Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]The shortage of ammo is pretty easy to explain. People who are afraid the government wants to take guns is driving some people to buy ammo. The myth that ammo is being purchased by the government at any significantly higher rates than in the past has been debunked so many times, I shouldn’t have to address it. Because you might have read it on infowars.com doesn’t make it so.[/quote]
There’s articles from reputable sources that suggest the DHS did have contracts out to bulk buy more ammunition than they would ever need. Forbes published this http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
Recently the house passed a bill to delay the DHS’s purchase. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/05/house-votes-to-curb-dhs-stockpiles-ammo/
There certainly arguments to be made that the DHS purchase wasn’t ordinary but the reasons why are just speculation. Did they do it to limit supply for private citizens. Did they do it to push up prices. Is it something more nefarious, who knows, get your tin foil hat out.[/quote]Yeah, except that order for 1.6 billion rounds? There’s no evidence it actually ever existed. Lots of talk about it. Same number keeps going round and round. Changes a bit. One article actually doubled it. 1.6 billion on top of 1.6 billion used over the last year. But dig some. See if you can actually find a specific citation. If there are citations, they all seem to lead back to Alex Jones. What the DHS actually said is that they’ve contracted to purchase up to 750 million rounds. Not this week’s order. Or this month’s order. Or even this year’s order. It’s over 5 years. And the actual obligation to purchase? Zero. It’s tin foil hat material.
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]
While at making unfounded claims, just parroting your masters at wall street does not help much.If it is regular folk buying up the ammo to the point of causing shortage, where are they storing it? Has there been a commensurate increase in storage space? Increase in usage?
Anyway, don’t bother. Did not realize you were a partisan.[/quote]
My masters of wall street? I’m not even sure which direction you think I’m partisan. The left? The right? Wall street is buying ammo? Any evidence that the government is buying more ammo now than in the past? Anybody actually having problems buying as much ammo as they want? Mass shooters don’t seem to have much of a problem getting 1300 rounds. Do you need more than that?
It’s a pretty easy come-back. Just claim that I’m following what others who control me are telling me how to think. If you’ve followed anything I’ve said here over the last five years, you’d know that I don’t believe much of anything. I need evidence. So far you’ve provided none. I won’t hold my breath.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV]I do drink single malt from a brandy snifter though.[/quote]
Tell me you’re throwing some ice cubes and Diet Dr. Pepper in with that shit![/quote]
Hell no. One of my very few religious beliefs. Ice is satan to good scotch. Anything but neat is blasphemous.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SD Realtor]Well I tried that Allan and it didn’t work. She still took a sledghammer to my laptop.
**********************************************
[/quote]
SDR: Your wife, unlike SK’s wife, probably finds it hard to believe you’re in Whole Foods at all, let alone buying artisanal reindeer’s milk cheese from Scandinavia.
I picture SK in a smoking jacket, puffing on a fine Cuban cigar, whilst cradling a brandy snifter, all the while shaking his head at our mendacity.
That’s the kinda guy buying artisanal cheese![/quote]
yeah, that would be me. Now anyway. Since my very dear now ex-wife is no longer in my life. Except the smoking jacket is more like shorts, flip-flops and a t-shirt. The Cuban cigar is more like a vaporizer. I do drink single malt from a brandy snifter though.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
This wasn’t directed at me, but how about Bloomberg? Wouldn’t you admit that he represents the interests of Wall Street and many of the “moneyed elite”?
How about Walmart executives?
—–
“Wal-Mart Toughens Gun Policies
By DEVLIN BARRETT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest seller of firearms, announced Monday it will toughen rules for gun sales, from storing video of purchases to creating an internal log of which guns they sell that are later used in crimes.
J.P. Suarez, the chief compliance officer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., appeared with outspoken gun control advocate Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York to announce the changes at a gathering of Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.”
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/ap_041408.shtml
——————-
It seems to me that Bloomberg would be doing society a much greater service if he would focus on the “financial terrorism” unleashed on us by Wall Street. Why is he so hell-bent on gun control, but so totally weak on breaking the backs of those in the financial industry who’ve just about brought this country to its knees? Why are there no high-level financial executives in jail for causing the financial bubble/collapse? Please don’t try to tell us that they “didn’t know what they were doing.”[/quote]
Bloomberg is the mayor of the biggest city in the country. That’s where his interest in gun control originates. His views are very similar to other big city mayors wrt guns. “Financial terrorism” isn’t within the purview of most mayors, including Bloomberg. The NY AG, whose scope of responsibility does include “financial terrorism” is addressing it.
The issue of why there aren’t any high-level executives in jail isn’t something I can defend, nor is it anything I would try to. Nor do I think it’s related to the issue we’re discussing. I suspect we’re in strong agreement on that point.
