(03-12-2013 10:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 05:08 PM)Rebel Wrote:  The number is from a .pdf file on DHS's own website, Prog. To make matters worse, it's linked on every damn site we link in these threads. You're just too lazy to think for yourself or perform such a simple task as opening an embedded link. Nope, you'd prefer to take the Obama and his goons at their word. Hence why we call you a useful idiot.

Then it should be no problem at all for you to provide me a link to the bullets purchased and delivered THIS YEAR ALONE then shouldn't it?

Waiting...

Ask and you shall receive since you are too stupid to do any research for yourself.

Here is one purchase order or many that are available to read online.

https://marketplace.fedbid.com/fbweb/fbo...AAyVXBA0Or

100000 bullets per.....and they ordered 100 quantities of those, then another 100, then 40 more.

And again, that's just one purchase order of many available online.

Care to continue your stupid deny deny deny bullsh.t or can you finally accept that our government is heading down a very bad path?

Oh right, let me guess your predictable response:

"This proves nothing, where are the other p.o.'s?" That's followed by me searching that site again and finding the rest of them, which is followed by you yet again changing your argument to "oh it's only for practice shooting" which is then followed by us pointing out that 1.6 bil bullets is completely insane and could never be used in a lifetime for practice and then we also point out that many our hollow tip and no one uses hollow points for practice....NO ONE".

Or you can just save yourself the embarrassment, admit that this is fishy at best especially considering the ok of drone usage, the kill list of Americans without a trial, the purchase of 2700 personnel carriers with anti mine devices) to "protect the border"(complete bullsh.t), the FEMA camps (of course you will probably deny that too) and maybe THEN, we can finally start getting somewhere in this debate. The choice is yours.

(03-12-2013 11:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Show me one credible source that details the exact number of bullets that have been purchased so far.

Relevance?

Given that the number contracted is shown to be far in excess of what would be reasonably required in a reasonable number of years (do you question any of those assertions?), what difference does it make how many have actually been purchased so far?

The concern is that CONTRACTING for so many is troubling, not actual purchases pursuant to that contract in a relatively short period.

BECAUSE YOU ******* GOVERNMENT HATING CONSPIRACY MORONS KEEP SAYING THE DHS BOUGHT 1.6 BILLION BULLETS!

So either prove it or stop saying it. Understand? I certainly can't get away making unfounded statement after undounded statement now can I?

(03-13-2013 08:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Show me one credible source that details the exact number of bullets that have been purchased so far.

Relevance?
Given that the number contracted is shown to be far in excess of what would be reasonably required in a reasonable number of years (do you question any of those assertions?), what difference does it make how many have actually been purchased so far?
The concern is that CONTRACTING for so many is troubling, not actual purchases pursuant to that contract in a relatively short period.

BECAUSE YOU ******* GOVERNMENT HATING CONSPIRACY MORONS KEEP SAYING THE DHS BOUGHT 1.6 BILLION BULLETS!

No, they CONTRACTED to buy 1.6 billion bullets. That's a problem regardless of how many they've actually taken delivery of to date.

Owl....now you're making no sense just to avoid admitting that you might actually be wrong about something.

Once again...the contract is for UP TO that many and it's for 4 or 5 years. There is nothing anywhere stating that they will or have to buy that many. NOTHING!!!!!!!

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Owl....now you're making no sense just to avoid admitting that you might actually be wrong about something.
Once again...the contract is for UP TO that many and it's for 4 or 5 years. There is nothing anywhere stating that they will or have to buy that many. NOTHING!!!!!!!

And the quick and dirty analysis suggests that the number is on the order of 10 times what they would ordinarily use in that time frame. Are you aware of a material error in that calculation? And keep in mind the word material.

Are you saying we should wait to get worried until they actually take delivery of the 1.6 billionth bullet? Seems a bit late in the game to start worrying.

