acquisition? Maybe we have 2700 MRAPs that have done a pretty fair job in an area of the world that is environmentally similiar to the South-west?
This administration is not fond of us in the SW, so we'd not take kindly to seeing them show up here. ;)
Pat
Badger52
03-26-2013, 13:59
Security against what threat? This:
The contents of the report, from 2009, is still telling, including this little validation of their Ouija board:
• Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans (wait, this is 2009, you're still doin' that "under the radar" thing 'cause gun control was the 3rd rail of POTUS' first term, right?) likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists (keep repeating a term it becomes your truth) in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement. (Again, this is 2009; wow, you guys sure got this one "right"...)
:rolleyes:
HoosierFolk
03-26-2013, 16:14
Maybe some type of strategic reserve in case of a homeland invasion??
Maybe some type of strategic reserve in case of a homeland invasion??
That's gotta be it.
We've discussed the MRAPs and such in other threads - DHS isn't ordering them - they're being ordered by numerous PDs around the country with grant $$ from DHS. And we all know how that works. :rolleyes:
"Hey, Chief. We've got this DHS grant for equipment upgrades and need to spend it before 29 September or it'll go to someone else. What do you want to do with it?"
"Hell, I don't know. We've just updated our comms, our personal weapons, our ballistic protection, our training facilities, our RPVs - what can we use it for?"
"Well, the Possum Holler Sheriff's Department over near Petticoat Junction just used their's to buy one of those refurbished armored wheeled things like they use for road security and riot control over in Iraq and Afghanistan. They said they justified it as an upgrade to their SWAT capabilities for serving warrants on crack manufacturing, moonshine, and marijuana processing sites."
"Hey, that sounds like a good idea. Get Lieutenant Hunter in here and tell him if he wants one of those contraptions for his SWAT team, he'd better come up with a good, well-written justification - those Feds are sticklers for grammar and punctuation. Tell him we need to get it in ASAP...or else I'll order one from the money we'll save when I fire his biscuits!"
"I'll get right on it, Chief!"
"Hell, we can't let them boys over in the holler have one of them things and we don't; it'll make us look bad for the annual toad lickin' parade and moon pie festival next summer."
I need to get a citizens group activated and get on my local Sheriff's Department before we miss out on this 'golden showers' of an opportunity, too. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
But that is his privilege -- to be a goofy as he wants.
But not in the uniform of an United States Army Officer. Nope.
Even though he is retired he should still adhere to the rules concerning proper wearing of the uniform. He couldn't make a political statement in uniform while on Active Duty, same applies retired. He may have bought the uniform but he doesn't "own" it. Put on a nice blazer and a striped tie.
.
I'm with you on this. When he puts on that uniform and then speaks, he is trying to use the uniform to lend credence to what he says (as if Uncle Sam agrees with him). He needs to take it off.
2700 doesn't sound like enough to take over the Texas, let alone the USofA.
Probably true, but it is enough to make their presence known and instill fear throughout the serfdom......and it sets the tone for bigger and badder toys like the Abrams for example.
What's the MPG for the MRAP?
Probably true, but it is enough to make their presence known and instill fear throughout the serfdom......and it sets the tone for bigger and badder toys like the Abrams for example.
What's the MPG for the MRAP?
~3 MPG
Dozer523
03-26-2013, 19:06
Why secure the borders when you're within a hair's breadth of amnesty? People don't want to see the obvious, because they don't want anything to take them out of their comfort zone. That's for sure, I see that a lot, Cousin.
Here's what they're for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Security against what threat? This:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4944701-503544.html Dusty,
Why, indeed secure the borders when all the illegals are within a hair's breadth of amnesty. I don't know.
You got it right that "People don't want to see the obvious, because they don't want anything to take them out of their comfort zone." I see that a lot, lately.
