Private sector ALREADY cut back, time for the government to do their part.

they cant agree what to cut back on. THEY ALL SUCK.

lol,jimmy,u know u good in my book..but after proclaiming how bad bush fucked up and then lambasting the republicans in congress,I'm not sure how much of a "conservative republican" I would consider you..but I love your idea of bringing all the troops home,shuttering foreign bases,stopping most if not all foreign aid,especially to countries who despise us and burn our flag..let the military stay home,work at home and spend their paychecks at home....once the world see's the mightiest military and largest defense spender leave their backyard and pack up,watch these countries come crawling back on hands and knees begging us to come back...but from 1 vet to another vet jimmy..hand salute

yea bro u 2, just because i thought bush did a god awful job at the end (honestly i think his father and brother jeb called the shots) and him being a horrible speaker didnt help his situation. But he did some good - his bad just outweighs it. It wasn't completely his fault. Now Obama - it's not completely his fault now, but his first 4 years - holy shit - pretty bad. I dont care what "good" he did - put us 6-7trillion more in the hole. All that has happened and i dont really think he has much of a plan nor do i think he has any experience - so like i said until a new guy that knows what he's doing gets into office - we are doomed. Most foreign aid - especially to middle eastern countries (aside from israel) needs to get tossed - we aren't taking their oil - so what's the point?

Dick Cheney was in charge when Bush was in office. He still thinks he has say in what goes on.

i seen him blabbin off in a interview the other day criticizing our presidents job he is doin .. i thought seriously you the last fuck needs be givin any advice idiot should be behind bars!

Did y'all know your phone can be searched without a warrant? Sense most of us have smart phones, guess how much that includes?

yes but more so his father bush sr and his brother jeb bush.... i think the only reason jeb didnt run for prez is because he's an independent thinker and cant be controlled and be their puppet

hmmm..... http://news.investors.com/print/ibd-editorials/030513-646857-dhs-buys-special-armored-fighting-vehicles.aspx

move along, nothing to see here.

Why Is Obama's Growing DHS Army Buying Armored Vehicles?

Posted 06:26 PM ET

Security: In addition to stockpiling over a billion bullets and thousands of semiautomatic weapons the feds would deny U.S. citizens, the vehicle of choice for fighting the counterinsurgency war in Iraq is appearing on U.S. streets.

The sequestration question du jour is why the Department of Homeland Security, busy releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of deportable and detained illegal aliens due to budget constraints, is buying several thousand Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles?

And just who are they intended to be used against?

This acquisition comes on top of the recent news of the stockpiling by DHS of more than 1.6 billion (with a 'b') bullets of various calibers, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War, and the ordering of some 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO "personal defense weapons" (PDW) — also known as "assault weapons" when owned by civilians.

Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that "have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds."

The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the U.S. They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq.

These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks. They use bulletproof windows and are designed to withstand small-arms fire, including smaller-caliber rifles such as a .223 Remington. Does DHS expect a counterinsurgency here?

After IEDs began to take a toll on U.S. military forces in Iraq, the Pentagon ordered a large supply of MRAPs.

"They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and marines in uparmored Humvees," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview.

A DHS officer, Robert Whitaker, stationed in El Paso, Texas, recently proudly described the agency's new armored toy as "Mine-resistant ... we use to deliver our team to high-risk warrant services ... (with) gun ports so we can actually shoot from within the vehicle; you may think it's pretty loud but actually it's not too bad ... we have gun ports there in the back and two on the sides as well. They are designed for .50-caliber weapons."

This is needed to serve warrants? Perhaps it might have been useful at Waco.

So the question is what does DHS need 1.6 billion bullets, 7,000 Ar-15s and 2,700 armored vehicles for?

What are they anticipating or planning for, and why are few in the media and Congress asking about it, particularly in the light of daily apocalyptic bleats from the administration about sequestration cuts?

We have asked if this has anything to do with then-candidate Obama's proposal for a national security force as powerful as the U.S. Army.

In a July 2, 2008, speech in Colorado Springs, Colo., candidate Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely 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."

As Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, recently opined in the Washington Times, "The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us."

No, we are not scanning the sky for black helicopters.

But we are concerned about an administration pushing for ever stricter gun control and de facto gun registration in the form of allegedly universal background checks to which criminals and gangbangers won't comply is arming itself to the teeth.

If weapons of war don't belong on the street, Mr. President, explain these purchases.

The ongoing of this thread and the continuous back/forth from both sides i might say that it seems as if people are trying to convert each other into believing in their view. If that's your goal you might as well abandon ship due to the fact that no one is going to neglect their stance for your belief.