Bottom line, you're going to make up any excuse you can to justify it because it's your guy who's doing it. And only for that reason. You and I both know that you'd be screaming bloody murder if this were McCain's or Romney's government doing it, instead of the chosen one's.

Maybe it was Obama's campaign promise to The Hood for their votes and support.

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Owl....now you're making no sense just to avoid admitting that you might actually be wrong about something.

Once again...the contract is for UP TO that many and it's for 4 or 5 years. There is nothing anywhere stating that they will or have to buy that many. NOTHING!!!!!!!

Ok....
U.S. Military used 70,000,000 a year in Iraq.
The war lasted 8.5 years.
So, over 4-5 years, the DHS may need up to 2.7 times as many for domestic use?

Seriously....what are they anticipating? Are 2.7 Iraqi armies/insurgents on their way over that plan to fight for 8.5 years?

(03-13-2013 08:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Show me one credible source that details the exact number of bullets that have been purchased so far.

Relevance?

Given that the number contracted is shown to be far in excess of what would be reasonably required in a reasonable number of years (do you question any of those assertions?), what difference does it make how many have actually been purchased so far?

The concern is that CONTRACTING for so many is troubling, not actual purchases pursuant to that contract in a relatively short period.

BECAUSE YOU ******* GOVERNMENT HATING CONSPIRACY MORONS KEEP SAYING THE DHS BOUGHT 1.6 BILLION BULLETS!

So either prove it or stop saying it. Understand? I certainly can't get away making unfounded statement after undounded statement now can I?

Are you unable to read you f.cking idiot??? Seriously, read something, anything you dunce!

(03-13-2013 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Owl....now you're making no sense just to avoid admitting that you might actually be wrong about something.
Once again...the contract is for UP TO that many and it's for 4 or 5 years. There is nothing anywhere stating that they will or have to buy that many. NOTHING!!!!!!!

And the quick and dirty analysis suggests that the number is on the order of 10 times what they would ordinarily use in that time frame.

Actually DHS uses 15 million a year TOTAL. Over a 5 year span that is 75 million bullets.

1.6 billion over 5 years is over 300 million a year. That is over 20 times what they need PER year.

And the argument that it's just a "contract" and they "won't actually buy them all" is beyond stupid and insane!!!

When had the United States federal government EVER ordered something and then thought "ehhh, maybe we don't need all that, let's cut back"? Are you really that dumb??? They will buy every single one of those bullets, that's what the government does is SPEND MONEY. God you are a dunce.

(03-13-2013 01:24 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Owl....now you're making no sense just to avoid admitting that you might actually be wrong about something.

Once again...the contract is for UP TO that many and it's for 4 or 5 years. There is nothing anywhere stating that they will or have to buy that many. NOTHING!!!!!!!

Ok....
U.S. Military used 70,000,000 a year in Iraq.
The war lasted 8.5 years.
So, over 4-5 years, the DHS may need up to 2.7 times as many for domestic use?

Seriously....what are they anticipating? Are 2.7 Iraqi armies/insurgents on their way over that plan to fight for 8.5 years?

Exactly. He knows for a fact he cannot possibly explain or justify this so instead he is just using the old "deny, deny, deny" tactic.

Tired and predictable but not the least bit surprising.

(03-13-2013 01:24 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Owl....now you're making no sense just to avoid admitting that you might actually be wrong about something.

Once again...the contract is for UP TO that many and it's for 4 or 5 years. There is nothing anywhere stating that they will or have to buy that many. NOTHING!!!!!!!

Ok....
U.S. Military used 70,000,000 a year in Iraq.
The war lasted 8.5 years.
So, over 4-5 years, the DHS may need up to 2.7 times as many for domestic use?

Seriously....what are they anticipating? Are 2.7 Iraqi armies/insurgents on their way over that plan to fight for 8.5 years?

So...in other words...there is no logical reason why the DHS would buy that many bullets...so common sense would tell you they're not. But you guys choose to believe they are.

Very telling.