I think I've seen those links here before, Have you seen this one? :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8
~3 MPG
Arrrrgh! In this tough economy, high fuel prices and considering the sequestor you'd think they would have gotten something a bit more efficient. Enough of those roaming the streets and fuel will be as scarce as ammo :D
I'm telling you guys. I truly believe they aren't closing the borders because the majority of the illegals coming across are Christians and they are multiplying like rabbits. Don't laugh too soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f88hiWXiFsg
~3 MPG
The Achilles heel...
GratefulCitizen
03-26-2013, 23:01
The Achilles heel...
It's the Achilles heel of the entire system.
Big rigs don't do too much better in fuel economy.
<tin foil hat on>
What would happen to all the densely populated areas if hoses were cut at diesel fueling stations in a nation-wide epidemic of vandalism?
How long before the big cities become ungovernable?
Direct resistance is unnecessary and inefficient.
Loose the zombies.
<tin foil hat off>
Maybe they're for the cartels, like the guns were.
I'd personally like to know why they now need 26 million rounds per month (based on 1.6 billion over the next 5 years they've requested)...3 times as many as 2012.
Is it because they're scared (and of what) or just jacking up the prices?
I'd personally like to know why they now need 26 million rounds per month (based on 1.6 billion over the next 5 years they've requested)...3 times as many as 2012.
Is it because they're scared (and of what) or just jacking up the prices?
Have you submitted a FOIA request to DHS?
Have you submitted a FOIA request to DHS?
Nope -- Fox news is working on it -- I'm sure it will provide useful insight. How about yourself?
Nope -- Fox news is working on it -- I'm sure it will provide useful insight. How about yourself?
Me? I do my own research when I take a "personal" interest in a subject.
Dusty,
Why, indeed secure the borders when all the illegals are within a hair's breadth of amnesty. I don't know.
You got it right that "People don't want to see the obvious, because they don't want anything to take them out of their comfort zone." I see that a lot, lately.
I think I've seen those links here before, Have you seen this one? :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8
lol You got a purdy (loud) mouth, there, boy. :D
Direct resistance is unnecessary and inefficient.
Actually, direct resistance is a very efficient way to reduce your pool of useful idiots while still applying pressure.
I'd personally like to know why they now need 26 million rounds per month (based on 1.6 billion over the next 5 years they've requested)...3 times as many as 2012.
Is it because they're scared (and of what) or just jacking up the prices?
Or...they're requesting bids to lock in a pricing at today's prices for an estimated amount to be purchased over a 5 year span, and then to use and store for longer than that.
Govt agencies do maintain ammunition storage depots - I remember using ammunition drawn from stockages that were decades old.
This is not some new or nefariously engineered way of doing business.
The tinhattery angst is growing like a giant beanstalk under the current levels of blogospheric fertilizing taking place over such matters.
Richard :munchin
The tinhattery angst is growing like a giant beanstalk under the current levels of blogospheric fertilizing taking place over such matters.
Richard :munchin
So, you're saying there's no reason for the "current levels of blogospheric fertilizing taking place over such matters"? It just spontaneously erupted with no basis in fact?
What's your definition of "tinhattery", then? IMO, ignoring the obvious is more foolish.
So, you're saying there's no reason for the "current levels of blogospheric fertilizing taking place over such matters"? It just spontaneously erupted with no basis in fact?
What's your definition of "tinhattery", then? IMO, ignoring the obvious is more foolish.
Follow the trail on this topic - it's a classic of unsubstantiated and ill-informed supposition fed by one bit of regurgitated angst-filled conjecture after another being exacerbated by the blogosphere's penchant to be viewed by so many in a "Well, if it's posted on the Internet, it must be true" way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc
IMO, it's a classic 'like a hog staring at a wristwatch' scenario, and ignoring what is obvious is foolish...and dangerous.
Talk about sheeple...and we're supposed to be the sheepdogs and should know better.
