PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 18, 2018, 03:09:33 PM
-
I love our President!!!
https://gab.ai/Thomas_Wictor/posts/39039755
Comments rock too!
-
Trump tweets a video sent to him by a Honduran official. It shows a crowd of people receiving money, ostensibly to participate in the mid-term caravan that will make Republicans look heartless when it is turned away.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1053013864244219904
AP says Trump has no evidence. Apparently evidence is now a thing.
https://www.apnews.com/33a20363ee9a414b8d502e2ff74353fb
Who to believe?
-
I thought all that is needed now is the accusation?
Or does that only apply to those with a (D) by their name?
-
I consider threatening people and not following through a major, serious mistake. I have always thought that way. Just tell them in general terms that border security is very important to the US. If the caravan gets to within 30 miles, close the damn thing tight(except for US citizens returning). Then let the Mexican govt deal with the blowback. Threats are for weak groups. Put the armed forces on the border camped out along east San Diego patrolling all the way to eastern NM and El Paso. It's a big job, but we have a big army. I would pull everyone out of Afghanistan and put them in AZ and CA border. Give the liberal press something to really squawk about. The one un-fettered realm of the pres is to CinC the armed forces. As long as they are protected the US Mexico border, it is not law enforcement, so no issue with Posse Comatatus. Even Foxnews is saying we need a new approach to foreigners. Their plan is to allow them in. My plan is to stop immigration to a trickle. It's not like we NEED any people from other nations to make us great.
-
Just take their kids away. Trump seems to like that one.
-
Just take their kids away. Trump seems to like that one.
If it were me, I'd put the kids in internment camps, and the parents would go to separate work camps prior to DEPORTATION. If you come here again illegally, you get interned long term. I think that would act as a deterrent for people bringing their kids ILLEGALLY to the U.S.
-
Mexico is already actually mobilizing the Federales and has reached out to the UN to assist them in evaluating asylum claims, before these people enter Mexico.
Mark my words, Trump will win this, he is setting up, yet another rope-a-dope, that the Left will boldly charge into full of self-righteousness, and they will not know what hit them, again.
I am not tired of winning yet BTW, not even close.
'Gimp
-
Yeah, but Mexico is going to deem all of the refugees, and worthy of asylum - in the US. I'm done with half measures. I want a 30' wall with a 20 foot moat, and then a 100' minefield, followed by armed patrols.
-
Two ten foot tall cyclone fences 100 feet apart with a declared "kill zone" between the fences ought to do the job.
-
Two ten foot tall cyclone fences 100 feet apart with a declared "kill zone" between the fences ought to do the job.
Just station a CIWS like device at appropriate intervals with programming to neutralize anything in the neutral zone.
-
Patrol with Humvees with .50 Cals. Kind of an updated "Rat Patrol".
-
Patrol with Humvees with .50 Cals. Kind of an updated "Rat Patrol".
Nah, I'll stick with CIWS, fully automated. Someone goes in the kill zone, it dies. Leave the body to rot.
-
Patrol with Humvees with .50 Cals. Kind of an updated "Rat Patrol".
Ha. I had a Rat Patrol metal lunch box when I was in grade school. I like it!
-
Just take their kids away. Trump seems to like that one.
You really never actually think, do you?
Does the TERM ILLEGAL ALIEN mean anything to your brain damaged mind?
-
Ha. I had a Rat Patrol metal lunch box when I was in grade school. I like it!
So did I. And the Board Game. The German guy (Hans Gudegast now Eric Braeden) has been in soaps for eons. Nobody remembers that show.
-
It's a big job, but we have a big army. I would pull everyone out of Afghanistan and put them in AZ and CA border.
I have long advocated using our military on our borders rather than in other countries and on their borders. I’d pull troops not only out of Afghanistan but most every overseas location. We have little to no need to have boots on the ground overseas.
I also think we need to modify our enforcement approach to illegal immigration. We need very stiff fines for employing illegal aliens. If a company or individual is caught employing an illegal, they need to pay $10,000 per head. It doesn’t matter if it’s a large corporation or someone hiring a day laborer for some work around their house. $10,000 per each illegal you hire. Of course, we’d need a more active ICE out looking for violators which costs money but the fines would most likely pay for it.
Then I’d legalize all current illicit drugs which would practically eliminate the illegal alien drug smugglers. US companies could produce and sell the drugs and the proceeds would be taxed. We’d save money on the war on drugs, reduce the criminal element, and generate more tax revenue. And the total money saved plus the tax revenue would probably be far more than enough money to deal with the social consequences of drug addiction which I believe would be less than it currently is.
I first began thinking this way over thirty years ago and have heard others express similar thoughts but for a variety of reasons it has not gained momentum with the power brokers.
My plan is to stop immigration to a trickle. It's not like we NEED any people from other nations to make us great.
Maybe not to make us great but controlled judicious immigration is necessary to help us flourish and remain great. And I believe we are still great and did not need to be made great again. It kills me to think how Trumps MAGA nonsense caught on as it did. The idea that so many people thought America was no longer great still seems so foreign to me.
-
I have long advocated using our military on our borders rather than in other countries and on their borders. I’d pull troops not only out of Afghanistan but most every overseas location. We have little to no need to have boots on the ground overseas.
I also think we need to modify our enforcement approach to illegal immigration. We need very stiff fines for employing illegal aliens. If a company or individual is caught employing an illegal, they need to pay $10,000 per head. It doesn’t matter if it’s a large corporation or someone hiring a day laborer for some work around their house. $10,000 per each illegal you hire. Of course, we’d need a more active ICE out looking for violators which costs money but the fines would most likely pay for it.
Then I’d legalize all current illicit drugs which would practically eliminate the illegal alien drug smugglers. US companies could produce and sell the drugs and the proceeds would be taxed. We’d save money on the war on drugs, reduce the criminal element, and generate more tax revenue. And the total money saved plus the tax revenue would probably be far more than enough money to deal with the social consequences of drug addiction which I believe would be less than it currently is.
I first began thinking this way over thirty years ago and have heard others express similar thoughts but for a variety of reasons it has not gained momentum with the power brokers.
Maybe not to make us great but controlled judicious immigration is necessary to help us flourish and remain great. And I believe we are still great and did not need to be made great again. It kills me to think how Trumps MAGA nonsense caught on as it did. The idea that so many people thought America was no longer great still seems so foreign to me.
I disagree about fines. The last thing we need is more burdensome tyranny. Armed uniforms coming after grandma because the Hispanic she hired to clean her house isn't legal. Fuck that. Just close the fucking border! Don't invent yet more ways to fine and persecute us the citizens.
I am completely with you on the drug war. It's a dismal failure on all levels and actually contributes to addict deaths.
Not sure about pulling out of all our overseas bases but possibly many of them and I'm with you on posting our military at the border.
I think make America great again resonated because some of us are sick of hearing the US being put down as the cause of all the worlds problems, and sick of our manufacturing being destroyed by bad policy, and sick of our culture being criticized, and it is more about being respected again than not being great anymore. And it was very much about getting jobs back and heating up our stagnant economy. It wasn't so much people thinking we weren't great anymore as it was people seeing the trend and extrapolating where we were headed if we didn't turn things around. That's how I saw it anyway.