Do big corporations have disproportional influence? Absolutely. Does the finance industry have disproportional influence with both political parties? Absolutely. Is the federal government systematically invading our constitutional rights to privacy and due process? Absolutely. Do they have a motivation to take away guns? Quite possibly. Is there any evidence that they’re trying to do so? I’m still waiting. They couldn’t pass a watered down bill on background checks in the senate, much less the house. So what has actually happened over the last 5 years with regards to the government taking away guns? Absolutely nothing.
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]
It is a shame that you keep taking the comments out of context.I suggest you look up why there is a shortage of ammo. who is buying it all up? why? What good are all the guns without the ammo?
You want conclusive evidence? I cannot provide you with a certified copy of the DHS memo where all the ammo is going, neither can I provide you with an approved academic journal reference (per your political preference) as to why there is a shortage at this time while any rational analysis would show that there should be an oversupply of the same. All I have to go by is my observations. Hence my disclaimer. Is this a false premise? Maybe. There has been a run on small arms and ammo since 2008 (rational or otherwise), enough time for the manufacturers to ramp up the inventories. How come they are scarce now? Who is leaning on them?Providing you with “conclusive evidence” is equivalent to waking up somebody who is pretending to asleep.[/quote]
You’re going to have to explain in detail how the context changes your assertion. Maybe if we were talking about duck hunting, claiming that there are only two paths for the US economy, I’d read it differently. But I don’t think so. Absolute claims are absolute claims, irrespective of context.
The shortage of ammo is pretty easy to explain. People who are afraid the government wants to take guns is driving some people to buy ammo. The myth that ammo is being purchased by the government at any significantly higher rates than in the past has been debunked so many times, I shouldn’t have to address it. Because you might have read it on infowars.com doesn’t make it so.
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]
Context, Context….You might want to re-read what I wrote. My observations about correlation relate to actions of moneyed class and general availability of arms & ammunition. This was in response to your specific question “Irrespective of that, I would think that if there is a connection between the monied crowd and gun control, it could be identified. Is Monsanto funding gun control advocacy? JP Morgan? Goldman Sachs?”I did not make an “assertion” nor claimed “evidence”.
It would be my pleasure to provide you with my reasoning (fully acknowledging I could be wrong) but your distortion of context (deliberate or otherwise) make it harder for me to communicate with you.
Going back to what you “thought” I was referring to: deflation is already being tried, interest rates have been kept low and QE game of buying up treasuries to lower the yield is what is going on now. please enlighten us what else can be done to keep the deflation going?
I’ll discount black swan events (and alien attacks) since the very nature of those, by definition, are hard to predict and quantify.
The option of slow growth is dictated not by monetary policy but by the patience of the holders of paper assets and those countries in whose interest it is to keep buying treasuries. I honestly do not know how long they’d want to go but it cannot be forever.
so, by elimination, the only two remaining options are what I mentioned before. You can already see elements of option ‘b’ beginning this year.
Now, I’d love for you to tell my why either of those options will not be considered.[/quote]You both made an assertion and claimed you had evidence for it. Here’s your assertion:
SK, in near future the country will face an either/or choice: (a) inflate massively to get out of this hole
(b) raise taxes and at the same time cut welfare across the board.I’m not sure how the context is important here. That’s a pretty absolute claim.
And then you said:
That said, to be clear, I have no “conclusive evidence” other than a set of correlations.
Now that that’s out of the way…
QE has not caused any significant deflation. Deflation, by definition is an inflation rate below zero. Inflation was negative during the 15 months immediately following the onset of QE1, coinciding with the recession, but there has been positive inflation for the last 40 months that data is available. So your question of “what else can be done to keep the deflation going” again begs the question. The premise of your question is invalid.
You’ve hardly eliminated every other option. The Fed is likely to reduce QE spending by the end of this year. It’s very possible that the economy will continue to limp along as it has been, and barring obstructionist roadblocks, government debt will continue to paid on time, with only relatively small expansion of that debt, and even a continuation of the reduction in the debt/GDP ratio, without further tax increases and without further spending cuts.
Foreign central and private banks will stop buying US debt when….probably never. They really don’t have a lot of attractive alternatives.
And back to the original question…is there any evidence that those with money and power are pushing an anti-gun agenda? So far, all you’ve provided is some scenarios based on false premises, explaining why there may be motivation for them to do so. Surely, if the Fed or Wall Street was trying to take our guns, there would be some evidence of that actually happening.
