-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Another incursion by Mexican forces
- Thread starter Texgal_338
- Start date
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
You know, it would take a lot to bring one of those things down and so I wonder what's going to happen when someone takes a pot-shot into the turbines and that thing crashes into a US neighborhood.
You know, it would take a lot to bring one of those things down and so I wonder what's going to happen when someone takes a pot-shot into the turbines and that thing crashes into a US neighborhood.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
another disturbing part of that story was the amount of corruption in US agencies
another disturbing part of that story was the amount of corruption in US agencies
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tucker301</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Mexico is a more urgent threat to national security than most Americans are willing to admit. </div></div>
Big +1
The country is a massive source, or at the very least a staging ground for drugs, human trafficking, illegal weapons, and a general flow of unsavory characters into our country. By unsavory characters I am not necessarily talking about average illegal aliens, though that too is a problem, but more gang members, cartel people, and potentially terrorists.
In addition it has been toeing the line of a failed state since the government can’t control their country, or doesn’t want to. We all know how terrible Somalia was. The last thing we need is something similar in our next door neighbors.
While I absolutely respect, and take my hat off to the brave members of our border patrol who are doing everything in their power to stem the flow of all the negative things into our country, they can only do so much. The problem lies internally in Mexico and attempting to filter it out on our side is only going to work for so long. Sooner or later something is going to need to be done.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tucker301</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Mexico is a more urgent threat to national security than most Americans are willing to admit. </div></div>
Big +1
The country is a massive source, or at the very least a staging ground for drugs, human trafficking, illegal weapons, and a general flow of unsavory characters into our country. By unsavory characters I am not necessarily talking about average illegal aliens, though that too is a problem, but more gang members, cartel people, and potentially terrorists.
In addition it has been toeing the line of a failed state since the government can’t control their country, or doesn’t want to. We all know how terrible Somalia was. The last thing we need is something similar in our next door neighbors.
While I absolutely respect, and take my hat off to the brave members of our border patrol who are doing everything in their power to stem the flow of all the negative things into our country, they can only do so much. The problem lies internally in Mexico and attempting to filter it out on our side is only going to work for so long. Sooner or later something is going to need to be done.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rrflyer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Could just as easily been a joint effort of some sort as well..... </div></div>
You can bet that if Mexican military helicopters were in US airspace, not only were we aware of it before it happened, but that we facilitated it.
There is only 1 solution, and it has nothing to do with sending troops, killing aliens, or "tightening the clamp". In fact, those efforts will only make matters worse.
The only key to stopping drug violence is to take away any incentive from perpetrating drug violence.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rrflyer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Could just as easily been a joint effort of some sort as well..... </div></div>
You can bet that if Mexican military helicopters were in US airspace, not only were we aware of it before it happened, but that we facilitated it.
There is only 1 solution, and it has nothing to do with sending troops, killing aliens, or "tightening the clamp". In fact, those efforts will only make matters worse.
The only key to stopping drug violence is to take away any incentive from perpetrating drug violence.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Shoot, aren't there enough 'Hide' members there to take one out? My guess is that if guys like CKA and his crew would go for it a helocopter would be easy prey to a few good shooting .308's
Shoot, aren't there enough 'Hide' members there to take one out? My guess is that if guys like CKA and his crew would go for it a helocopter would be easy prey to a few good shooting .308's
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rhys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Start dropping them when they hit the boarder. When the corpses are deep enough they will get the hint. </div></div>
I've a friend (German family roots) who was a teenager in Yugoslavia during WWII who experienced border/permimeter closings. The quoted statement above worked amazingly well then and there is no reason to believe that it won't work equally well now. Publication of dozens with evidence thereof did the trick then and there. With that in mind, less than 50 with some limited publicity would likely turn the torrent into a drip overnight.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rhys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Start dropping them when they hit the boarder. When the corpses are deep enough they will get the hint. </div></div>
I've a friend (German family roots) who was a teenager in Yugoslavia during WWII who experienced border/permimeter closings. The quoted statement above worked amazingly well then and there is no reason to believe that it won't work equally well now. Publication of dozens with evidence thereof did the trick then and there. With that in mind, less than 50 with some limited publicity would likely turn the torrent into a drip overnight.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The only key to stopping drug violence is to take away any incentive from perpetrating drug violence. </div></div>
Legalize it. Tax the hell out of it. Issue permits to use dope in exchange for removal of reproductive organs. Problem fully manifests then dissolves within 10 years, we pay off the national debt in the mean time while increasing the quality of the population.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The only key to stopping drug violence is to take away any incentive from perpetrating drug violence. </div></div>
Legalize it. Tax the hell out of it. Issue permits to use dope in exchange for removal of reproductive organs. Problem fully manifests then dissolves within 10 years, we pay off the national debt in the mean time while increasing the quality of the population.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Eleventy-Gazillion Jigga-Watt electric fence, with an arc-jump of about 25 feet.
Save the ammo for us who'd appreciate it more.
Eleventy-Gazillion Jigga-Watt electric fence, with an arc-jump of about 25 feet.
Save the ammo for us who'd appreciate it more.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
March 14, 2010
2 Americans Killed in Drive-By Shooting in Mexico
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:15 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Three people with ties to the American consulate in a drug-plagued Mexican city were killed in a drive-by shooting, a U.S. official said Sunday.
The department noted the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City has advised American citizens to delay unnecessary travel to parts of the Mexican states of Durango, Coahuila and Chihuahua.
Two American citizens and a spouse of a Mexican employee were killed Saturday afternoon, a U.S. official said. The official spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.
The White House said President Barack Obama was ''deeply saddened and outraged'' by the killings of those linked to the U.S. mission in Ciudad Juarez.
''He extends his condolences to the families and condemns these attacks on consular and diplomatic personnel serving at our foreign missions,'' the White House said in a statement. ''In concert with Mexican authorities, we will work tirelessly to bring their killers to justice.''
The State Department authorized U.S. government employees at six U.S. consulates in northern Mexico to send their family members out of the area because of concerns about rising drug-related violence. At least 18,000 people have been killed since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against drug traffickers in December 2006.
The State Department said it would allow family members of diplomatic staff to leave border cities of Tijuana, Nogales, Ciudad Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey and Matamoros.
State Department spokesman Fred Lash said the decision to authorize consular employees' family members to leave the area was based not only on Saturday's killings but also on a wider pattern of violence and threats in northern Mexico in recent weeks.
The bloody drug war in has plagued the 200-mile U.S.-Mexican border for years, and once-busy streets are empty after dark. More than 45,000 soldiers have been dispatched to fight cartels since Calderon took office in late 2006, but the U.S. has been critical of Mexican efforts to fight the drug trade amid complaints of human rights abuses.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/14/us/politics/AP-US-US-Mexico-Violence.html?ref=global-home
March 14, 2010
2 Americans Killed in Drive-By Shooting in Mexico
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:15 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Three people with ties to the American consulate in a drug-plagued Mexican city were killed in a drive-by shooting, a U.S. official said Sunday.
The department noted the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City has advised American citizens to delay unnecessary travel to parts of the Mexican states of Durango, Coahuila and Chihuahua.
Two American citizens and a spouse of a Mexican employee were killed Saturday afternoon, a U.S. official said. The official spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.
The White House said President Barack Obama was ''deeply saddened and outraged'' by the killings of those linked to the U.S. mission in Ciudad Juarez.
''He extends his condolences to the families and condemns these attacks on consular and diplomatic personnel serving at our foreign missions,'' the White House said in a statement. ''In concert with Mexican authorities, we will work tirelessly to bring their killers to justice.''