-
We have good strategic reasons for being heavily involved in Germany, Japan, Saudi, and Korea. These are all areas where if the US left a vacuum, Russia or China would be happy to step in and take over our hegemony position. I do not want that to happen.
Boots on the ground in a stable but critical part of the world are as important as a world class navy. However there are a lot of places we don't need to police. Afghanistan is one of those.
-
Just take their kids away. Trump seems to like that one.
Liberals have been taking kids away from criminal, unfit parents for years.
I suppose you think we should leave those kids with sex slavers pretending to be parents. A liberal will take a kid away from their parents for leaving them in the car while they go into a grocery store but you want to leave kids with people that put them in the back of an un-airconditioned trailer in the desert in the summer with no bathroom.
-
Two ten foot tall cyclone fences 100 feet apart with a declared "kill zone" between the fences ought to do the job.
So you are advocating that we act just like the Russians and the Nazis . . .
Oh wait, they killed people trying to escape OUT of their countries.
Never mind.
-
I have long advocated using our military on our borders rather than in other countries and on their borders. I’d pull troops not only out of Afghanistan but most every overseas location. We have little to no need to have boots on the ground overseas.
I also think we need to modify our enforcement approach to illegal immigration. We need very stiff fines for employing illegal aliens. If a company or individual is caught employing an illegal, they need to pay $10,000 per head. It doesn’t matter if it’s a large corporation or someone hiring a day laborer for some work around their house. $10,000 per each illegal you hire. Of course, we’d need a more active ICE out looking for violators which costs money but the fines would most likely pay for it.
Then I’d legalize all current illicit drugs which would practically eliminate the illegal alien drug smugglers. US companies could produce and sell the drugs and the proceeds would be taxed. We’d save money on the war on drugs, reduce the criminal element, and generate more tax revenue. And the total money saved plus the tax revenue would probably be far more than enough money to deal with the social consequences of drug addiction which I believe would be less than it currently is.
I first began thinking this way over thirty years ago and have heard others express similar thoughts but for a variety of reasons it has not gained momentum with the power brokers.
Maybe not to make us great but controlled judicious immigration is necessary to help us flourish and remain great. And I believe we are still great and did not need to be made great again. It kills me to think how Trumps MAGA nonsense caught on as it did. The idea that so many people thought America was no longer great still seems so foreign to me.
I have never been able to understand why people think drug use will go down if drugs are legalized :o
-
I have never been able to understand why people think drug use will go down if drugs are legalized :o
I don't think it will go down, and it may go up a bit, but the War on Drugs has been a HUGE failure, and only created a very large law enforcement bureaucracy that has cost us Trillions. Most if it is a waste. Our "judicial" system is all about generating revenue for those in it, and to grow government.
-
I have never been able to understand why people think drug use will go down if drugs are legalized :o
I don't think most people think that.
ILLEGAL drug use will go down, incarceration rates will go down and tax revenues will go up.
Of course, this will force organized crime to find another revenue source, like they did when prohibition ended, and we will find that we have opened a whole new can of worms.
-
I have never been able to understand why people think drug use will go down if drugs are legalized :o
Drug use may not go down, it may even rise a bit, but the harm caused will absolutely plummet. This has been proven in countries that have decriminalized all drugs. Rates of HIV, hepatitis, overdose deaths, and drug related crime have decreased drastically in those countries and it is unconscionable that the U.S. has not taken this reality and done the same. Addicts are addicts for a reason and the reason is not that they tried a gateway drug and were transformed from a perfectly normal healthy individual into a hopeless addict. If this were true then more than half of Americans would be strung out heroin addicts because that's how many have tried pot. The reality is no matter your exposure to drugs, you don't let them ruin your life for no good reason. But because many psychological disorders first become evident in adolescence, and that is when we tend to first be exposed to drugs, the association is there - but it's an association, not causal.
There is a lot of evidence tying drug use to underlying psychological disorders, and to broad social circumstances such as poverty and joblessness. Criminalizing drug use severely exacerbates drug use by making it even more difficult to get a job because of the record, and by further destabilizing one's life.
Criminalizing drug use greatly increases the chance of overdose because it forces intermittent withdrawals, tolerance reduction, and then automatic OD when you go back to your previous dose without titrating up.
Criminalizing drug use causes not only opioid OD but acetaminophen OD because the hydro/oxy- codone/acetominophen prescriptions are so common and hence diverted to addicts, when all they want is the opioid portion. To get their desired opioid dose they greatly exceed safe acetaminophen levels and cost society tons for liver transplants if they even survive. We could stop that right now by simply not making the combo anymore. But good luck getting drug companies and mainstream medicine to eliminate this proven gold standard for post op or acute pain. And it would be a nuisance for patients to split the drug. But that's minor compared to the horrific harm done to chronic pain patients.
Chronic pain patients are the worst victims of the War on Drugs. The more you restrict access and amounts manufactured, and the more you go after doctors, the harder it is for chronic pain patients to get treatment. The poor are the hardest hit. Fewer doctors willing to take legal risks to prescribe mean more travel to find a doctor, if you can even find one that will take you. Travel means flagging state prescription monitoring programs and becoming suspect. Many chronic pain patients are left with a choice of living with pain which leads to stress related diseases, depression and even suicide, or turning to illegal sources which means taking a terrible risk because if caught, not only will they have legal problems they will be blacklisted from ever getting painkillers legally from doctors.
It is immoral and backwards to care more about drug addicts than about pain patients. We restrict supply to avoid the addicts' getting drugs and in doing so cause many more pain patients much distress for every addict we "save", AND IT'S NOT EVEN WORKING. It might be different if it were but the addicts are still getting their drugs and pain patients are suffering for nothing.
With each new drug restriction, a worse alternative pops up. When the DEA cracked down on doctors prescribing too much oxycodone, doctors switched to methadone, and suddenly we had a spike in methadone overdoses. Methadone is far more dangerous than oxycodone, because there is a narrow window between effective dose and lethal dose. Not so with oxycodone, you have much more room for error. That's just one example, there are many more, of the drug war itself just making things worse.
If a person is self medicating with drugs because they have an underlying disorder, letting them do so legally would vastly reduce these sorts of harm. There is even research and evidence indicating that low dose opioid therapy is a very effective anti-depressant. I believe this should receive more study and attention, but it's very difficult to obtain because opioids are so cheap and the drug companies make much more money from SSRI's.
There is some evidence that when people are allowed legal and unfettered access to drugs, they tend to use less. This was shown with studies of people able to push a button to get morphine in post op situations. The total used is less than when they must ask a nurse for a shot. Simply putting someone in control of the substance seems to confer less need for it. Because you know it's right there like a security blanket, you don't need to "hoard" it into your body whenever you get a chance.
And then of course there's the study where rats given access to drugs only used them when they had no stimulating fun things to do, and rejected them when their cage was expanded into a rat-amusement park. That study is evidence that improving the economy, providing jobs, removing burdensome restrictions, and allowing humans to "Pursue Happiness" like the Constitution and God intended is perhaps the best weapon against drug abuse.