Richard :munchin
Follow the trail on this topic - it's a classic of unsubstantiated and ill-informed supposition fed by one bit of regurgitated angst-filled conjecture after another being exacerbated by the blogosphere's penchant to be viewed by so many in a "Well, if it's posted on the Internet, it must be true" way.
Richard :munchin
Did Lt. Gen. Boykin base his stance off internet conjecture?
I saw this on the internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU
That happened, right?
I agree with your premise re: "sheeple", though-only from a different angle.
Dozer523
03-27-2013, 07:50
lol You got a purdy (loud) mouth, there, boy. :D
I remember THAT part of the movie.
hear that? Really loud banjos :D
I remember THAT part of the movie.
hear that? Really loud banjos :D
How am I supposed to hear anything with you squealin' like pig?
I saw this on the internet:
This is a 'hot' video currently being passed around the Internet by the tinfoil hatters and being offered up as 'proof' of a govt build-up for a coming showdown. You've got to watch the entire video to hear the comments being made by the filmers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTHb1M5S3K0
And so it goes... :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
This is a 'hot' video currently being passed around the Internet by the tinfoil hatters and being offered up as 'proof' of a govt build-up for a coming showdown. You've got to watch the entire video to hear the comments being made by the filmers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTHb1M5S3K0
And so it goes... :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
I'm pretty discerning with regard to youtube videos, Richard, although the one where the pilot lands the one-winged plane had me going for awhile... :D
Not to get cross-threaded, but can you read Lt. Gen. Boykins' talking points and still wave all of these events off wholehandedly? :munchin
I'm pretty discerning with regard to youtube videos, Richard, although the one where the pilot lands the one-winged plane had me going for awhile... :D
Not to get cross-threaded, but can you read Lt. Gen. Boykins' talking points and still wave all of these events off wholehandedly? :munchin
I read his points - his selective use of context to support his long-held points of view is important to consider when pondering them. Be that as it may, there are, as always, people and events bearing watching out there - like the beautiful sunrise I'm watching come up over the Sierras this morning. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I read his points - his selective use of context to support his long-held points of view is important to consider when pondering them. Be that as it may, there are, as always, people and events bearing watching out there - like the beautiful sunrise I'm watching come up over the Sierras this morning. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Ah, the old "beautiful sunrise" parry... ;)
Me? I do my own research when I take a "personal" interest in a subject.
Or...they're requesting bids to lock in a pricing at today's prices for an estimated amount to be purchased over a 5 year span, and then to use and store for longer than that.
Govt agencies do maintain ammunition storage depots - I remember using ammunition drawn from stockages that were decades old.
This is not some new or nefariously engineered way of doing business.
The tinhattery angst is growing like a giant beanstalk under the current levels of blogospheric fertilizing taking place over such matters.
Richard :munchin
Those wearing the tin hats are the ones whom have pushed those prices higher, they also are the ones with the great excuses, circular logic, and the tenants of everyone must do or believe it their way, and the lesson teaching is a lovely touch.
Then of course when someone has a disagreeable comment, its time to diminish them, kinda like a liberal does...
quiet frankly a broken and boring record...
Any interesting comments other than foggy bullshit?
ZonieDiver
03-27-2013, 14:05
Then of course when someone has a disagreeable comment, its time to diminish them, kinda like a liberal does...
Yeah, no one ever diminishes a liberal... especially here. What goes around comes around.
As for things 'sprouting up' all over the blogosphere being an indicator that something must actually be afoot, please recall this:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=497372&postcount=7
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZonieDiver
Drink your coffee black.
Seek help.
Seriously.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/its...by-cells-says/
http://www.naturalnews.com/035276_Pe...perations.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2...tuses-in-food/
http://gawker.com/5879254/which-comp...-in-their-food
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewh...e-controversy/
The young man listed five websites to support his "Soylent Green" argument. Two were from 'legitimate' news organizations (I know... libtard stuff), and the others were from 'other' blogosphere sites. However, ALL sprang from the same story - most likely the Forbes article. There was NO additional research or information - just some opinion - and repetition.