The State Department authorized U.S. government employees at six U.S. consulates in northern Mexico to send their family members out of the area because of concerns about rising drug-related violence. At least 18,000 people have been killed since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against drug traffickers in December 2006.
The State Department said it would allow family members of diplomatic staff to leave border cities of Tijuana, Nogales, Ciudad Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey and Matamoros.
State Department spokesman Fred Lash said the decision to authorize consular employees' family members to leave the area was based not only on Saturday's killings but also on a wider pattern of violence and threats in northern Mexico in recent weeks.
The bloody drug war in has plagued the 200-mile U.S.-Mexican border for years, and once-busy streets are empty after dark. More than 45,000 soldiers have been dispatched to fight cartels since Calderon took office in late 2006, but the U.S. has been critical of Mexican efforts to fight the drug trade amid complaints of human rights abuses.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/14/us/politics/AP-US-US-Mexico-Violence.html?ref=global-home
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rrflyer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Could just as easily been a joint effort of some sort as well..... </div></div>
You can bet that if Mexican military helicopters were in US airspace, not only were we aware of it before it happened, but that we facilitated it.
There is only 1 solution, and it has nothing to do with sending troops, killing aliens, or "tightening the clamp". In fact, those efforts will only make matters worse.
The only key to stopping drug violence is to take away any incentive from perpetrating drug violence. </div></div>
Yeah, that should work great...
How original. I'm sure it also dovetails well with the "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with" school of mariage counselling.
Here's an idea, how about some real criticism of those who feel the need to encourage other people that getting stoned to escape one's stresses, pain or a general avoidance of responsibility, is a largely unspoken catastrophe for our nation and those under the control of the narco-regimes?
Are you honestly so intellectually indolent to think that there won't be huge costs associated with legalization of narcotics? Costs that will parallel those spent on the current prohibition, if not exceed them? The difference between alchohol prohibition and that of narcotics is the fact that alcohol, historically, was legally available prior to prohibition. It was anything for a buck types who pushed and cajoled dumbasses that it was just fine to drink all the time. Prohibition was a ham handed attempt to get control of a huge and worsening alchoholism problem that became plain to people of all walks of life in the latter 19th century which got traction in the wake of the first World War. It was a failure on many levels principally because it was like outlawing the right of people to take a shit.
Narcotics use fails this simple test. While people may choose to equate the two, the latter has never been accepted as normal, healthy, natural or benign in moderation. Perhaps Marijuana is an exception but the simplistic desire for legalization does not apply to this topic as the majority of weed is produced domestically.
I liken advocates of legalization of narcotics to the hateful and racist bastards who pushed whiskey on the Indians. Since the Indians were so severely screwed here, the drowning of sorrows were encouraged at many levels. Drunk and forgotten people are more manageable than sober and bitter people.
Those whose desire to profit from the addled masses of dull witted stoners, as well as indulge in their own drugs of choice, without risk of arrest or prosecution, are at minimum deluded. I can't help feel there is also a sinister profit motive at hand in the narcotics legalization advocacy.
While advocating the deception that our problems will be over if narcotics are legalized, decriminalized or treated as a "Health Care Problem" may seem, to the proponent, as a solution untried for any of myriad paranoid reasons, the unmistakeable stench of laziness and indifference to societal rot is plain. As is the cruelty of a raft of commercial opportunities that is devised upon the percieved needs of millions of additional losers in a wretched new world of drug addicted wards of an incompetent, corrupt and cynical state.
It's the kind of thing I expect from people who think they live far enough away from "those People"...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rrflyer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Could just as easily been a joint effort of some sort as well..... </div></div>
You can bet that if Mexican military helicopters were in US airspace, not only were we aware of it before it happened, but that we facilitated it.
There is only 1 solution, and it has nothing to do with sending troops, killing aliens, or "tightening the clamp". In fact, those efforts will only make matters worse.
The only key to stopping drug violence is to take away any incentive from perpetrating drug violence. </div></div>
Yeah, that should work great...
How original. I'm sure it also dovetails well with the "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with" school of mariage counselling.
Here's an idea, how about some real criticism of those who feel the need to encourage other people that getting stoned to escape one's stresses, pain or a general avoidance of responsibility, is a largely unspoken catastrophe for our nation and those under the control of the narco-regimes?
Are you honestly so intellectually indolent to think that there won't be huge costs associated with legalization of narcotics? Costs that will parallel those spent on the current prohibition, if not exceed them? The difference between alchohol prohibition and that of narcotics is the fact that alcohol, historically, was legally available prior to prohibition. It was anything for a buck types who pushed and cajoled dumbasses that it was just fine to drink all the time. Prohibition was a ham handed attempt to get control of a huge and worsening alchoholism problem that became plain to people of all walks of life in the latter 19th century which got traction in the wake of the first World War. It was a failure on many levels principally because it was like outlawing the right of people to take a shit.
Narcotics use fails this simple test. While people may choose to equate the two, the latter has never been accepted as normal, healthy, natural or benign in moderation. Perhaps Marijuana is an exception but the simplistic desire for legalization does not apply to this topic as the majority of weed is produced domestically.
I liken advocates of legalization of narcotics to the hateful and racist bastards who pushed whiskey on the Indians. Since the Indians were so severely screwed here, the drowning of sorrows were encouraged at many levels. Drunk and forgotten people are more manageable than sober and bitter people.
Those whose desire to profit from the addled masses of dull witted stoners, as well as indulge in their own drugs of choice, without risk of arrest or prosecution, are at minimum deluded. I can't help feel there is also a sinister profit motive at hand in the narcotics legalization advocacy.
While advocating the deception that our problems will be over if narcotics are legalized, decriminalized or treated as a "Health Care Problem" may seem, to the proponent, as a solution untried for any of myriad paranoid reasons, the unmistakeable stench of laziness and indifference to societal rot is plain. As is the cruelty of a raft of commercial opportunities that is devised upon the percieved needs of millions of additional losers in a wretched new world of drug addicted wards of an incompetent, corrupt and cynical state.
It's the kind of thing I expect from people who think they live far enough away from "those People"...
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bad thing about it is the public knowledge regarding things like weed. It isn't harmless. You legalize it and then we have a a population of fucking zombies driving and killing because of the drug. Weed makes ya stupid too-cumulative. All we need is more idiots not working in the US, voting for free health care. Know guys that have been smoking it for years- sure wouldn't trust them to babysit a child let alone operate machinery.
Han </div></div>
From a guy who almost certainly has never smoked pot ('aint it great how that works - in fact, it sounds just like the anti-gunners who have never held a gun arguing how much better we'd be if we didn't have guns at all).
You are spewing a bunch of shit, even if you don't know it.
Pot being illegal and that illegality being enough of a deterrence to keep over 100,000,000 people from having tried it shows just how wrong you are. People who are going to smoke pot, are going to smoke pot whether it is illegal or not.
You will not see a rise in the number of people smoking pot if it becomes illegal. It's already easy to get (easier than alcohol in most places, especially for those underage), and reasonably cheap (cheaper than alcohol). Places where it is legal bears that out.
But either way, the only way to get rid of drug violence is to take away the incentive to use violence to protect the drug trade, which is to make it illegal (or at least decriminalize the use of it). Legalize pot and the cartels disappear overnight.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bad thing about it is the public knowledge regarding things like weed. It isn't harmless. You legalize it and then we have a a population of fucking zombies driving and killing because of the drug. Weed makes ya stupid too-cumulative. All we need is more idiots not working in the US, voting for free health care. Know guys that have been smoking it for years- sure wouldn't trust them to babysit a child let alone operate machinery.