Legalizing drugs would help lift many third world countries out of poverty. Poppy growing, coca leaf growing and of course hemp, with or without THC are all fantastic cash crops. Persecution of poor farmers trying to feed their children over growing poppies is IMO not a good projection of U.S. power.
Historically before being made illegal, many of these substances were used medicinally and still are. In fact, homo sapiens sapiens has co-evolved with many plant substances so that these substances treat disorders by binding to certain neurotransmitter receptors. An authoritative government now interferes with natural human medicinal use of plants we've been using for hundreds of thousands of years. We have not even begun to identify all of them. But we now have such oppressive governments that as each is re-discovered, they'll all eventually be banned. Look for them to come after nutmeg; eat enough of it, it's a hallucinogen.
What is unnatural and destructive are the artificial knock-offs. I could maybe get behind legalizing the coca leaf in its natural form but keeping cocaine and especially crack cocaine illegal. Right now I support keeping methamphetamine illegal but I am open to evidence that even legalizing these worst substances would result in harm reduction.
How can anyone still think the drug war should continue when we lock up a higher percent of our own citizens than any other nation? There may be unintended consequences if we legalize drugs, but it's at the point where continuing on this path may have even worse consequences.
(http://)
-
Drug use may not go down, it may even rise a bit, but the harm caused will absolutely plummet.
IMO that’s it in a nutshell.
-
I disagree about fines. The last thing we need is more burdensome tyranny. Armed uniforms coming after grandma because the Hispanic she hired to clean her house isn't legal. Fuck that. Just close the fucking border! Don't invent yet more ways to fine and persecute us the citizens.
I am completely with you on the drug war. It's a dismal failure on all levels and actually contributes to addict deaths.
Not sure about pulling out of all our overseas bases but possibly many of them and I'm with you on posting our military at the border.
I think make America great again resonated because some of us are sick of hearing the US being put down as the cause of all the worlds problems, and sick of our manufacturing being destroyed by bad policy, and sick of our culture being criticized, and it is more about being respected again than not being great anymore. And it was very much about getting jobs back and heating up our stagnant economy. It wasn't so much people thinking we weren't great anymore as it was people seeing the trend and extrapolating where we were headed if we didn't turn things around. That's how I saw it anyway.
I don’t see punishing the enablers as being tyranny. If the illegals are denied opportunity here due to the enablers becoming unwilling to hire them, then far less of them will come. And yes we should do a better job of securing our borders but I do not think huge walls are the best way to do so. I’d much prefer roving patrols aided by airborne surveillance. And it would cost less as we would be using the troops we are already paying for that are bring wasted overseas.
-
IMO that’s it in a nutshell.
Yeah that's the TLDR version. I tend to get carried away. :(
-
I've cogitated on this drug problem for a while. It's not at all black and white. The cost to society to manage a group of addicts is maybe as large as the cost to incarcerate them. We are an advanced society, which likes to take care of those less privileged. I can foresee a culture where we are spending billions 'managing' a chronic drug habit for a significant percentage of our population. Also, given the nature of addictive behavior, that segment of the population will be the less financially able to afford those drugs.
Maybe an example is useful here. Lisa Robin Kelly played the blond sister on That 70s show back a few years ago. She had an addictive personality and was able to afford drugs of choice due to her acting income. She gradually declined into poverty, to the point where she was turning tricks to feed her drug and alcohol habit. This is just one example, but it brings the problem of decriminalization to the fore. Some segment of the pop will just live in a drug induced stupor, and to feed their habit, they will turn to crime(not necc prostitution) to get the fix.
I need to know what the law, and society, and my pocketbook are going to do about these dregs before I'm on board with decriminalizing drugs. The modern cocaine, and other nice designer drugs are way, way more potent than back in my day. The addiction rates would almost surely go up, and who is going to pay for these people to go through their life on recreational drugs?
I have the buddings of an idea, but not fully fleshed out yet. Here's what I'm thinking: Recreational drugs beyond OTC alcohol would be sold on a license basis. Billionaires, and millionaires, would put up a bond, or some kind of financial guarantee for themselves or anyone they choose to sponsor and they would get a license to use specific recreational drugs of their choosing. All funded by PRIVATE moneys and NO tax/treasury money would go toward the purchase, or any assistance of those who choose to use recreational drugs. If the money runs out, then just too damn bad. NO public money for rehab, or detox, ever in any way, shape or form. Because - once the feds/state get to funding any kind of rehab or drug culture it's a never ending cycle.
As one might imagine, I am dead set against the state/feds providing clean needles, or any of the alternative means or choices to help a drug user clean up. If the money isn't there, and they are caught breaking the other kinds of laws to feed the habit like burglary, robbery, etc then the punishment is back to incarceration forever. No way am I going to let a addict back out on the public streets. The private segment has to shoulder the entire burden of recreational drug costs. There is no way we can start buying drugs for addicts, because then, I might as well become an addict and go the rest of MY life high as a kite.
Is that what we want for a society in the US? I'm open to other plans, or modification of my idea as long as no govt money is spent.
-
I don’t see punishing the enablers as being tyranny. If the illegals are denied opportunity here due to the enablers becoming unwilling to hire them, then far less of them will come. And yes we should do a better job of securing our borders but I do not think huge walls are the best way to do so. I’d much prefer roving patrols aided by airborne surveillance. And it would cost less as we would be using the troops we are already paying for that are bring wasted overseas.
It's a tiny slice of tyranny. By itself it's not much but combined with all the other tiny slices we are subjected to, it adds up. You're talking about requiring grandma to ask for proof of citizenship from the guy that mows her grass, validate it, and keep records of that proof or she risks a $10,000 fine. One more piece of bureaucratic government bullshit to deal with and we already have far too much. The money it would take to enforce that would be astronomical and it would still be almost impossible to enforce without us becoming a total police state with Big Brother watching who comes into our house with a toilet brush.
The government has been failing to secure the borders for decades, and it's the government's fault all the illegals are here. It's not fair to now punish the citizens for interacting economically with those illegals who have intertwined themselves into the communities. In many places you cannot even find anyone to do certain jobs that isn't Hispanic and many are illegals and that is not the fault of the small business owner or the homeowner who needs a chore done.
They do go after big companies, but big companies have the resources to hire lots of lawyers and to go through layers of subcontractors and middle men. Any fines imposed are passed along to the consumer, again, hurting the common man - and grandma.
You cannot fix it by trying to dry up demand. It does not work because demand comes from the myriad small interactions of individuals engaged in commerce in a free society. Once you already have a huge population of illegals in a town, you cannot segregate them out economically like that, and if you do you have people with no income starving in your town while grandma has to pay some white woman four times as much to clean her house, assuming she can even find one who'll do it.
No, once we let the genie out of the bottle and allowed all these illegals in, trying to stop them from working is just more government meddling in a working economy. The right thing is to cap the damn bottle NOW and stop it from getting even worse, then let things settle out where they are with a reasonable pathway to citizenship for the good people and vigorously deporting the criminals.
The most important thing to do is change the anchor baby rule.