That's how the blogosphere works... kind of like a giant gossip circle of old women in a small town.
Those wearing the tin hats are the ones whom have pushed those prices higher, they also are the ones with the great excuses, circular logic, and the tenants of everyone must do or believe it their way, and the lesson teaching is a lovely touch.
Then of course when someone has a disagreeable comment, its time to diminish them, kinda like a liberal does...
quiet frankly a broken and boring record...
Any interesting comments other than foggy bullshit?
Huh? :confused:
Then of course when someone has a disagreeable comment, its time to diminish them, kinda like a liberal does...
quiet frankly a broken and boring record...
Any interesting comments other than foggy bullshit?
Edit by Razor: At ease in the harness there, Skippy.
Edit by Razor: At ease in the harness there, Skippy.
Yes Sir
Yeah, no one ever diminishes a liberal... especially here. What goes around comes around.
As for things 'sprouting up' all over the blogosphere being an indicator that something must actually be afoot, please recall this:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=497372&postcount=7
The young man listed five websites to support his "Soylent Green" argument. Two were from 'legitimate' news organizations (I know... libtard stuff), and the others were from 'other' blogosphere sites. However, ALL sprang from the same story - most likely the Forbes article. There was NO additional research or information - just some opinion - and repetition.
That's how the blogosphere works... kind of like a giant gossip circle of old women in a small town.
There is definitely some room for improvement, but we aren't talking about something as outlandish UFO's, Soylent Green and Big Foot. And keep in mind that giant gossip circle played a big part in bringing Fast & Furious to surface and has in many instances put out more useful information on the ongoing economic boondoogle's and ponzi schemes than the MSM.
There is a lot of speculation on the billion rounds of ammo, PDW's and 2700 fuel guzzling MRAP's.....but who are you going to trust, the folks that sold you ObamaCare, the Guberment that trafficed arms to drug cartels that killed 30,000 plus Mexicans, the very same Guberment that wants throw the 2nd Amendment in the trash, Jan 'See something, Say Something' Napolitano or the circle of cackling hens?
Known liars or speculators......who's closer to the truth?
There is definitely some room for improvement, but we aren't talking about something as outlandish UFO's, Soylent Green and Big Foot. And keep in mind that giant gossip circle played a big part in bringing Fast & Furious to surface and has in many instances put out more useful information on the ongoing economic boondoogle's and ponzi schemes than the MSM.
There is a lot of speculation on the billion rounds of ammo, PDW's and 2700 fuel guzzling MRAP's.....but who are you going to trust, the folks that sold you ObamaCare, the Guberment that trafficed arms to drug cartels that killed 30,000 plus Mexicans, the very same Guberment that wants throw the 2nd Amendment in the trash, Jan 'See something, Say Something' Napolitano or the circle of cackling hens?
Known liars or speculators......who's closer to the truth?
And so the absence of proof - boistered by unfettered speculation, logical fallacy, and in vogue anti-establishment rhetoric - is, therefore, proof? :confused:
Hunh.
Richard :munchin
And so the absence of proof - boistered by unfettered speculation, logical fallacy, and in vogue anti-establishment rhetoric - is, therefore, proof? :confused:
Hunh.
Richard :munchin
With whom is the rhetoric "in vogue", Richard? Crazies, whackos and malcontents?
That's not how I'd classify Lt. Gen. Boykins, nor would I describe any QP's on this very board in that manner.
With whom is the rhetoric "in vogue", Richard? Crazies, whackos and malcontents?
That's not how I'd classify Lt. Gen. Boykins, nor would I describe any QP's on this very board in that manner.
"In America we prefer to kindle the fire with the kerosene can and chance the inquest."
- Mark Twain
I've been reading and listening to that virtually same sort of rhetoric my entire life - comes from all sectors of society with but a periodic change of cast and focal point(s) - SSDD.