Han </div></div>
From a guy who almost certainly has never smoked pot ('aint it great how that works - in fact, it sounds just like the anti-gunners who have never held a gun arguing how much better we'd be if we didn't have guns at all).
You are spewing a bunch of shit, even if you don't know it.
Pot being illegal and that illegality being enough of a deterrence to keep over 100,000,000 people from having tried it shows just how wrong you are. People who are going to smoke pot, are going to smoke pot whether it is illegal or not.
You will not see a rise in the number of people smoking pot if it becomes illegal. It's already easy to get (easier than alcohol in most places, especially for those underage), and reasonably cheap (cheaper than alcohol). Places where it is legal bears that out.
But either way, the only way to get rid of drug violence is to take away the incentive to use violence to protect the drug trade, which is to make it illegal (or at least decriminalize the use of it). Legalize pot and the cartels disappear overnight.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
You clearly need to back off the herbage to see how vapid and flimsy those suppositions are.
You clearly need to back off the herbage to see how vapid and flimsy those suppositions are.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eleaf, you are so sad and a bit pathetic. Always the name calling- guess you really are a liberal. You have been on this site a very short time and since your arrival you have spouted nothing but crap, negativity, and profanity. When you aren't puffing yourself up about your brilliance you insult members and try to shout them down. You sir, are a misinformed elitist who is "spewing shit"- as usual.
Been an RN for 20 years plus. I've seen the damage that drugs do to both the individual and the family. Harmless- nope. Yeah, legalize it all and the problem will just go away. Brilliant logic there, college boy. Maybe your deity Obeyme will hire you to solve the problem- Eleaf the DRUG CZAR!
Oh yeah, you're wrong on the "never tried it" thing too. Always putting your big LEFT foot in your mouth. I saw the error of my ways before the damage was done.
If ya can't play nice Eleaf then kindly get the hell off the HIDE! You're really making some friends here.
Han </div></div>
Yeah. I guess you're right. Keep doing things as they have been done and everything will get better. Things are so great the way they are now. We'll just keep living in a hole and convince ourselves that arresting and incarcerating nearly 1 million Americans a year for smoking pot (more arrests than ALL violent crimes combined BTW) works great. That's definitely the best way to spend our taxpayers money. A "war" on drugs that hasn't been effective in the least over the last 35 years, and has created cartels (notice nothing like that existed <span style="font-style: italic">until</span> we made drugs illegal). Gee I guess it's just a coincidence, and the "conservative" republinuts have it right.
And for goodness sakes, can you chill with the "you're a liberal" BS. I'm not. I'm not a "conservative" either (which I suppose, in the brilliant logic of the "Us v Them" paradigm, makes me one in your mind).
Not agreeing with nuclear war as an answer and agreeing that pot should be legalized does not = liberal. Though one could argue that legitimately viewing nuclear holocaust as a means to an end of terrorism and really believing that keeping prohibition as is is the best course of action, being that it's worked so well thus far, does fit the definition of crazy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eleaf, you are so sad and a bit pathetic. Always the name calling- guess you really are a liberal. You have been on this site a very short time and since your arrival you have spouted nothing but crap, negativity, and profanity. When you aren't puffing yourself up about your brilliance you insult members and try to shout them down. You sir, are a misinformed elitist who is "spewing shit"- as usual.
Been an RN for 20 years plus. I've seen the damage that drugs do to both the individual and the family. Harmless- nope. Yeah, legalize it all and the problem will just go away. Brilliant logic there, college boy. Maybe your deity Obeyme will hire you to solve the problem- Eleaf the DRUG CZAR!
Oh yeah, you're wrong on the "never tried it" thing too. Always putting your big LEFT foot in your mouth. I saw the error of my ways before the damage was done.
If ya can't play nice Eleaf then kindly get the hell off the HIDE! You're really making some friends here.
Han </div></div>
Yeah. I guess you're right. Keep doing things as they have been done and everything will get better. Things are so great the way they are now. We'll just keep living in a hole and convince ourselves that arresting and incarcerating nearly 1 million Americans a year for smoking pot (more arrests than ALL violent crimes combined BTW) works great. That's definitely the best way to spend our taxpayers money. A "war" on drugs that hasn't been effective in the least over the last 35 years, and has created cartels (notice nothing like that existed <span style="font-style: italic">until</span> we made drugs illegal). Gee I guess it's just a coincidence, and the "conservative" republinuts have it right.
And for goodness sakes, can you chill with the "you're a liberal" BS. I'm not. I'm not a "conservative" either (which I suppose, in the brilliant logic of the "Us v Them" paradigm, makes me one in your mind).
Not agreeing with nuclear war as an answer and agreeing that pot should be legalized does not = liberal. Though one could argue that legitimately viewing nuclear holocaust as a means to an end of terrorism and really believing that keeping prohibition as is is the best course of action, being that it's worked so well thus far, does fit the definition of crazy.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You clearly need to back off the herbage to see how vapid and flimsy those suppositions are. </div></div>
Why the automatic assumption that because I favor legalization means that I must necessarily smoke something?
If that's the case, then I suppose the entirety of the Libertarian Party (see <span style="font-style: italic">Step 2</span> in particular) is a bunch of pot smoking, Obama loving hippies (which I can assure you is not the case).
The sooner we can stop with the "my way or the wrong way" dichotomy we have in this nation, the better off we will be.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You clearly need to back off the herbage to see how vapid and flimsy those suppositions are. </div></div>
Why the automatic assumption that because I favor legalization means that I must necessarily smoke something?
If that's the case, then I suppose the entirety of the Libertarian Party (see <span style="font-style: italic">Step 2</span> in particular) is a bunch of pot smoking, Obama loving hippies (which I can assure you is not the case).
The sooner we can stop with the "my way or the wrong way" dichotomy we have in this nation, the better off we will be.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmmm. Let's do the math regarding Eleaf...
Eleaf taught in college
+ Hostile nature of his posts
+ Wanting to legalize the stuff
+ Tree hugging, love the one your with attitude
+ Bloodshot eyes
___________________________________________________________
Pot head, weed smoker, stoner, wastoid, hippie, Veegan,
It all adds up. Just have to do the math and see what it's all about!!! Dude probably has acres of the stuff growing behind his place in Kentucky or in his basement with thousands of kilowatts of grow lights, oxygen tanks, and hydroponics!!!
Han
</div></div>
Wow. Just wow.
-I taught in college means what exactly?
-I have been hostile, sure. Did you put your man-panties on backwards today? Or is complaining about being PC only good for the goose?
-Wanting to legalize means what exactly?
-Wanting to be an environmental steward in whatever capacity I'm able is bad how?
-You've never even seen my eyes, so how the fuck would you know anything about them?
What was it you were trying to say about me other than you know absolutely fucking nothing and still go ahead and make broad assumptions?
It seems you've said more about yourself than you have about me.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmmm. Let's do the math regarding Eleaf...
Eleaf taught in college
+ Hostile nature of his posts
+ Wanting to legalize the stuff
+ Tree hugging, love the one your with attitude
+ Bloodshot eyes
___________________________________________________________
Pot head, weed smoker, stoner, wastoid, hippie, Veegan,
It all adds up. Just have to do the math and see what it's all about!!! Dude probably has acres of the stuff growing behind his place in Kentucky or in his basement with thousands of kilowatts of grow lights, oxygen tanks, and hydroponics!!!
Han
</div></div>
Wow. Just wow.