I'm okay with roving patrols and airborne surveillance if it gets the job done. I always took all the talk of a wall as a metaphor anyway. Prevent illegal entry while facilitating authorized trade and travel, however you do it, but start doing it!
-
Well, I read those huge posts and appreciate the perspectives.
I guess this particular issue, government involvement in addiction, is one of the reasons I’m a conservative. Conservatives, unless they are the faux version who don’t stand up to liberals, tend to nip problems in the bud.
Personal responsibility is kind of the bedrock of conservatism, and for good reason. While it is in everyone’s interest to have a healthy, functioning citizenry, attempts by the government to achieve that in ANY way other than providing security from foreign invaders and an environment in which an economy can flourish only results in dysfunction eventually.
You get more of what you subsidize. Liberals subsidize their voters.
Like my brother says, he didn’t sleep with those women, why should he pay for their birth control? One person’s inability to control their behavior shouldn’t penalize those who practice virtue and restraint.
I realize this sounds heartless, but you have to admit that historically, the most effective means of stopping something is to stop removing the consequences of engaging in it.
—oops, I see Rush has posted back on topic, immigration—
-
I've cogitated on this drug problem for a while. It's not at all black and white. The cost to society to manage a group of addicts is maybe as large as the cost to incarcerate them. We are an advanced society, which likes to take care of those less privileged. I can foresee a culture where we are spending billions 'managing' a chronic drug habit for a significant percentage of our population. Also, given the nature of addictive behavior, that segment of the population will be the less financially able to afford those drugs.
Maybe an example is useful here. Lisa Robin Kelly played the blond sister on That 70s show back a few years ago. She had an addictive personality and was able to afford drugs of choice due to her acting income. She gradually declined into poverty, to the point where she was turning tricks to feed her drug and alcohol habit. This is just one example, but it brings the problem of decriminalization to the fore. Some segment of the pop will just live in a drug induced stupor, and to feed their habit, they will turn to crime(not necc prostitution) to get the fix.
I need to know what the law, and society, and my pocketbook are going to do about these dregs before I'm on board with decriminalizing drugs. The modern cocaine, and other nice designer drugs are way, way more potent than back in my day. The addiction rates would almost surely go up, and who is going to pay for these people to go through their life on recreational drugs?
I have the buddings of an idea, but not fully fleshed out yet. Here's what I'm thinking: Recreational drugs beyond OTC alcohol would be sold on a license basis. Billionaires, and millionaires, would put up a bond, or some kind of financial guarantee for themselves or anyone they choose to sponsor and they would get a license to use specific recreational drugs of their choosing. All funded by PRIVATE moneys and NO tax/treasury money would go toward the purchase, or any assistance of those who choose to use recreational drugs. If the money runs out, then just too damn bad. NO public money for rehab, or detox, ever in any way, shape or form. Because - once the feds/state get to funding any kind of rehab or drug culture it's a never ending cycle.
As one might imagine, I am dead set against the state/feds providing clean needles, or any of the alternative means or choices to help a drug user clean up. If the money isn't there, and they are caught breaking the other kinds of laws to feed the habit like burglary, robbery, etc then the punishment is back to incarceration forever. No way am I going to let a addict back out on the public streets. The private segment has to shoulder the entire burden of recreational drug costs. There is no way we can start buying drugs for addicts, because then, I might as well become an addict and go the rest of MY life high as a kite.
Is that what we want for a society in the US? I'm open to other plans, or modification of my idea as long as no govt money is spent.
Oh HELL no. No taxpayer money buying drugs for addicts or supporting addicts; I'm not suggesting that at all. They don't work, they don't eat, period. In fact that's part of the problem. People don't tend to lie around in a drugged stupor unless someone is enabling them.
Money would not likely be a problem. If drugs were totally legal and unregulated the price would crash. Opioids are stupidly cheap. The poppies grow everywhere. Unless the government screws it up by taxing it to death that is.
And drug related crime, burglary and robbery? Death by being shot by the homeowner/victim.
Drug related prostitution? Legalize prostitution. That's another thing you can't stop by making it illegal. Let it be between the consenting adults and God.
-
Well, I read those huge posts and appreciate the perspectives.
I guess this particular issue, government involvement in addiction, is one of the reasons I’m a conservative. Conservatives, unless they are the faux version who don’t stand up to liberals, tend to nip problems in the bud.
Personal responsibility is kind of the bedrock of conservatism, and for good reason. While it is in everyone’s interest to have a healthy, functioning citizenry, attempts by the government to achieve that in ANY way other than providing security from foreign invaders and an environment in which an economy can flourish only results in dysfunction eventually.
You get more of what you subsidize. Liberals subsidize their voters.
Like my brother says, he didn’t sleep with those women, why should he pay for their birth control? One person’s inability to control their behavior shouldn’t penalize those who practice virtue and restraint.
I realize this sounds heartless, but you have to admit that historically, the most effective means of stopping something is to stop removing the consequences of engaging in it.
—oops, I see Rush has posted back on topic, immigration—
One thing I love about you is you are a thinking person. Open to reading stuff whether you agree or not and not automatically rejecting it out of fanatical emotionalism. We need a lot more of that.
No my position on legalizing drugs is not the liberal version of socialized enabling. In fact, welfare is another big piece of the drug problem. In a libertarian system you'd be free to do any drug you want as long as you don't hurt another (by driving for example) but you would be responsible for supporting yourself and for any consequences. No food stamps, no welfare checks, no free needles. Get a job and pay for it all yourself. If you have enabling parents or can get a sugar Daddy to support your habit, good for you but do not come for my tax dollars.
It may not be realistic to legalize drugs in the U.S. at this point. There are so many entities profiting from keeping them illegal. Drug companies are one, for example they want marijuana legalized only for them, so they can develop and patent pills, control the supply and profit from it just like they do with the opiates.
The for-profit prison industry is another. And the lawyers. And all the various government entities from the DEA, FDA, and FBI on down to state and local police whose jobs and benefits depend on a large supply of criminals to arrest, their department budgets justified by the "war on drugs". All these entities could shrink their budgets and manpower if drugs were legalized and every one of them will fight tooth and nail to prevent it because it threatens their turf.
People wonder why economies go bad. Economies thrive when people are producing something, that is, actually making things. The more people go into government jobs where you don't produce but you spend all your time making up regulations or enforcing regulations and doing other bullshit non-existent "work" with no tangible result, what do you expect to happen to the economy?? It shrinks!
Edit: whoops I got off topic again. Sorry..... :P
-
Last year I had two major surgeries. After each one, upon leaving the hospital, I was given an Rx for 15 oxycodoene pills for pain.
I hoarded those things like gold. I would take ibuprofen instead just to postpone the day when I’d take the last oxy. Because I loved that oxy. It took away the pain AND made me feel happy, like everything everywhere was going to be just fine. Not high, just happy, like nothing else I’ve ever experienced.
I wanted more. I still want more, just for that feeling.
Taking it over time would destroy my liver and I’d have to do degrading, illegal things to get it. That stops me from any further action to that end. A personal decision.
