Buckwheat
13 years ago
Some what old news but I found this OP Ed piece interesting. Here it is. 🌫

http://alturl.com/jbm9k 

Gene363
13 years ago

Some what old news but I found this OP Ed piece interesting. Here it is. 🌫

http://alturl.com/jbm9k 

Buckwheat wrote:



The DHS and state/local Police forces are becoming more and more militarized.

I guess they are getting ready for the Mexican drug cartel violence to spread all over the US once they totally destroy all our border controls.

DrafterX
13 years ago
Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”



“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

Why indeed? It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America. There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok. About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division. And is wise to the ways. The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this: it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget. So… why not?

Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland? Because it’s wrong in every way. President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control. The federal government can (for a nice change) begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.




:-k 🤔 🤔
DadZilla3
13 years ago
'We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.'

- Barack Hussein Obama
ZRX1200
13 years ago
The "zombie" exercises aren't for zombies.
DrafterX
13 years ago
zombies gotta keep in shape too.... 😟
8trackdisco
13 years ago

🅱Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”



“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

:-k

DrafterX wrote:



These aren't just for American roads. They are also used in Detroit & Chicago.
DrafterX
13 years ago
🤔 Good point....
DrafterX
13 years ago
what exactly does the National Guard do again..?? 😕
ZRX1200
13 years ago
The National Gaurd does what the POTUS wants now.
Gene363
13 years ago

what exactly does the National Guard do again..?? 😕

DrafterX wrote:



The guys used to be there to be called out by governors for state emergencies. Now days, they are treated as regular Army and are getting rotated to Afghanistan. Previously there were went to Iraq. Our local SC Guard unit recently left for their fourth rotation overseas. It really screws guys trying to have any kind of working carrier. One week ay year my a s s.
[ram27bat]

DrMaddVibe
13 years ago
The govt. is just buying them so you won't have to.

Have no fear...they'll shoot the bad guys for us!
Brewha
13 years ago
This thread is useless without some one explaining the 'cone' angle . . .
DadZilla3
13 years ago

This thread is useless without some one explaining the 'cone' angle . . .

Brewha wrote:



SA = πr2 + πrl

Where,
r is the radius
h is the height
l is the slant height
Gene363
13 years ago

SA = πr2 + πrl

Where,
r is the radius
h is the height
l is the slant height

DadZilla3 wrote:



See, math can be funny.
HockeyDad
13 years ago

SA = πr2 + πrl

Where,
r is the radius
h is the height
l is the slant height

DadZilla3 wrote:





HA!

Brewha......get back to work you bum.
dpnewell
13 years ago

SA = πr2 + πrl

Where,
r is the radius
h is the height
l is the slant height

DadZilla3 wrote:



Yes, but there is no "h" in the formula.
ZRX1200
13 years ago
It's silent.
DadZilla3
13 years ago

It's silent.

ZRX1200 wrote:


Exactly. The same principle is involved in swimming, where the 'p' is silent.
Users browsing this topic