Some things do bear watching and are worth fighting for, but to me it's all become a lot like being on radio watch - it's pretty much 'white noise' until a specific call sign or key pattern is heard and then a response may be needed - however, the rain clouds have moved into the valley so the Sierras are not to be seen this morning. :(
YMMV, but so it goes...
Richard :munchin
With whom is the rhetoric "in vogue", Richard? Crazies, whackos and malcontents?
That's not how I'd classify Lt. Gen. Boykins, nor would I describe any QP's on this very board in that manner.
Dusty,
There's plenty of evidence of dishonesty from the current 'leaders'.
From my street experience there are two fundamental things you do not do: 1. Believe anything that comes out of someone's mouth who's lied to you before and 2. Stand in the middle of the street when there is an abrupt pattern change. (Another is not turning your back on someone approaching with their hand(s) behind their back)
Both these are evident and have occurred, only someone in fantasy land won't be on alert unless of course they like dodging bullets that were meant for someone else or themselves.
FYI: what street experience from a mountain man? South Bronx and Harlem late 70's/early 80's.
ZonieDiver
03-28-2013, 13:44
I'll grant that 'where there is smoke, there may be fire'. That said, it is a hell of a leap from "DHS is buying 2700 MRAPs" to "They're gonna machine gun us in the streets."
I still say they'll drive 'em into a ditch.
I'll grant that 'where there is smoke, there may be fire'. That said, it is a hell of a leap from "DHS is buying 2700 MRAPs" to "They're gonna machine gun us in the streets."
I still say they'll drive 'em into a ditch.
Agreed, they could be useful for border work, It's a big number though. Spent a lot of time in the mountains near Douglas between 2003-2006 and it wasn't the safest place I've been.
Edit add: Need to add as the QP's know, big
Vehicles usefulness in desert mountains is limited. Would be less suspicious if they ordered 2400 Toyota 4x4 pickups.
And so the absence of proof - boistered by unfettered speculation, logical fallacy, and in vogue anti-establishment rhetoric - is, therefore, proof? :confused:
Hunh.
Richard :munchin
Personally I don't know what to believe anymore....but to delve into your question.
I believe the unfettered speculation and (well deserved imo) anti-establishment rhetoric you speak of is largely driven by the unfettered half truths and outright lies of the politicians, and the MSM Ministry of Propaganda.
If Obama hadn't made his comment about needing a National Security Force and Feinstein & Co hadn't mentioned confiscation and weren't trying to outlaw/restrict firearms we probably wouldn't be having this conversation about DHS ramping up it's arsenal.
I'll grant that 'where there is smoke, there may be fire'. That said, it is a hell of a leap from "DHS is buying 2700 MRAPs" to "They're gonna machine gun us in the streets."
We'll have to take a wait and see approach on it.
The Reaper
03-28-2013, 17:53
The entire and only purpose of an MRAP is to move people around more safely in an IED environment.
Are we getting a lot of IED hits on unarmored vehicles here in CONUS lately?
I must have missed that.
TR
The entire and only purpose of an MRAP is to move people around more safely in an IED environment.
Are we getting a lot of IED hits on unarmored vehicles here in CONUS lately?
I must have missed that.
TR
Thanks TR, that brought the stress level down...
Doesn't sound - sound to me that HS needs these...sounds certified
The Reaper
03-28-2013, 19:13
One thing I have learned in life is that looking tough is not the same as being tough.
It also occurs to me that some of our leadership may have never been in a real fight before.
I don't know too many of our guys who have used them that like the MRAP or MATV as a fighting transportation platform. They have a LOT of limitations, at least in the environment they are currently being used in.
TR
Sounds like everyone should contact their Senators and Representatives and ask them to cut the funding for this expensive and highly limited turtle..
Use the money to open the White house for children!