-I taught in college means what exactly?
-I have been hostile, sure. Did you put your man-panties on backwards today? Or is complaining about being PC only good for the goose?
-Wanting to legalize means what exactly?
-Wanting to be an environmental steward in whatever capacity I'm able is bad how?
-You've never even seen my eyes, so how the fuck would you know anything about them?
What was it you were trying to say about me other than you know absolutely fucking nothing and still go ahead and make broad assumptions?
It seems you've said more about yourself than you have about me.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Hey man, why ya knockin weed? It's like the totally free experience and it's like made by nature. It's like a totally realixg smoke man ya know? And it like has uh, uh, oh yeah, uh medicinal use too! It totally helps with like cancer people who are on chemo, and oh man it helps them eat an stuff, like you know? Oh and that thing about taking away motivation, dude, like you're so high man! Like I got this job and it's so cool you know? I just stand there and watch things go by. It's totally easy and I like make about $7.50 an hour. That's GOOD money man, you know? Like it totally pays the bills, I get a little beer and I can even buy a sack a week too!
As to the border:
Line up GAU2B's with standard lanes of fire, and shoot anything that moves over the border. Make a 1" Zero Tolerance policy. Lay Scunion.
Hey man, why ya knockin weed? It's like the totally free experience and it's like made by nature. It's like a totally realixg smoke man ya know? And it like has uh, uh, oh yeah, uh medicinal use too! It totally helps with like cancer people who are on chemo, and oh man it helps them eat an stuff, like you know? Oh and that thing about taking away motivation, dude, like you're so high man! Like I got this job and it's so cool you know? I just stand there and watch things go by. It's totally easy and I like make about $7.50 an hour. That's GOOD money man, you know? Like it totally pays the bills, I get a little beer and I can even buy a sack a week too!
As to the border:
Line up GAU2B's with standard lanes of fire, and shoot anything that moves over the border. Make a 1" Zero Tolerance policy. Lay Scunion.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Hey Hannibal, you know what else liberal hippie pot smokers do all the time?
.... watch cartoons!
What say you now, Batman?
Hey Hannibal, you know what else liberal hippie pot smokers do all the time?
.... watch cartoons!
What say you now, Batman?
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
I wrote for a while in response to a lot of nonsense posted in this thread. I included statistics, quotes from leading economics professors, and historical data. After writing for a while, I realized that it wasn't worth it. No matter that facts or data that would be paraded out and placed at your feet, most of you would just ignore it and go back to thinking exactly the same way. You can't educate those who refuse to listen.
Would legalizing all narcotics stop the problem? That is too complicated to sum up, but would be a horrible Idea.
Should marijuana be legalized? Absolutely, and those who think otherwise obviously haven't done the research. Ask a cop, he will say legalize it.
No, I do not use illegal drugs, and stand far right of most on here.
I wrote for a while in response to a lot of nonsense posted in this thread. I included statistics, quotes from leading economics professors, and historical data. After writing for a while, I realized that it wasn't worth it. No matter that facts or data that would be paraded out and placed at your feet, most of you would just ignore it and go back to thinking exactly the same way. You can't educate those who refuse to listen.
Would legalizing all narcotics stop the problem? That is too complicated to sum up, but would be a horrible Idea.
Should marijuana be legalized? Absolutely, and those who think otherwise obviously haven't done the research. Ask a cop, he will say legalize it.
No, I do not use illegal drugs, and stand far right of most on here.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lighten up there Francis. Notice the winking icon at the top of my post? I see that you have a hell of a sense of humor. Take yourself a bit too seriously there pal. Man. Sorry to have tried to lighten the mood.
Han </div></div>
So Wait a scecond.
I'm called "sad", "pathetic", "liberal", an "elitist", "tree hugger", "Pot head, weed smoker, stoner, wastoid, hippie, Veegan"
in the span of about 150 words, all the while having yet other insults inferred, and I'm the one who needs to work on my humor?
Perhaps not hurling a string of insults at someone for having an opinion not your own is a better place to start?
If you were trying to be humorous, I apologize for my response, but all indicators in your post are to the contrary.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hannibal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lighten up there Francis. Notice the winking icon at the top of my post? I see that you have a hell of a sense of humor. Take yourself a bit too seriously there pal. Man. Sorry to have tried to lighten the mood.
Han </div></div>
So Wait a scecond.
I'm called "sad", "pathetic", "liberal", an "elitist", "tree hugger", "Pot head, weed smoker, stoner, wastoid, hippie, Veegan"
in the span of about 150 words, all the while having yet other insults inferred, and I'm the one who needs to work on my humor?
Perhaps not hurling a string of insults at someone for having an opinion not your own is a better place to start?
If you were trying to be humorous, I apologize for my response, but all indicators in your post are to the contrary.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wrote for a while in response to a lot of nonsense posted in this thread. I included statistics, quotes from leading economics professors, and historical data. After writing for a while, I realized that it wasn't worth it. No matter that facts or data that would be paraded out and placed at your feet, most of you would just ignore it and go back to thinking exactly the same way. You can't educate those who refuse to listen.
Would legalizing all narcotics stop the problem? That is too complicated to sum up, but would be a horrible Idea.
Should marijuana be legalized? Absolutely, and those who think otherwise obviously haven't done the research. Ask a cop, he will say legalize it.
No, I do not use illegal drugs, and stand far right of most on here.
</div></div>
Well said.
You are right that the carte blanche legalization of all narcotics would very likely be a bad idea. That said, jailing someone for having a drug problem isn't the answer any more than jailing a drunk for being drunk helps those with drinking problems. Incarceration doesn't help the problem, and is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars (very likely the single largest expenditure over the last 40 years), all so that politicians can look good for "being tough."
We need to take drug use and abuse (people REALLY need to see the difference between the two. Just as there is a difference between someone who drinks and a drunk) out of the criminal realm and treat it for what it is: a public health issue. It has been shown over and over and over that jail does not deter drug use, but that treatment is effective.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wrote for a while in response to a lot of nonsense posted in this thread. I included statistics, quotes from leading economics professors, and historical data. After writing for a while, I realized that it wasn't worth it. No matter that facts or data that would be paraded out and placed at your feet, most of you would just ignore it and go back to thinking exactly the same way. You can't educate those who refuse to listen.
Would legalizing all narcotics stop the problem? That is too complicated to sum up, but would be a horrible Idea.
Should marijuana be legalized? Absolutely, and those who think otherwise obviously haven't done the research. Ask a cop, he will say legalize it.
No, I do not use illegal drugs, and stand far right of most on here.
</div></div>
Well said.
You are right that the carte blanche legalization of all narcotics would very likely be a bad idea. That said, jailing someone for having a drug problem isn't the answer any more than jailing a drunk for being drunk helps those with drinking problems. Incarceration doesn't help the problem, and is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars (very likely the single largest expenditure over the last 40 years), all so that politicians can look good for "being tough."
We need to take drug use and abuse (people REALLY need to see the difference between the two. Just as there is a difference between someone who drinks and a drunk) out of the criminal realm and treat it for what it is: a public health issue. It has been shown over and over and over that jail does not deter drug use, but that treatment is effective.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
It's a disease and it's crossing our borders in a torrent.
Funny how quick that border would close, and really close, if a lethal epidemic was involved.
Well wake up boys and girls, it <span style="font-style: italic">already is</span> a lethal epidemic. It concentrates on our youth and they pay folks to infect them. Folks who interfere are smashed with impunity.
How disgusting does the issue need to get before people put some actual teeth into their publicly held good intentions?