Please forgive me if I choose to wait to be outraged until I actually see proof of something to be outraged about.

(03-14-2013 08:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:24 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Owl....now you're making no sense just to avoid admitting that you might actually be wrong about something.

Once again...the contract is for UP TO that many and it's for 4 or 5 years. There is nothing anywhere stating that they will or have to buy that many. NOTHING!!!!!!!

Ok....
U.S. Military used 70,000,000 a year in Iraq.
The war lasted 8.5 years.
So, over 4-5 years, the DHS may need up to 2.7 times as many for domestic use?

Seriously....what are they anticipating? Are 2.7 Iraqi armies/insurgents on their way over that plan to fight for 8.5 years?

So...in other words...there is no logical reason why the DHS would buy that many bullets...so common sense would tell you they're not. But you guys choose to believe they are.

Very telling.

Please forgive me if I choose to wait to be outraged until I actually see proof of something to be outraged about.

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=500096...cf105309c3

That's just one link to FBO's site. It's a pdf. It's 750 million rounds and that was last year. They're up to over 1.6 billion now.

Do the damn research yourself. The docs are out there, unless you want to remain the sheep you are. I'm going with the latter.

(03-14-2013 08:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:24 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Owl....now you're making no sense just to avoid admitting that you might actually be wrong about something.

Once again...the contract is for UP TO that many and it's for 4 or 5 years. There is nothing anywhere stating that they will or have to buy that many. NOTHING!!!!!!!

Ok....
U.S. Military used 70,000,000 a year in Iraq.
The war lasted 8.5 years.
So, over 4-5 years, the DHS may need up to 2.7 times as many for domestic use?

Seriously....what are they anticipating? Are 2.7 Iraqi armies/insurgents on their way over that plan to fight for 8.5 years?

So...in other words...there is no logical reason why the DHS would buy that many bullets...so common sense would tell you they're not. But you guys choose to believe they are.

Very telling.

Please forgive me if I choose to wait to be outraged until I actually see proof of something to be outraged about.

Or, from another perspective; The United States Military only needed 595,000,000 rounds for 8.5 years of fighting an army...in a war. Let's add a bit of safety factor and determine we may need up to 2.7 times as many for domestic use.

Is this truly an example, in your opinion, of the DHS being good stewards of our tax dollars?

(03-14-2013 08:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...in other words...there is no logical reason why the DHS would buy that many bullets...so common sense would tell you they're not. But you guys choose to believe they are.

Very telling.

It's very telling that you think all gov't actions are guided by logic.

(03-14-2013 08:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...in other words...there is no logical reason why the DHS would buy that many bullets...so common sense would tell you they're not. But you guys choose to believe they are.
Very telling.
Please forgive me if I choose to wait to be outraged until I actually see proof of something to be outraged about.

Not exactly.

There is no logical reason for buying that many bullets in the normal course of operations. But, there are news reports from otherwise credible sources that they have at least contracted to buy that many. So common sense tries to reconcile the two. The following options would appear to be reasonably possible:

1. The news stories are fabricated and completely false. My sense is that the part about contracting for the 1.6 billion bullets is not really open to argument.
2. The news stories are true, but DHS just came up with a ridiculous number that they have no intention of buying. Then why contract for that number?
3. DHS contracted for that number just to waste taxpayers' money. Or maybe they anticipated that sequester would trim the number so they ordered way more than they would need so they would still be okay with any sequester cutbacks. This possibility is reasonable and consistent with the way bureaucrats operate, but 10x reasonable needs seems a bit extreme even for Washungton.
4. DHS is expecting some major shift in their routine operations and wants to be prepared. Given the probabilities of the other alternatives, this would seem at least to be on the table as something that should be considered.

So which one or ones of those alternatives do you think merits consideration? And do you have any other alternatives to put forth?

And just for grins and giggles, how far would things have to go for you to become alarmed? I'm guessing the same action by a republican administration would get your ire up, but these guys are your team, so anything they do is hunky-dory.