Not sure if this contributes to the discussion but I am suspect of people who can’t stop doing something that is destroying them. I sympathize, but it does seem like a choice at some point.
-
Neither of y'all have addressed addition. Crack cocaine is the most addictive substance known to man right now. Imagine cigarettes, but 1000 times more addictive. If crack cocaine goes to $10/hit, I suspect we are going to have epidemic levels of addiction. This is only one example. C-Meth, Peyote, mescaline, etc are going to turn many casual users into useless idiots who will do ANYTHING to ANYONE for the next hit.
Trust me or not, the last thing you want to be is the person between a crack addict and their next high. They will kill you same as look at you for the next snort. Same with Meth.
Our society is way, way too enabling right now for us to consider legalizing addictive drugs. I know most are thinking MJ, etc and I don't care either way about that, although my experience is that plenty of pot-heads do very little to advance a culture. Go beyond that, and the bottom drops out very quick. Tell me what we're going to do about addicts FIRST before we start making this stuff avail in liquor stores.
-
Last year I had two major surgeries. After each one, upon leaving the hospital, I was given an Rx for 15 oxycodoene pills for pain.
I hoarded those things like gold. I would take ibuprofen instead just to postpone the day when I’d take the last oxy. Because I loved that oxy. It took away the pain AND made me feel happy, like everything everywhere was going to be just fine. Not high, just happy, like nothing else I’ve ever experienced.
I wanted more. I still want more, just for that feeling.
Taking it over time would destroy my liver and I’d have to do degrading, illegal things to get it. That stops me from any further action to that end. A personal decision.
Not sure if this contributes to the discussion but I am suspect of people who can’t stop doing something that is destroying them. I sympathize, but it does seem like a choice at some point.
Well that's the difference between you and an addict. I'm the same way, the stuff makes me feel great but at the same time I dislike the way it slows my thinking. I'm not as mentally sharp and I can feel it and I don't like it. Then there's the constipation, dry mouth and stuff. The down side counterbalances the up side so that I don't take it unless I need it for pain.
I had to take it long term when I had Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy and I was dependent enough to know what a tiny bit of withdrawal feels like. And just like you, I could project into the future how it would be if I kept taking it, and kept increasing the dose. And I am able to use common sense and intellect to not go there. I dislike the side effects enough, and I can extrapolate enough what it would be like to escalate and be a desperate addict, that there is no way in hell I would ever go there.
It is really that simple... for normal healthy people. It is a choice, but I can see if you have depression for example, undiagnosed and untreated, how a drug like this could hook you. If it makes you and me feel happy like everything's fine, imagine how it is for a depressive who never feels happy even a little bit, to have a slice of relief from constant crushing misery. I think for someone like that, to say, "No, I'm not going there," must be a lot harder because it means going back to their hell of a regular life. I really believe a lot of addicts become addicted when the onset of depression coincides with opportunity, usually in adolescence but also as an adult if they are exposed to it after an accident or surgery.
We do a terrible job of treating depression. Most antidepressants have a bad side effect: weight gain. With our obesity epidemic this is the last thing a depressed person needs and the last thing we as a society need, and the effectiveness of antidepressants is depressingly (pun intended) unreliable. CBT is very good at making money for counselors, but also unreliable, although both combined bring better results than either alone. Antidepressants also kill your sex drive. It's really a bad solution and it's the best we can come up with?
-
Addiction creates more dependency than welfare whores.
From SSI disability, to prison sentences it is a massive parasite sucking off of our economy.
Legalizing crack, heroin, meth and cocaine will make it a universe worse.
-
Neither of y'all have addressed addition. Crack cocaine is the most addictive substance known to man right now. Imagine cigarettes, but 1000 times more addictive. If crack cocaine goes to $10/hit, I suspect we are going to have epidemic levels of addiction. This is only one example. C-Meth, Peyote, mescaline, etc are going to turn many casual users into useless idiots who will do ANYTHING to ANYONE for the next hit.
Trust me or not, the last thing you want to be is the person between a crack addict and their next high. They will kill you same as look at you for the next snort. Same with Meth.
Our society is way, way too enabling right now for us to consider legalizing addictive drugs. I know most are thinking MJ, etc and I don't care either way about that, although my experience is that plenty of pot-heads do very little to advance a culture. Go beyond that, and the bottom drops out very quick. Tell me what we're going to do about addicts FIRST before we start making this stuff avail in liquor stores.
Okay, what we do about addicts FIRST is simply defend ourselves against them if they try to victimize us. Shoot them in the face. Why should we do anything else with them?
-
Addiction creates more dependency than welfare whores.
From SSI disability, to prison sentences it is a massive parasite sucking off of our economy.
Legalizing crack, heroin, meth and cocaine will make it a universe worse.
Well if you legalize it you eliminate the prison sentences, the taxpayer burden feeding, housing and giving them medical care. I'm good with that. Let them rot in ditches.
As for SSI disability, we need to abolish the entire Social Security system; it was one of the worst mistakes this country ever made, creating a giant socialist entitlement program that is unsustainable and will eventually bankrupt this country. Addicts aren't the biggest problem with SS; baby boomers are, with medical technology keeping us alive 30 years after we stop earning money and way fewer young people to fund it while trying to save for their own retirement, paying a mortgage and raising a family. We have screwed our children and grandchildren with the whole Social Security pyramid scheme.
-
Keep kids from starting. Don’t let them experience that first high that normal life can’t give. Address culture’s tendency to induce alienation and weaken sense of belonging, community, and supporting (being needed) and being supported (getting help when needed). Depression is known often to be situational and not chemical. It is virtually unknown in societies with strong community and family connections.
We had a family member go down the meth hole, but thankfully our story ended well. Most don’t. There is an organization called Families Anonymous that is very helpful ... the main theme is not to enable the drug addict. Sorry, but there it is. We’ve been there ourselves and seen other families dealing with it. Years of trying to keep an addict alive and get them on the right track usually just destroys the rest of the family. You have to let the addict go out there and make it work without outside resources.
Once they decide to get clean, and that HAS to happen; they have to want to, then places like Oxford House can be of help. Nothing happens until the addict decides to end the addiction. Unfortunately, their health is often so degraded by the time the decision to get better is made, that there’s not much time left on their life clock.
-
Well if you legalize it you eliminate the prison sentences, the taxpayer burden feeding, housing and giving them medical care. I'm good with that. Let them rot in ditches.
As for SSI disability, we need to abolish the entire Social Security system; it was one of the worst mistakes this country ever made, creating a giant socialist entitlement program that is unsustainable and will eventually bankrupt this country. Addicts aren't the biggest problem with SS; baby boomers are, with medical technology keeping us alive 30 years after we stop earning money and way fewer young people to fund it while trying to save for their own retirement, paying a mortgage and raising a family. We have screwed our children and grandchildren with the whole Social Security pyramid scheme.
I think you misunderstand the way addiction destroys.
People addict3d to crack, or meth will commit horrendous crimes to get it, get money to get it, or simply commit crimes because they’ve managed to be so highly have no rational mind to tell them not to. The incarceration rate for Drug Use is a relatively small part of the overal incarceration rate due to crimes comitted because of drug addiction.