Simplistic solutions and apologisms don't even begin to address the real issues.
What we face here is not just one problem, and it's made even more unstable by the wrong-minded blatherings of the terminally libtarded.
Take away the money and you take away nothing. There's always more money for what the junkies want. Take out the current crop of cartels, and others spring up spontaneously. All you do is enable another generation of ruthless panderers and murderers. Nature abhors a vaccum. So does the drug trade. They're not stupid and they're not weak. Simple solutions don't work; and the cartels are not without their abilities to strike back and to do it convincingly.
There's always enough money to grease the palms of those who are paid to look, so they look away. Not all of them, not even the grand majority of them.
But when one apple turns, the rest are rendered questionable; and I do not envy those who try to do the job when the public perception of them is that they're either unwilling or incapable of achieving their intended goals, no matter how dedicated they are, no matter how diligent their performance. When everything their leadership tells them begins with the caveat that they will never solve the problem under the current sets of rules and funding.
If you take the time to scratch the surface, perhaps watch a show or two on NatGeo, you see that no net will catch anything worthwhile when it's full of holes. The agencies are outnumbered, outgunned, outspent, and deluged with a torrent that makes their constant efforts and strings of successes simply little more than a bucket trying to bail out a sea.
It's not a question of if, it's a question of when, regarding what outrage the terrorists will spring on our Nation next. When it comes, it'll come precisely the same way the drugs arrive, very likely being carried by the same mules, buried in small segments right in among the drugs. Think of it as UPS on feet.
When you think about it, WMD's are not required, the drugs serve the same purpose; and nobody in charge is willing to make the commitment it takes to alter the balance in any significant way. I'm all for change when the change is good, and this needs to change.
Greg
It's a disease and it's crossing our borders in a torrent.
Funny how quick that border would close, and really close, if a lethal epidemic was involved.
Well wake up boys and girls, it <span style="font-style: italic">already is</span> a lethal epidemic. It concentrates on our youth and they pay folks to infect them. Folks who interfere are smashed with impunity.
How disgusting does the issue need to get before people put some actual teeth into their publicly held good intentions?
Simplistic solutions and apologisms don't even begin to address the real issues.
What we face here is not just one problem, and it's made even more unstable by the wrong-minded blatherings of the terminally libtarded.
Take away the money and you take away nothing. There's always more money for what the junkies want. Take out the current crop of cartels, and others spring up spontaneously. All you do is enable another generation of ruthless panderers and murderers. Nature abhors a vaccum. So does the drug trade. They're not stupid and they're not weak. Simple solutions don't work; and the cartels are not without their abilities to strike back and to do it convincingly.
There's always enough money to grease the palms of those who are paid to look, so they look away. Not all of them, not even the grand majority of them.
But when one apple turns, the rest are rendered questionable; and I do not envy those who try to do the job when the public perception of them is that they're either unwilling or incapable of achieving their intended goals, no matter how dedicated they are, no matter how diligent their performance. When everything their leadership tells them begins with the caveat that they will never solve the problem under the current sets of rules and funding.
If you take the time to scratch the surface, perhaps watch a show or two on NatGeo, you see that no net will catch anything worthwhile when it's full of holes. The agencies are outnumbered, outgunned, outspent, and deluged with a torrent that makes their constant efforts and strings of successes simply little more than a bucket trying to bail out a sea.
It's not a question of if, it's a question of when, regarding what outrage the terrorists will spring on our Nation next. When it comes, it'll come precisely the same way the drugs arrive, very likely being carried by the same mules, buried in small segments right in among the drugs. Think of it as UPS on feet.
When you think about it, WMD's are not required, the drugs serve the same purpose; and nobody in charge is willing to make the commitment it takes to alter the balance in any significant way. I'm all for change when the change is good, and this needs to change.
Greg
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Greg,
This is why I find the predator vs. herd metaphors so revealing. We are so comfortable that the slightest discomfiture is equated to suffering. Thus self medication is considered a justifiable preference, if not a right unfairly denied by religiously oppressive-republitard fanatics.
Nevermind the underlying wallowing in self pity, anxiety and narcisism only a rich society experiences, nor the willful ignorance of those so naive as to believe that exchanging of one nightmare for another somehow constitutes improvement.
I particularly love the "We can tax it" school of "thought". Here's an idea, fuck your taxes! Spend less. Cut aggressively. Then you can find ways to tax even less.
We are becoming a nation of cloying parasites who only get angered when told the truth about what parasites we already are.
Our disgusting and juvenile appetite for recreational drugs is fueling the frenzy to supply it. Enabling the addicts and abusers to proceed without any proscription other than the possibility of being hospitalized or weened off them, at the taxpayers expense is not going to diminish the wasteland. Minds need to be changed. It is sad that the biggest influences in popular media so devote themselves to more rather than less drug abuse. They have no qualms about propagandizing for leftwing causes such as global warming, Obama, Chavez, Che, etc. Or Bush's lies or ridiculing the simplistic religious types who are so dogmatic in their oppositon to drug abuse.
So it clearly is not a matter of principle that prevents the music, movie, and t.v. media from a full on creative asault on the drug problem at hand. It is not simply a blind accusation to suggest that the reason for this is the desire for many in those industries to recruit more addled and less discerning consumers of their increasingly contrived and mediocre output. I fail to see any other reason why a medium that commands $2,000,000 per ad minute in the SuperBowl feels so resolutely that there is nothing to be done to persuade people that drug abuse is potentially a far greater threat than any of the ribbon based, popoular campaigns.
Eleaf,
I'm sorry to disagree so vehemently with you but I well recall the losses of 45 of my 50 years and have no illusions that drug abuse is a plague with no easy remedy. Thus the bromide that "prohibition is the problem" is in itself a narcotic of nauseating intellectual laziness; Or a tactical ruse. One too often bandied about by suburbanites who feel inured to the consequences of legions of wasted lives, or abusers aching for the subsidies only government can provide them for their desperate need.
A herd of Zebra and Wildebeast may well despair of the omnipresent stresses posed by the Lions, Hyenas, Leopards, Wild Dogs, Crocodiles and other predators, constantly on the hunt, but they can ill afford the time to lay about feeling sorry for themselves. Humans suffer the same fate for such navel gazing, it just takes a little longer.
Greg,
This is why I find the predator vs. herd metaphors so revealing. We are so comfortable that the slightest discomfiture is equated to suffering. Thus self medication is considered a justifiable preference, if not a right unfairly denied by religiously oppressive-republitard fanatics.
Nevermind the underlying wallowing in self pity, anxiety and narcisism only a rich society experiences, nor the willful ignorance of those so naive as to believe that exchanging of one nightmare for another somehow constitutes improvement.
I particularly love the "We can tax it" school of "thought". Here's an idea, fuck your taxes! Spend less. Cut aggressively. Then you can find ways to tax even less.
We are becoming a nation of cloying parasites who only get angered when told the truth about what parasites we already are.
Our disgusting and juvenile appetite for recreational drugs is fueling the frenzy to supply it. Enabling the addicts and abusers to proceed without any proscription other than the possibility of being hospitalized or weened off them, at the taxpayers expense is not going to diminish the wasteland. Minds need to be changed. It is sad that the biggest influences in popular media so devote themselves to more rather than less drug abuse. They have no qualms about propagandizing for leftwing causes such as global warming, Obama, Chavez, Che, etc. Or Bush's lies or ridiculing the simplistic religious types who are so dogmatic in their oppositon to drug abuse.