Bracholi
03-28-2013, 19:46
Yeah, no one ever diminishes a liberal... especially here. What goes around comes around.
As for things 'sprouting up' all over the blogosphere being an indicator that something must actually be afoot, please recall this:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=497372&postcount=7
The young man listed five websites to support his "Soylent Green" argument. Two were from 'legitimate' news organizations (I know... libtard stuff), and the others were from 'other' blogosphere sites. However, ALL sprang from the same story - most likely the Forbes article. There was NO additional research or information - just some opinion - and repetition.
That's how the blogosphere works... kind of like a giant gossip circle of old women in a small town.
In my defense, I did drop my shovel and started digging deeper after I posted.
One thing I've heard since I was a little kid dealing with the playground court system was that "There's your point of view, the other person's point of view, and then somewhere between that lies the truth." I think there's always some factor of truth to any accusation.
ZonieDiver
03-29-2013, 06:12
In my defense, I did drop my shovel and started digging deeper after I posted.
One thing I've heard since I was a little kid dealing with the playground court system was that "There's your point of view, the other person's point of view, and then somewhere between that lies the truth." I think there's always some factor of truth to any accusation.
You did recover nicely!
I only used your post, and without your name, to show how information is frequently 'recycled' by all 'branches of the media/blogosphere without attribution, but with added comments, opinion, and spin...sometimes even in 'no-spin zones'! :D
Barbarian
03-29-2013, 06:47
Use the money to open the White house for children!
The Whitehouse is already full of children. That's the problem.
The Whitehouse is already full of children. That's the problem.
Baboom! :lifter
If Obama hadn't made his comment about needing a National Security Force and Feinstein & Co hadn't mentioned confiscation and weren't trying to outlaw/restrict firearms we probably wouldn't be having this conversation about DHS ramping up it's arsenal.
MOO, but I give such blogospherically induced 'reasoning' 3 out of 5 possible OMGs. :eek: :eek: :eek:
1. The POTUS did not claim we needed some separate "National Security Force" as such; contextually, he was talking about needing a national security force (read: our existing law enforcement agencies) to be as capable in defending our nation in the GWOT as the highly funded DOD, that we must not neglect the necessity of supporting them in ways commensurate with our support of other agencies in those efforts. This has been floating around the Internet since July 2008 when he made a single reference to a “civilian national security force” in a campaign speech in Colorado, and the blogosphere continues to make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military while patently ignoring the context of the remarks.
2. Has SEN Feinstein mentioned confiscation? That kernel of thought seems to belong to others fearing the consequences of S2525 (introduced in May 2000 and yet to go anywhere in 13 years).
Critics have decried S 2525 as a prelude to total gun confiscation because such detailed possession and transaction records could eventually be misused by government agencies if ordered to collect guns by Congress or the president.
http://www.wnd.com/2000/09/2141/
As a former Marine who has been with the military for eight years, joshdb50 says he has the right to own his firearms. Although he is no longer in the military, he acknowledges that he owns guns. He says he does not believe the government needs to know what guns he owns because he believes registration would lead to confiscation.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515
3. To me, DHS doesn't appear to be the one "ramping up it's {sic} arsenal" - read the reports and links cited in several of these threads on the vehicle and weapons and ammunition issues, and you'll find:
DHS gives grant funding to local LEAs ('national security force') who then choose to buy 'cool' vehicles with it and it's now DHS "ramping up its arsenal." DHS puts forth a bid submission for possibly buying ammunition up to a certain amount over a five year period and it's now "ramping up its arsenal."
DHS seeks to refurbish/replace some weapons for some of its agencies (e.g., USCG, Customs, BP, USSS, etc) and it's "ramping up its arsenal."
The sun is back out and the snow-capped Sierras were beautiful this morning as I watched a coyote in the front pasture skulking around considering whether or not it should try to get to my neighbor's chickens - I took my dog out on her leash and let her bark and the coyote headed away.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
The sun is back out and the snow-capped Sierras were beautiful this morning as I watched a coyote in the front pasture skulking around considering whether or not it should try to get to my neighbor's chickens - I took my dog out on her leash and let her bark and the coyote headed away.