-
Keep kids from starting. Don’t let them experience that first high that normal life can’t give. Address culture’s tendency to induce alienation and weaken sense of belonging, community, and supporting (being needed) and being supported (getting help when needed). Depression is known often to be situational and not chemical. It is virtually unknown in societies with strong community and family connections.
We had a family member go down the meth hole, but thankfully our story ended well. Most don’t. There is an organization called Families Anonymous that is very helpful ... the main theme is not to enable the drug addict. Sorry, but there it is. We’ve been there ourselves and seen other families dealing with it. Years of trying to keep an addict alive and get them on the right track usually just destroys the rest of the family. You have to let the addict go out there and make it work without outside resources.
Once they decide to get clean, and that HAS to happen; they have to want to, then places like Oxford House can be of help. Nothing happens until the addict decides to end the addiction. Unfortunately, their health is often so degraded by the time the decision to get better is made, that there’s not much time left on their life clock.
Yep hit the nail. You cannot enable. The addict has to be deprived of others supporting him and he must decide when he's ready, no one can make him until that happens. I have a family member who was with a meth addict for 20 odd years and it ended with him in prison. They become just like narcissistic sociopaths and that's exactly how you must treat them; cut them out of your life. Meth is the worst. I am on the fence about that one because I think it causes way more physical damage inside the brain than other drugs. It is not a simple medicinal plant, it's literally poison.
-
I think you misunderstand the way addiction destroys.
People addict3d to crack, or meth will commit horrendous crimes to get it, get money to get it, or simply commit crimes because they’ve managed to be so highly have no rational mind to tell them not to. The incarceration rate for Drug Use is a relatively small part of the overal incarceration rate due to crimes comitted because of drug addiction.
I haven't made up my mind about meth and crack cocaine. I haven't yet read enough about the places that have legalized drugs to see if the harm reduction also occurs among these addicts. These drugs are different from opiates, barbiturates and marijuana. They get deep into modifying your dopamine receptors, similar to nicotine only on a much larger scale. I think it's been determined that kicking cigarettes is harder than kicking heroin, which primarily acts on mu-opioid receptors. In my opinion, even alcohol is worse than opioids - kicking alcohol can kill you. Kicking opioids just gives you the flu for a week or two. But trying to kick a drug that totally screws up your dopamine receptors like methamphetamine does is almost impossible.
Thought experiment: What if we legalize it and ramp up production to massive amounts so the price gets so dirt cheap these addicts can get it for less than for a bag of M&Ms, use as much as they want and drive themselves into the grave as soon as possible so their families and loved ones don't have to deal with them anymore. Once they have destroyed their brain, they aren't really "there" anymore and become a very destructive force within their circle. I'm not sure it's possible to save them and the focus should be on cutting losses and saving the rest of the family.
I have trouble feeling any sympathy for meth addicts. They are the closest thing we have to real life zombies. One might grieve who they used to be...
-
Addicts, and criminals are already getting drugs illegally. Laws don't stop them just like more gun laws won't stop criminals from shooting people.
-
You have a chance with minors, but with adults you have to let go. An addict in an otherwise happy family home DOES absolutely demolish the happiness. Everyone is on eggshells hoping desperately that the latest “clean” episode will hold. You cannot, cannot turn a family home into a rehab house. You cannot, cannot “fix” someone. You can only set up the parameters for what is acceptable in your home, and what you spend your money on. It’s incredibly difficult to turn the addict out, but it is the only way to stop the destruction. The addict chooses for themselves.
-
Last year I had two major surgeries. After each one, upon leaving the hospital, I was given an Rx for 15 oxycodoene pills for pain.
I hoarded those things like gold. I would take ibuprofen instead just to postpone the day when I’d take the last oxy. Because I loved that oxy. It took away the pain AND made me feel happy, like everything everywhere was going to be just fine. Not high, just happy, like nothing else I’ve ever experienced.
I wanted more. I still want more, just for that feeling.
Taking it over time would destroy my liver and I’d have to do degrading, illegal things to get it. That stops me from any further action to that end. A personal decision.
Not sure if this contributes to the discussion but I am suspect of people who can’t stop doing something that is destroying them. I sympathize, but it does seem like a choice at some point.
I had a discectomy and fusion surgery last December on my cervical spine (neck). I was given 50 oxycodone tablets for pain. I still have twenty of them. After the pain diminished, I switched from the oxy to Tylenol due to all of the horror stories out there. The oxy killed the pain but it didn't give me any thrill and I have not had any desire to take any more of them. I keep them around just in case of any acute pain that I need to deal with before I am able to seek medical attention but to be honest I really doubt if I will ever end up using them. I haven't taken one since January. So I personally don't see the appeal of taking them and certainly don't see the addiction aspect.
-
I don't understand the fascination with pain killers like Oxy either. It is not like it gives you some kind of Euphoria like Cocaine, or Pot. I don't know what either feels like, but from what I am told, and read it makes you happier. Right? From what I can tell Heroine, and Opiates just make you not care, and out of it. What fun is that? Is it just an escape?
-
Once they decide to get clean, and that HAS to happen; they have to want to, then places like Oxford House can be of help. Nothing happens until the addict decides to end the addiction. Unfortunately, their health is often so degraded by the time the decision to get better is made, that there’s not much time left on their life clock.
Oxford House 2017 Financial results:
Statement of Activities
SUPPORT AND REVENUE
Federal Awards $ 4,842,598
State and Local Awards 1,650,886
General Contributions 608,331
Convention Revenue 359,778
Combined Federal Campaign 12,920
Conference Revenue 12,430
Revolving Loan Management Fees 3,150
Interest Income 112
Total Support and Revenue $ 7,490,205
NO, no, no, no, no. You must NOT USE MY TAX DOLLARS FOR ADDICTS. I will provide one 9mm bullet per addict. Past that, no, nothing, nada.
-
My wife has had many surgeries and has had prescriptions for Oxy. She has used it but always stopped when she either didn't need it anymore or could transition to ibuprofen. She's never shown a sign of getting hooked. I took one of hers one time when I was having a neck issue. I hated it and never took another one. MY go to became naproxen sodium (Alieve).
-
My wife has had many surgeries and has had prescriptions for Oxy. She has used it but always stopped when she either didn't need it anymore or could transition to ibuprofen. She's never shown a sign of getting hooked. I took one of hers one time when I was having a neck issue. I hated it and never took another one. MY go to became naproxen sodium (Alieve).
BTW Randy, I don't think I ever updated you on my surgery from last year. It went well and I'm feeling so much better. Tell your lovely wife that I said hello and that I hope she is doing well. As I mentioned on that other site last year, the words of encouragement from the two of you at the GMU fly-in were really helpful as I was really nervous about having my neck cut open and my spine messed with.
Do you guys plan on going to GMU again this year if it happens?
-
Oxy does seem to have wildly varying effects on different people. All I got was the groovy feeling and no pain. No side effects at all.