So it clearly is not a matter of principle that prevents the music, movie, and t.v. media from a full on creative asault on the drug problem at hand. It is not simply a blind accusation to suggest that the reason for this is the desire for many in those industries to recruit more addled and less discerning consumers of their increasingly contrived and mediocre output. I fail to see any other reason why a medium that commands $2,000,000 per ad minute in the SuperBowl feels so resolutely that there is nothing to be done to persuade people that drug abuse is potentially a far greater threat than any of the ribbon based, popoular campaigns.
Eleaf,
I'm sorry to disagree so vehemently with you but I well recall the losses of 45 of my 50 years and have no illusions that drug abuse is a plague with no easy remedy. Thus the bromide that "prohibition is the problem" is in itself a narcotic of nauseating intellectual laziness; Or a tactical ruse. One too often bandied about by suburbanites who feel inured to the consequences of legions of wasted lives, or abusers aching for the subsidies only government can provide them for their desperate need.
A herd of Zebra and Wildebeast may well despair of the omnipresent stresses posed by the Lions, Hyenas, Leopards, Wild Dogs, Crocodiles and other predators, constantly on the hunt, but they can ill afford the time to lay about feeling sorry for themselves. Humans suffer the same fate for such navel gazing, it just takes a little longer.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Q,
Very eloquent. Who can rightfully argue with those points?
Q,
Very eloquent. Who can rightfully argue with those points?
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
I truly believe the government plans for much of the population to be confounded by recreational drugs so they do not see the big picture of what is really going on. If they really wanted to stop it, they have the power to do it. Bad thing is though, the people do not want that particular war. Me, well I have seen weed do good things and bad depending on it's recreational or medicinal use so I have mixed feelings on the legalization subject. I do however, believe anything else that is synthesized is not good, nor is it healthy and therefore abstain and do not condone it's use.
Good Bourbon and a fine cigar work fine for me
I truly believe the government plans for much of the population to be confounded by recreational drugs so they do not see the big picture of what is really going on. If they really wanted to stop it, they have the power to do it. Bad thing is though, the people do not want that particular war. Me, well I have seen weed do good things and bad depending on it's recreational or medicinal use so I have mixed feelings on the legalization subject. I do however, believe anything else that is synthesized is not good, nor is it healthy and therefore abstain and do not condone it's use.
Good Bourbon and a fine cigar work fine for me
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
In their defence Mexican intelligence is not the same as US intelligence
In their defence Mexican intelligence is not the same as US intelligence
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Its amazing how eloquent bullshit can be. Lets see some facts to back up some of these ramblings.
Lets see some info on how the drug war is winning or having any effect on the use of illegal drugs, some info that shows our tax dollars aren't being wasted.
It blows my mind that conservatives could throw away so much money at a failing program, and still blindly support it. I'm sure you all know what Albert Einstein's definition of insanity is.
Its amazing how eloquent bullshit can be. Lets see some facts to back up some of these ramblings.
Lets see some info on how the drug war is winning or having any effect on the use of illegal drugs, some info that shows our tax dollars aren't being wasted.
It blows my mind that conservatives could throw away so much money at a failing program, and still blindly support it. I'm sure you all know what Albert Einstein's definition of insanity is.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Personal story about drugs. Best friend growing up a couple houses down from me. Known him since we were 5 years old. Started getting into pot at about 13 or 14. He started using heavy as he got into high school.
I no longer wanted to be friends due to his drug use. Dropped out in his senior year and never heard from him until about 18 years ago. He was pumping gas as a job when I went in to fill up. Heard someone call my name and I didn't even recognize him he was skin and bones. Said hi and left heard that he was in jail for robbing a liquor store.
Talked to him for about an hour and a half a few years ago. He told me jail was the only reason he was not dead and that pot was his starter drug that lead to hash, that lead to shrooms, that lead to cocaine, that lead to acid, that lead to heroin. He looks like he is 70 years old. (I am in my mid 40's)
Recreational drugs don't help anyone.
Alcohol was a mistake that can not be put back in that genie bottle. I don't see making another mistake like Alcohol as a good thing that will raise tax money. Or we would end up just putting a price on any bad behavior.
Personal story about drugs. Best friend growing up a couple houses down from me. Known him since we were 5 years old. Started getting into pot at about 13 or 14. He started using heavy as he got into high school.
I no longer wanted to be friends due to his drug use. Dropped out in his senior year and never heard from him until about 18 years ago. He was pumping gas as a job when I went in to fill up. Heard someone call my name and I didn't even recognize him he was skin and bones. Said hi and left heard that he was in jail for robbing a liquor store.
Talked to him for about an hour and a half a few years ago. He told me jail was the only reason he was not dead and that pot was his starter drug that lead to hash, that lead to shrooms, that lead to cocaine, that lead to acid, that lead to heroin. He looks like he is 70 years old. (I am in my mid 40's)
Recreational drugs don't help anyone.
Alcohol was a mistake that can not be put back in that genie bottle. I don't see making another mistake like Alcohol as a good thing that will raise tax money. Or we would end up just putting a price on any bad behavior.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Easy fix Invade Mexico conquer all to the Yucatan, divide it into states now no one has to come to America they are American, Don't legalize drugs, do what China did after they kicked the British out, they went to all the opium dins owners and users killed them all in public, then let the people know if we catch you doing hard drugs your next, if we catch you dealing drugs right where we catch you is where you die simple fix. Plus great vacation areas in Mexico, now all American and think of the jobs we would add to our economy
Simple fix then we could start looking at south America as a growth area.
Easy fix Invade Mexico conquer all to the Yucatan, divide it into states now no one has to come to America they are American, Don't legalize drugs, do what China did after they kicked the British out, they went to all the opium dins owners and users killed them all in public, then let the people know if we catch you doing hard drugs your next, if we catch you dealing drugs right where we catch you is where you die simple fix. Plus great vacation areas in Mexico, now all American and think of the jobs we would add to our economy
Simple fix then we could start looking at south America as a growth area.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its amazing how eloquent bullshit can be. Lets see some facts to back up some of these ramblings.</div></div>
You 'aint kidding.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets see some info on how the drug war is winning or having any effect on the use of illegal drugs, some info that shows our tax dollars aren't being wasted.</div></div>
There is no such data, because the drug war has been a dismal failure. Plainly put, incarceration is not a deterrent. Those who think it is are living in a hole.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It blows my mind that conservatives could throw away so much money at a failing program, and still blindly support it. I'm sure you all know what Albert Einstein's definition of insanity is.
</div></div>
So that they can feel a moral superiority above everyone else. I have found that the ONLY difference between "conservatives" (I.e.,republinuts) and "liberals" (I.e., libertards) is that libertards want to know how the government can pay for everything for those who can't/won't pay for it themselves, while republinuts want to know what else the government can do to keep supposedly free people from being free. Both want a heavy handed government that spends freely, they just want different things to be bought.
Libertards want free health care and welfare and want the rest of us to flip the bill. Republinuts want strict government control over who can marry whom and what people can or cannot do in the privacy of their own homes and how they can find new ways to disallow people from doing things they disapprove of and want the rest of us to flip the bill.
And they both want the government to control it rather than people taking control over their own lives and taking responsibility for themselves.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its amazing how eloquent bullshit can be. Lets see some facts to back up some of these ramblings.</div></div>
You 'aint kidding.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets see some info on how the drug war is winning or having any effect on the use of illegal drugs, some info that shows our tax dollars aren't being wasted.</div></div>
There is no such data, because the drug war has been a dismal failure. Plainly put, incarceration is not a deterrent. Those who think it is are living in a hole.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It blows my mind that conservatives could throw away so much money at a failing program, and still blindly support it. I'm sure you all know what Albert Einstein's definition of insanity is.
