Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Post-Crash Index-Moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (89575)	4/25/2013 10:49:37 PM
From: ggersh	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119361

So why hasn't any fculin bankster gone to jail? Without the rule of law there is no freedom -- that means laws, police, and courts are all institutions worthy of respect.

To: GST who wrote (89575)	4/25/2013 10:58:51 PM
From: Horgad	21 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 119361

The constitution is suppose to protect the citizens against the government. Saying that we must protect the laws, police, and courts at all costs in order to protect the constitution when the laws, police, and courts have clearly overstepped their bounds is nonsensical. This is the very threat that the constitution was meant to stop. The only way to protect the constitution is to force the laws, police, and courts to operate under it not above it. Clearly they trampled the spirit of the constitution during the search in Boston. There are 40 murders a day in the US, by your standards they could be conducting city wide searches and home invasions 40 times per day. If you believe the constitution is not worth following just say it, but stop trying to say that the constitution allows for the type of unwarranted searching that went on in Boston. The laws may allow for it, but the constitution does not. Right now you seem to be arguing both for and against the constitution.

To: GST who wrote (89575)	4/25/2013 11:50:36 PM
From: Broken_Clock	10 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119361

The Constitution above all else stands as the bedrock of the rule of law -- you cannot urinate on the rule of law and pretend to be trying to protect the Constitution. Without the rule of law there is no freedom -- that means laws, police, and courts are all institutions worthy of respect. You urinated on the Constitution when you called him a lunatic for quoting it to you. In your world anything the cops or big brother does is justified. You're the exact type of person the Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

To: GST who wrote (89575)	4/25/2013 11:53:42 PM
From: Broken_Clock	5 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 119361

Chaffetz, who chairs one of the House oversight subcommittees holding the hearing Thursday, revealed that the department currently has more than 260 million rounds in stock. He said the department bought more than 103 million rounds in 2012 and used 116 million that same year -- among roughly 70,000 agents. Comparing that with the small-arms purchases procured by the U.S. Army, he said the DHS is churning through between 1,300 and 1,600 rounds per officer, while the U.S. Army goes through roughly 350 rounds per soldier. He noted that is "roughly 1,000 rounds more per person." "Their officers use what seems to be an exorbitant amount of ammunition," he said. Nick Nayak, chief procurement officer for the Department of Homeland Security, did not challenge Chaffetz's numbers. Read more: foxnews.com