Skulking - that's a good word that aptly describes governments more often than not.
Thanks for being a barking dog Richard. Providing reason and rationale. We all know that there are coyotes (and worse) out there. Chicken Little or not, I also appreciate the other barking dogs warning us of those coyotes. Both the ones seen and unseen...
[
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515
3. To me, DHS doesn't appear to be the one "ramping up it's {sic} arsenal" - read the reports and links cited in several of these threads on the vehicle and weapons and ammunition issues, and you'll find:
DHS gives grant funding to local LEAs ('national security force') who then choose to buy 'cool' vehicles with it and it's now DHS "ramping up its arsenal." DHS puts forth a bid submission for possibly buying ammunition up to a certain amount over a five year period and it's now "ramping up its arsenal."
DHS seeks to refurbish/replace some weapons for some of its agencies (e.g., USCG, Customs, BP, USSS, etc) and it's "ramping up its arsenal."
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Well, all we have to do is ask Big Sis what the deal is...(crickets).
MOO, but I give such blogospherically induced 'reasoning' 3 out of 5 possible OMGs. :eek: :eek: :eek:
1. The POTUS did not claim we needed some separate "National Security Force" as such; contextually, he was talking about needing a national security force (read: our existing law enforcement agencies) to be as capable in defending our nation in the GWOT as the highly funded DOD, that we must not neglect the necessity of supporting them in ways commensurate with our support of other agencies in those efforts. This has been floating around the Internet since July 2008 when he made a single reference to a “civilian national security force” in a campaign speech in Colorado, and the blogosphere continues to make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military while patently ignoring the context of the remarks.
2. Has SEN Feinstein mentioned confiscation? That kernel of thought seems to belong to others fearing the consequences of S2525 (introduced in May 2000 and yet to go anywhere in 13 years).
I]Critics have decried S 2525 as a prelude to total gun confiscation because such detailed possession and transaction records could eventually be misused by government agencies if ordered to collect guns by Congress or the president. [/I]
http://www.wnd.com/2000/09/2141/
As a former Marine who has been with the military for eight years, joshdb50 says he has the right to own his firearms. Although he is no longer in the military, he acknowledges that he owns guns. He says he does not believe the government needs to know what guns he owns because he believes registration would lead to confiscation.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515
3. To me, DHS doesn't appear to be the one "ramping up it's {sic} arsenal" - read the reports and links cited in several of these threads on the vehicle and weapons and ammunition issues, and you'll find:
DHS gives grant funding to local LEAs ('national security force') who then choose to buy 'cool' vehicles with it and it's now DHS "ramping up its arsenal." DHS puts forth a bid submission for possibly buying ammunition up to a certain amount over a five year period and it's now "ramping up its arsenal."
DHS seeks to refurbish/replace some weapons for some of its agencies (e.g., USCG, Customs, BP, USSS, etc) and it's "ramping up its arsenal."
The sun is back out and the snow-capped Sierras were beautiful this morning as I watched a coyote in the front pasture skulking around considering whether or not it should try to get to my neighbor's chickens - I took my dog out on her leash and let her bark and the coyote headed away.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
All good points, but they have lied and mislead the public and a growing number of the public doesn't trust them or their Facts.
GratefulCitizen
03-30-2013, 00:00
Alex Jones pushing the meme.
http://youtu.be/7UMRmCitpN0
He's a commercial tin-foiler, but sometimes has good stuff and reaches a large audience.
Rational conclusion at the end of his video.
***********
***********
Check out the old guy at about 6:40 to 7:00 minutes.
The best defense is a good offense.
:lifter
Alex Jones pushing the meme.
YGBSM. Now there's a real 4 OMGs video. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Richard