</div></div>
So that they can feel a moral superiority above everyone else. I have found that the ONLY difference between "conservatives" (I.e.,republinuts) and "liberals" (I.e., libertards) is that libertards want to know how the government can pay for everything for those who can't/won't pay for it themselves, while republinuts want to know what else the government can do to keep supposedly free people from being free. Both want a heavy handed government that spends freely, they just want different things to be bought.
Libertards want free health care and welfare and want the rest of us to flip the bill. Republinuts want strict government control over who can marry whom and what people can or cannot do in the privacy of their own homes and how they can find new ways to disallow people from doing things they disapprove of and want the rest of us to flip the bill.
And they both want the government to control it rather than people taking control over their own lives and taking responsibility for themselves.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tex1970</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Easy fix Invade Mexico conquer all to the Yucatan, divide it into states now no one has to come to America they are American, Don't legalize drugs, do what China did after they kicked the British out, they went to all the opium dins owners and users killed them all in public, then let the people know if we catch you doing hard drugs your next, if we catch you dealing drugs right where we catch you is where you die simple fix. Plus great vacation areas in Mexico, now all American and think of the jobs we would add to our economy Simple fix then we could start looking at south America as a growth area. </div></div>
Great Idea!
Copying China is surely the way to go!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tex1970</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Easy fix Invade Mexico conquer all to the Yucatan, divide it into states now no one has to come to America they are American, Don't legalize drugs, do what China did after they kicked the British out, they went to all the opium dins owners and users killed them all in public, then let the people know if we catch you doing hard drugs your next, if we catch you dealing drugs right where we catch you is where you die simple fix. Plus great vacation areas in Mexico, now all American and think of the jobs we would add to our economy
Simple fix then we could start looking at south America as a growth area. </div></div>Great Idea!
Copying China is surely the way to go!
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
just now realizing the hide has a GD. haha. and yeah this is getting out of hand. If we pulled shit like this on the mexican side they'd loose their minds in outrage.
someone go up to oregon and tell the monkey wrenchers we got new work for em xD
just now realizing the hide has a GD. haha. and yeah this is getting out of hand. If we pulled shit like this on the mexican side they'd loose their minds in outrage.
someone go up to oregon and tell the monkey wrenchers we got new work for em xD
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
Wow, another red herring argument, the appeal to emotion. You guys are starting to sound like the democrats arguing for health care. "Let me read you a letter from one of my constituents."
When you guys get some FACTS, come back to the thread, preferably something published in a scholarly journal.
"The ‘gateway’ claim is false. Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug so it is very likely that people who use less commonly-used drugs will have also tried marijuana. That does not mean marijuana led to hard drug use. The research indicates most marijuana users do not go onto use hard drugs; marijuana is more properly viewed as a strainer that catches most illicit drug users and they go no further. The numbers bear out these findings: According to the federal government 76.3 million people have tried marijuana, while only 2.78 million have ever tried heroin in their lifetimes and only 5.3 million have ever tried cocaine in their lives. The figures for monthly use are similar: 10.7 million Americans admit to being regular marijuana users, yet only 1.2 million admit to using cocaine each month - 1 for every 9 marijuana users - and 130,000 people use heroin monthly, or 1 for every 80 regular marijuana users."
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Use 2000 (Washington, DC: SAMHSA, 2001
"Indeed, rather than cannabis, the research seems to point to early use of tobacco or alcohol as more of a predictor of later use of other drugs and of later problem drug use. The report notes that "While covariates differed between equations, early regular use of tobacco and alcohol emerged as the 2 factors most consistently associated with later illicit drug use and abuse/dependence. While early regular alcohol use did not emerge as a significant independent predictor of alcohol dependence, this finding should be treated with considerable caution, as our study did not provide an optimal strategy for assessing the effects of early alcohol use."
Joy, Janet E., Stanley J. Watson Jr., and John A. Benson Jr., Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
"Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana - usually before they are of legal age."
Source: IOM, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," 1999.
Wow, another red herring argument, the appeal to emotion. You guys are starting to sound like the democrats arguing for health care. "Let me read you a letter from one of my constituents."
When you guys get some FACTS, come back to the thread, preferably something published in a scholarly journal.
"The ‘gateway’ claim is false. Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug so it is very likely that people who use less commonly-used drugs will have also tried marijuana. That does not mean marijuana led to hard drug use. The research indicates most marijuana users do not go onto use hard drugs; marijuana is more properly viewed as a strainer that catches most illicit drug users and they go no further. The numbers bear out these findings: According to the federal government 76.3 million people have tried marijuana, while only 2.78 million have ever tried heroin in their lifetimes and only 5.3 million have ever tried cocaine in their lives. The figures for monthly use are similar: 10.7 million Americans admit to being regular marijuana users, yet only 1.2 million admit to using cocaine each month - 1 for every 9 marijuana users - and 130,000 people use heroin monthly, or 1 for every 80 regular marijuana users."
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Use 2000 (Washington, DC: SAMHSA, 2001
"Indeed, rather than cannabis, the research seems to point to early use of tobacco or alcohol as more of a predictor of later use of other drugs and of later problem drug use. The report notes that "While covariates differed between equations, early regular use of tobacco and alcohol emerged as the 2 factors most consistently associated with later illicit drug use and abuse/dependence. While early regular alcohol use did not emerge as a significant independent predictor of alcohol dependence, this finding should be treated with considerable caution, as our study did not provide an optimal strategy for assessing the effects of early alcohol use."
Joy, Janet E., Stanley J. Watson Jr., and John A. Benson Jr., Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
"Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana - usually before they are of legal age."
Source: IOM, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," 1999.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
And before tobacco and alchohol, people are even more likely to watch too much T.V., read books, and eat salty or sweet snacks in excess. While obviously recreational escapism, they are extremely unlikely to drive into me or my children while doing so, need to rob or kill me to obtain more, become homicidal due to the influence of the consumption, nor forget to have done so afterward.
In keeping with the scholarship of your posts, few "scholars" surpass the charlatans who have errected the laughable med. marijuana facade in California. It truly is major league horeshit! What's even funnier is what the scumbag lawyers are going to do to the flimsy arguments that supported it when the mopes, dupes, loafers and slackers pretending to need this "medicine" find their chillin is severely hampered by the illnesses and injuries that come of regular intoxication and smoking. No doubt the dumbasses who populate jury pools will be severely conflicted! And costly for the Taxpayer...
And the denial of claims by insurance companies who will not pay for injuries and illnesses sustained by the intoxicated and addicted will be highly entertaining. And costly for the taxpayer...
To ignore the motives of those who find it necesssary to provide for the desire of their constituents to be even more distracted and passive is evident of a far greater fault than the simple adhominems thrown at those who'd rather see no additional sanction for yet more legal intoxicants. Again, costly for the Taxpayer...
Personally, I don't care what others do so long as they hurt only themselves (and not the Taxpayers) but anyone who attempts to undermine the work I have done in raising my children to avoid drugs is my enemy. As are the addled imbeciles who delude themselves into thinking they are more creative, productive or perceptive while driving, shooting, running equipment, preparing food in public or any other endeavor beyond sitting in their living rooms, in front of the tube.
Which brings me back to TexGal's post; if the Mexican govt. operatives in service to the narco traffickers were regularly attacked there would be some serious international ugliness at first, but ultimately a new paradigm would follow. And they would cease such blatant violation.