Participant[quote=dumbrenter][quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter]That said, to be clear, I have no “conclusive evidence” other than a set of correlations.[/quote]
What set of correlations leads you to the conclusion that the US “faces an either/or choice: (a) inflate massively to get out of this hole
(b) raise taxes and at the same time cut welfare across the board.”[/quote]And what makes you think this is not an either/or choice?[/quote]
You made the assertion. You claimed you have evidence in the form of correlations. Back it up.
There are all kinds of other possibilities. Deflation. Controlled growth. A black swan event preceding a deep depression. Or even as is currently projected, slow growth leading to decreased deficits over the short term, and growing over the intermediate term. None of those require massive inflation or increased taxes/decreased welfare.
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]That said, to be clear, I have no “conclusive evidence” other than a set of correlations.[/quote]
What set of correlations leads you to the conclusion that the US “faces an either/or choice: (a) inflate massively to get out of this hole
(b) raise taxes and at the same time cut welfare across the board.”Participant[quote=dumbrenter]
Looking for conclusive evidence is both idealistic and immature. [/quote]And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. And it would be both idealistic and immature to question its authority. Facts and evidence aren’t necessary when the “truth” is so obvious.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Not saying the guys an Idiot but kind of an expensive price to pay to tell everyone what us paranoid wacko’s would told you years ago,
(i.e.. you are always being recorded, videotaped and all your emails read, soon they will electronically read you mind).also tracked via the GPS on your smartPhone.
Anyway that’s what paranoid wackos like me believe,
so am I a wacko ? just saying.[/quote]Couple points….
I think calling the guy a whistle blower is a bit of hyperbole. A whistle blower would be someone who exposes illegal activities, or at very least policy violations. Snowden did neither. While I’m wholeheartedly supportive of what he did, everything he exposed is perfectly legal. Therein lies the problem.
The Patriot Act, and all its amendments, extensions, and modifications allows the FISA court to approve and allow this broad authority to require the telecoms to turn over all this meta-data. So congress passed the law. The executive branch continues to exercise its rights under the law, and the judicial branch approved that exercise.
Some of us were screaming about it more than a decade ago (and at every amendment, expansion and extension of that law) because we expected it to happen. Some disregarded those warning, and saw the broad expansion of executive powers as a necessity to fight enemies within our midst. But the fact is, it’s law, so the collection of this data is legal, and the revelations by Snowden are not.
This little rant isn’t directly responsive to the comment quoted……but this little part..
i.e.. you are always being recorded, videotaped and all your emails read, soon they will electronically read you mind…
kinda struck a chord with me. Last night, after arriving home from a long weekend in SD (celebrating the retirement of by brother, after 33 years as a good-for-nothing civil servant cop), the screen on my electronic thermostat controls was blinking “BATTERY LOW”. So I checked the little Honeywell manual that was buried in a drawer and figured out what kind and how to change the batteries. See that? I checked the manual. And then opened up some news site on the intertubes this morning, and up pops an ad. For Honeywell HVAC controls. What-the-F’ity EF EF? How do it know?
Participant[quote=dumbrenter][quote=SK in CV]I get that CAR. Everything you’ve pasted, copied and commented on is disturbing to say the least, I’m just not seeing any connection between those with power and wealth (the government, and big business) and the anti-gun movement. If anything, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and unlike on some issues, they’re not meeting at the other end of the circle.[/quote]
SK, in near future the country will face an either/or choice: (a) inflate massively to get out of this hole
(b) raise taxes and at the same time cut welfare across the board.If option (a) is chosen, it is the wealthy who get hurt since they hold most dollars, so it is unlikely they will let it happen.
If option (b) is chosen, things will come to head with middle income folks (right or left) and unlike other countries, these fellows have guns which makes things a little bit harder for the “power & wealth” class.
Hence their interest in making sure the bulk of population is emasculated before proceeding.
I am not claiming this is a fact, but just a conjecture of the connection you are looking for.[/quote]Your options are begging the question. I’m not sure there is any conclusive evidence that the US economy faces the limited options you propose.
Irrespective of that, I would think that if there is a connection between the monied crowd and gun control, it could be identified. Is Monsanto funding gun control advocacy? JP Morgan? Goldman Sachs?
ParticipantI get that CAR. Everything you’ve pasted, copied and commented on is disturbing to say the least, I’m just not seeing any connection between those with power and wealth (the government, and big business) and the anti-gun movement. If anything, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and unlike on some issues, they’re not meeting at the other end of the circle.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
We do not live in a “free society,” and haven’t for a number of years. But feel free to keep buying the story that they want to disarm us “for our own good.”[/quote]Who exactly is “they” who want to disarm us and what is their connection to the FBI, the DHS and Wall Street?
-
AuthorPosts