-
Oxford House 2017 Financial results:
Statement of Activities
SUPPORT AND REVENUE
Federal Awards $ 4,842,598
State and Local Awards 1,650,886
General Contributions 608,331
Convention Revenue 359,778
Combined Federal Campaign 12,920
Conference Revenue 12,430
Revolving Loan Management Fees 3,150
Interest Income 112
Total Support and Revenue $ 7,490,205
NO, no, no, no, no. You must NOT USE MY TAX DOLLARS FOR ADDICTS. I will provide one 9mm bullet per addict. Past that, no, nothing, nada.
Didn’t know who funded it!
This whole issue gets right into SJW territory. How much to help people who screwed themselves over, vs helping people who had misfortune dumped on them and want to get through it. First line of response has to be families, but as we have seen, an addict can destroy or seriously overtax an otherwise happy family. For the stories that end well, the 9mm bullet would have been a tragic mistake.
In a way, it’s kind of like teen pregnancy. A stupid mistake with a lifetime of consequences. The real key is how badly the person wants to take control of their own health and destiny. Families Anonymous says come toward the addict with help only in response to the addict taking steps to help himself. For example, addict gets a job, and you provide a ride to the job. Addict submits to drug tests, comes up clean, you keep providing the ride. Government programs usually don’t have that degree of nuanced accountability.
-
I see NO equivalence to teen pregnancy. I'm willing to fund hundreds of abortions for preg teens, and they can go on to lead healthy lives. Or, they can give up their child to a willing adoption. Or, they can raise the child with the support of family. Addicts are only out for themselves, and screw everyone else. No money at all, ever. Once you write one tiny check, then next thing we're spending 7 MILLION dollars in tax money to pay for addicts who may or may not get better. I'm not willing to even take that bet with tax money. If they want to get straight, do it on their own dime. Close down Oxford house(or publicly fund it), and toss them all on the street.
This is why we can't have nice things. Because I have to pay for some addict to survive and go back to drug use again.
-
BTW Randy, I don't think I ever updated you on my surgery from last year. It went well and I'm feeling so much better. Tell your lovely wife that I said hello and that I hope she is doing well. As I mentioned on that other site last year, the words of encouragement from the two of you at the GMU fly-in were really helpful as I was really nervous about having my neck cut open and my spine messed with.
Do you guys plan on going to GMU again this year if it happens?
Glad to hear you're doing well. GMU would be a possibility, she has work to do to be able to get in the plane. She had a hip replacement back in March. She was progressing well through the first couple of weeks but the incision wouldn’t heal. She ended up having a wound vac installed and carried it for 18 weeks before finally having it closed up with a skin graft.
We did a weekend in Nashville a few weeks ago, drove up. She did fairly well, but was tired out from it. At this point she has two artificial hips and a knee plus the various back surgeries in her back and neck. All in all she does really well. I had cataract surgery on my left eye Wednesday and am doing well. The right eye will be done on November 7th.
-
Glad to hear you're doing well. GMU would be a possibility, she has work to do to be able to get in the plane. She had a hip replacement back in March. She was progressing well through the first couple of weeks but the incision wouldn’t heal. She ended up having a wound vac installed and carried it for 18 weeks before finally having it closed up with a skin graft.
We did a weekend in Nashville a few weeks ago, drove up. She did fairly well, but was tired out from it. At this point she has two artificial hips and a knee plus the various back surgeries in her back and neck. All in all she does really well. I had cataract surgery on my left eye Wednesday and am doing well. The right eye will be done on November 7th.
I recall that she had been through a lot of surgeries but didn't know it was that many. I'm glad to hear that she is getting around in spite of all of it. She must be a tough one. Good luck on your cataracts. I wish both of you well.
-
Not sure how this thread got into a discussion on addiction, but since that is its current topic, I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that a number of lessons were learned about drug addiction from the Vietnam war. You see, at that time nearly 15 to 20% of soldiers there had become addicted to Heroin and opium derivatives, a class of substances believed at that time to be among the most addictive drugs known.
Soldiers who could not pass a urine test were not allowed to leave Vietnam until they tested clean had a relapse rate of just 5% within one year compared to addicted soldiers in the U.S. who had a relapse rate of 90% after being forced "clean"!
It turns out that changing the drug user's environment (removal of cause of stresses and easy access to enablers) and change of other habits was an essential difference in reducing addiction.
Some articles on the subject; that last link is to the initial paper that reported the results:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits)
https://www.sovcal.com/treatment/learning-vietnam-war-veterans-kicked-addiction/ (https://www.sovcal.com/treatment/learning-vietnam-war-veterans-kicked-addiction/)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1775687/pdf/amjph00813-0048.pdf (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1775687/pdf/amjph00813-0048.pdf)
P.S. So unless you have some other stressful shit going on in your life or are in a co-enabling group of peers, there is a very low probability that using opiates to kill pain will devolve into an addiction.
-
From these lessons we learn again that addicts only get better when they muster the intestinal fortitude to get better. And that addiction has known causes that people can muster the will to avoid.
I suppose Libertarians naturally avoid addiction because they so despise anything controlling them.
:)
-
I like these border solutions, stolen from gab. Except 3 and 4.
1-illegals are dna and fingerprinted, never become legal
2-unaccomp.minors matching dna,above, never become legal
3-illegals living in US may come forward for step 1, apply for legalization within set time
4-illegals caught after time period, never legal
5-dna and fingerprinting for all forms of public assist. to verify citizenship
-
I like these border solutions, stolen from gab. Except 3 and 4.
1-illegals are dna and fingerprinted, never become legal
2-unaccomp.minors matching dna,above, never become legal
3-illegals living in US may come forward for step 1, apply for legalization within set time
4-illegals caught after time period, never legal
5-dna and fingerprinting for all forms of public assist. to verify citizenship
If you want to bring it to a complete halt, simply let congress draft legislation that will give all illegals presently in this country citizenship, with one exception: They cannot vote for the next 25 years from date of signing.
For the ones presently crossing the border? Residency and restriction from voting from 25 years of becoming a citizen.
Give this to the dims. Let them be the ones to tell the illegals they are shooting down their amnesty over the right to vote. Let them show their true colors.
-
I like these border solutions, stolen from gab. Except 3 and 4.
1-illegals are dna and fingerprinted, never become legal
2-unaccomp.minors matching dna,above, never become legal
3-illegals living in US may come forward for step 1, apply for legalization within set time
4-illegals caught after time period, never legal
5-dna and fingerprinting for all forms of public assist. to verify citizenship
My plan. Construct a mega-prison in the desert NE of Palmdale CA. Fort Irwin would be a good start. Just a huge walled compound with barracks similar to what we built for the Japanese internment people. Provide water, and sewer. No electric, no power, no gas/LP/fuel except wood for burning. ALL illegals get tossed in there, and they get K rations 2 times per day. They can stay, and have their cases heard by special judicial court within next 3 years, or they can agree to the DNA/fingerprint and be removed from US, never allowed to return, even on a visa. Those who stay for their hearing better have some real exclusive talent(like MD, Nuke engineer, etc), AND must be fluent in English, AND have a source of private income. For those few - we will give them a green card which expires in 24 months. They will register with the local sheriff and produce income statements, and proof of health insurance for the next 24 months. At which time they will be offered full US citizenship, or returned to their own country.