Regardless of which way we go, I will always discriminate against recreational drug users. I won't hire them. I won't depend on or trust them. I will fire them if I discover their drug use carries even slightly into my presence. Whether legalized or not, I'll find a way to keep them away from my company, and I am hardly alone.
And before tobacco and alchohol, people are even more likely to watch too much T.V., read books, and eat salty or sweet snacks in excess. While obviously recreational escapism, they are extremely unlikely to drive into me or my children while doing so, need to rob or kill me to obtain more, become homicidal due to the influence of the consumption, nor forget to have done so afterward.
In keeping with the scholarship of your posts, few "scholars" surpass the charlatans who have errected the laughable med. marijuana facade in California. It truly is major league horeshit! What's even funnier is what the scumbag lawyers are going to do to the flimsy arguments that supported it when the mopes, dupes, loafers and slackers pretending to need this "medicine" find their chillin is severely hampered by the illnesses and injuries that come of regular intoxication and smoking. No doubt the dumbasses who populate jury pools will be severely conflicted! And costly for the Taxpayer...
And the denial of claims by insurance companies who will not pay for injuries and illnesses sustained by the intoxicated and addicted will be highly entertaining. And costly for the taxpayer...
To ignore the motives of those who find it necesssary to provide for the desire of their constituents to be even more distracted and passive is evident of a far greater fault than the simple adhominems thrown at those who'd rather see no additional sanction for yet more legal intoxicants. Again, costly for the Taxpayer...
Personally, I don't care what others do so long as they hurt only themselves (and not the Taxpayers) but anyone who attempts to undermine the work I have done in raising my children to avoid drugs is my enemy. As are the addled imbeciles who delude themselves into thinking they are more creative, productive or perceptive while driving, shooting, running equipment, preparing food in public or any other endeavor beyond sitting in their living rooms, in front of the tube.
Which brings me back to TexGal's post; if the Mexican govt. operatives in service to the narco traffickers were regularly attacked there would be some serious international ugliness at first, but ultimately a new paradigm would follow. And they would cease such blatant violation.
Regardless of which way we go, I will always discriminate against recreational drug users. I won't hire them. I won't depend on or trust them. I will fire them if I discover their drug use carries even slightly into my presence. Whether legalized or not, I'll find a way to keep them away from my company, and I am hardly alone.
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
It's not so much that Americans have addictive personalities, it's that America has an addictive personality.
The drug of choice is called entitlements, which are basically a convoluted method used by the Nanny State to redistribute private wealth. Take the private money, call it public money, and give it to those whose votes will be influenced by the 'entitlement'. Tends to disempower and disenfranchise the thinkers in the same process.
Folks Down South of the Border know a good thing when they see it, and Presto, we got us a border that leaks like a sieve. And to top that, we keep taking the true witnesses who know it's for real and shipping 'em back down to spread the word firsthand.
That's not punishment, that's PR.
Here's another form of PR: ("Mama, what happened to Papa after he went to El Norte...? Nobody knows, Nina..") It may not sound very humanitarian, but it might cause some pause before contemplating covering that last mile before the border...
Many of those who go to El Norte do so content in the knowledge that they will be exploited for subpar wages. Maybe some of all those aging public works which are in such dire need of renovation could benefit from convict labor, being paid at the same rates the illegals are so willing to seek. The idea of chain gangs has come and gone. Maybe it's time again. Might be refreshing to drive on by the road gang and not see a single obscenely paid gub'mint guy leaning on a shovel.
For those who want the money but like the Mexican scenery better, there's the drug trade, which fleeces the American populace, and delivers the money to the perps back home.
And as we saw during Vietnam, keeping plentiful drugs in The 'Hood may serve certain public purposes a lot bettern' some folks would like to say.
There's undoubtedly a lot more reasons why problems exist vis-a-vis the border, but for some, these'll do just fine. For some, they constitute perfectly dandy reasons to demotivate against change.
Greg
It's not so much that Americans have addictive personalities, it's that America has an addictive personality.
The drug of choice is called entitlements, which are basically a convoluted method used by the Nanny State to redistribute private wealth. Take the private money, call it public money, and give it to those whose votes will be influenced by the 'entitlement'. Tends to disempower and disenfranchise the thinkers in the same process.
Folks Down South of the Border know a good thing when they see it, and Presto, we got us a border that leaks like a sieve. And to top that, we keep taking the true witnesses who know it's for real and shipping 'em back down to spread the word firsthand.
That's not punishment, that's PR.
Here's another form of PR: ("Mama, what happened to Papa after he went to El Norte...? Nobody knows, Nina..") It may not sound very humanitarian, but it might cause some pause before contemplating covering that last mile before the border...
Many of those who go to El Norte do so content in the knowledge that they will be exploited for subpar wages. Maybe some of all those aging public works which are in such dire need of renovation could benefit from convict labor, being paid at the same rates the illegals are so willing to seek. The idea of chain gangs has come and gone. Maybe it's time again. Might be refreshing to drive on by the road gang and not see a single obscenely paid gub'mint guy leaning on a shovel.
For those who want the money but like the Mexican scenery better, there's the drug trade, which fleeces the American populace, and delivers the money to the perps back home.
And as we saw during Vietnam, keeping plentiful drugs in The 'Hood may serve certain public purposes a lot bettern' some folks would like to say.
There's undoubtedly a lot more reasons why problems exist vis-a-vis the border, but for some, these'll do just fine. For some, they constitute perfectly dandy reasons to demotivate against change.
Greg
Re: Another incursion by Mexican forces
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regardless of which way we go, I will always discriminate against recreational drug users. I won't hire them. I won't depend on or trust them. I will fire them if I discover their drug use carries even slightly into my presence. Whether legalized or not, I'll find a way to keep them away from my company, and I am hardly alone. </div></div>
Which is exactly the problem. You and all those others you speak of have turned drug use in to a moral issue (which it isn't). You will hire those who drink because you have no moral dilemma with drinking, but, even if legalized, you would definitely NOT hire a drug user and would fire one on the spot even if said person is outstanding at his/her job. That's the very definition of making something a moral issue.
Drug use is NOT a moral issue. It's no more a moral issue than drinking or playing cards or fishing. You just happen to disagree with it, so you think everyone ought to be forced by penalty of law to abide by your moral code.
I'm not saying that yo don't have the right to hire/fire anyone you want for whatever reason, because if it's your business you absolutely do without seeking permission from anyone.
But what you propose is just another version of the nanny state where you think the government is best suited to uphold moral convictions.
That is the absolute very LAST thing the government ought to do.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regardless of which way we go, I will always discriminate against recreational drug users. I won't hire them. I won't depend on or trust them. I will fire them if I discover their drug use carries even slightly into my presence. Whether legalized or not, I'll find a way to keep them away from my company, and I am hardly alone. </div></div>
Which is exactly the problem. You and all those others you speak of have turned drug use in to a moral issue (which it isn't). You will hire those who drink because you have no moral dilemma with drinking, but, even if legalized, you would definitely NOT hire a drug user and would fire one on the spot even if said person is outstanding at his/her job. That's the very definition of making something a moral issue.
Drug use is NOT a moral issue. It's no more a moral issue than drinking or playing cards or fishing. You just happen to disagree with it, so you think everyone ought to be forced by penalty of law to abide by your moral code.
I'm not saying that yo don't have the right to hire/fire anyone you want for whatever reason, because if it's your business you absolutely do without seeking permission from anyone.
But what you propose is just another version of the nanny state where you think the government is best suited to uphold moral convictions.
That is the absolute very LAST thing the government ought to do.
Similar threads