(03-14-2013 09:00 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 08:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:24 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Owl....now you're making no sense just to avoid admitting that you might actually be wrong about something.

Once again...the contract is for UP TO that many and it's for 4 or 5 years. There is nothing anywhere stating that they will or have to buy that many. NOTHING!!!!!!!

Ok....
U.S. Military used 70,000,000 a year in Iraq.
The war lasted 8.5 years.
So, over 4-5 years, the DHS may need up to 2.7 times as many for domestic use?

Seriously....what are they anticipating? Are 2.7 Iraqi armies/insurgents on their way over that plan to fight for 8.5 years?

So...in other words...there is no logical reason why the DHS would buy that many bullets...so common sense would tell you they're not. But you guys choose to believe they are.

Very telling.

Please forgive me if I choose to wait to be outraged until I actually see proof of something to be outraged about.

Or, from another perspective; The United States Military only needed 595,000,000 rounds for 8.5 years of fighting an army...in a war. Let's add a bit of safety factor and determine we may need up to 2.7 times as many for domestic use.

Is this truly an example, in your opinion, of the DHS being good stewards of our tax dollars?

That speaks to the whole of the point I'm making. I can't say because we really don't know exactly how many bullets were or will be bought. If they simply put the maximum amount high and got a beter price as they suggest then it would appear they were being good stewards...but again...we just don't know.

(03-14-2013 09:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 08:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...in other words...there is no logical reason why the DHS would buy that many bullets...so common sense would tell you they're not. But you guys choose to believe they are.
Very telling.
Please forgive me if I choose to wait to be outraged until I actually see proof of something to be outraged about.

Not exactly.

There is no logical reason for buying that many bullets in the normal course of operations. But, there are news reports from otherwise credible sources that they have at least contracted to buy that many. So common sense tries to reconcile the two. The following options would appear to be reasonably possible:

1. The news stories are fabricated and completely false. My sense is that the part about contracting for the 1.6 billion bullets is not really open to argument.
2. The news stories are true, but DHS just came up with a ridiculous number that they have no intention of buying. Then why contract for that number?
3. DHS contracted for that number just to waste taxpayers' money. Or maybe they anticipated that sequester would trim the number so they ordered way more than they would need so they would still be okay with any sequester cutbacks. This possibility is reasonable and consistent with the way bureaucrats operate, but 10x reasonable needs seems a bit extreme even for Washungton.
4. DHS is expecting some major shift in their routine operations and wants to be prepared. Given the probabilities of the other alternatives, this would seem at least to be on the table as something that should be considered.

So which one or ones of those alternatives do you think merits consideration? And do you have any other alternatives to put forth?

And just for grins and giggles, how far would things have to go for you to become alarmed? I'm guessing the same action by a republican administration would get your ire up, but these guys are your team, so anything they do is hunky-dory.

Your assumptions about me are yet again wrong. I take no issue with this because there isn't anything really to take issue with. We don't know how much money was spent...we don't know how many bullets were purchased...we don't know what they may be used for.

And nobody with a brain could even begin to extrapolate that they are going to be used to intern Americans!

But I mainly take no issue, as for a change we appear to be spending money on actually protecting our homeland and not fighting other countries wars or building other nations. I have never been against protecting our citizens...and that's all I see happening here.

Tom, obviously as long as your team is doing it you're fine with it, and you'll go to whatever ends are necessary to rationalize it.

(03-14-2013 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I can't say because we really don't know exactly how many bullets were or will be bought.

Yes we do, sheep. Those pdf docs from FBO.gov are public record.

(03-14-2013 11:02 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I can't say because we really don't know exactly how many bullets were or will be bought.

Yes we do, sheep. Those pdf docs from FBO.gov are public record.

It's an order for a maximum purchase Rebel. It's not an order of what physically has been purchased. Unless you're seeing something different than what I've seen. If so, please post the link of what has actually been delivered and then we'll talk.