I'm tired of half measures. Either join us, or get the fuck out and stay out.
-
A1 Skyraiders would work.
-
(https://static.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/honduran-migrant-meme.jpg)
-
I agree with Louis Gohmert.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/louis_gohmert_calls_for_using_rico_to_find_out_whos_paying_for_the_honduras_migrant_caravan.html
It might be quicker just to send someone with Hispanic features and a bottle of Tequila into the crowd to ask a few questions. Fox reporter says the people she talked to in the crowd say the March was organized, but won’t say by who. I suppose it’s possible they don’t know. Lots of video of these people getting into busses and trucks for part of the trip, which explains why they look so hale and hearty in the pictures being shown of the river of people.
-
A-1 Skyraider. 20mm never gets old. Hey, this is an aviation board, right?
-
Just saw an excellent commentary, and thought I would share, in case you need to defend some idiocy from a lunatic fringe.
"OK, Mr liberal here's the case. There's a ship full of 7-8000 RUSSIANS, waving RUSSIAN flags, and forcing themselves into a US port. What are you gonna do now?"
-
Just saw an excellent commentary, and thought I would share, in case you need to defend some idiocy from a lunatic fringe.
"OK, Mr liberal here's the case. There's a ship full of 7-8000 RUSSIANS, waving RUSSIAN flags, and forcing themselves into a US port. What are you gonna do now?"
-
Just take their kids away. Trump seems to like that one.
(https://i1.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/wt9.jpg?w=622)
-
Take a close look at this picture; https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/23/dhs-criminals-inside-caravan/
Looks like about 90% young able-bodied men. DO NOT WANT in my country.
-
Take a close look at this picture; https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/23/dhs-criminals-inside-caravan/
Looks like about 90% young able-bodied men. DO NOT WANT in my country.
Poor bastards were so desperate for asylum that they forgot to take their wives and children.
-
Poor bastards were so desperate for asylum that they forgot to take their wives and children.
When we send an infantry battalion in to battle, we don't send their wives and children with them either.
-
This is escalating. Nine hundred miles to our border, arrival timed for maximum optics during our election. President Trump has mustered 5,200 troops. Still seems like Dems don’t realize this issue pretty much entirely gave them President Trump.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6331353/Second-migrant-caravan-storms-Mexico.html
-
Trump trying to override an amendment with an exec order.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-push-executive-order-end-birthright-citizenship-report-122746845.html
Will not happen. He can sign it, but any lib judge in the US will put a stay on execution of the order until it works through the courts. Even with the makeup of the court today, I doubt there is much chance of them 'interpreting' the 14th A to block birthright completely. It was settled once by the SCOTUS in US vs Ark. The only ting the court may consider is the 'and' clause in the 14th: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The 'and' clause would allow interpretation that those born to parents of non-US citizens(or mother, in reality) are subjects of the nationality of the parents. i.e. - a person born in the US to Mexican nationals would inherit the citizenship of their birth parents, not the location where the birth occurred. It is a thorny argument, from a poorly worded amendment which was designed to liberate the slaves, without coming right out and saying 'slaves are US citizens', which would have been far more applicable. But no - the court had to get fancy.
-
Everyone in the caravan should be glad I'm not President, because my answer can be found in science fiction...
Once the guns go dry, you take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
'Gimp
-
Pretty soon people are going to realize Red Dawn wasn't fiction....
-
... just a really bad movie.
-
Racist Mexicans. Imagine, they’re concerned their tax money may go to support the invaders while they’re waiting to cross into the USA and have Americans’ money support them. How mercenary!
https://www.infowars.com/video-mexicans-agree-with-trump-call-migrant-caravan-an-invasion/
-
Gimp's answer can be found in science fiction. Mine can be found in Korea, and Vietnam era piston powered, ground attack aircraft with good loitering capability.
-
I love it! Make Tijuana Great Again! :)
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/19/u-s-military-hardens-border-security-mexico-begins-recognizing-consequences/
-
Tijuana is a fairly nice little border town. I spent many nice times there back in the day. Friendly folks and decent horse racing. What a shame they are going to have all those invaders for a long, long time.
-
The WORST judicial activism ever. The prez has always had absolute power over immigration, and border security. I'm no fan of anarchy, but if Trump obeys this order, we are doomed. Might as well not have a 3rd branch of govt at all.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/20/judge-blocks-trump-asylum-rules/
The judge is wrong on so many counts. Not only that the asylum seekers(economic invaders) have no standing, there are a dozen other reasons this judge is way out of line. Trump must ignore this one finally.
-
The judicial branch is trying to run the executive branch, which is clearly another set of separation of powers issue.
-
The WORST judicial activism ever. The prez has always had absolute power over immigration, and border security. I'm no fan of anarchy, but if Trump obeys this order, we are doomed. Might as well not have a 3rd branch of govt at all.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/20/judge-blocks-trump-asylum-rules/
The judge is wrong on so many counts. Not only that the asylum seekers(economic invaders) have no standing, there are a dozen other reasons this judge is way out of line. Trump must ignore this one finally.
Actually, the judge is correct. If you read the Immigration and Nationality Act (http://"https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1687.html#0-0-0-192"), it clearly designates who determines asylum eligibility (paragraph 2). The law vests that power in the Attorney General, not the President, so a presidential determination not to grant asylum has not authority.
Of course, this is how Obama ruled with is pen and the judges said it was OK then. Would be interesting to see if this judge has a similar case that he ruled the opposite way. It sucks when an attorney comes in and quotes yourself as precedence.
OTOH, the President saying to the Attorney General privately "don't let these people in and deport them back to Mexico for asylum" is perfectly in line with the law. It is still the AG's decision.
-
Which branch of government does the AG work for? And who is in charge of the executive branch? Also, can the President direct his employee, the AG, on how to deal with asylum issues?
-
I saw an interesting interview recently. A reporter was interviewing one of the migrants. He was going to give up his quest to get into the U.S. and get a job in Mexico. Problem was he needed a work permit in Mexico and couldn’t get one. So he is again trying to get in here.
Imagine that. Mexico mot allowing an illegal to get a job there.
-
Indeed. Whoever thought we’d live to see this kind of blatant perfidy by those charged with protecting our interests.
Come on, Whittaker. Come on, Trump.
https://moonbattery.com/liberal-fifth-column-nixes-refusing-asylum/
-
Actually, the judge is correct. If you read the Immigration and Nationality Act (http://"https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1687.html#0-0-0-192"), it clearly designates who determines asylum eligibility (paragraph 2). The law vests that power in the Attorney General, not the President, so a presidential determination not to grant asylum has not authority.
Of course, this is how Obama ruled with is pen and the judges said it was OK then. Would be interesting to see if this judge has a similar case that he ruled the opposite way. It sucks when an attorney comes in and quotes yourself as precedence.
OTOH, the President saying to the Attorney General privately "don't let these people in and deport them back to Mexico for asylum" is perfectly in line with the law. It is still the AG's decision.
OK, if you want to be pedantic, it is the AGs decision. And he works exclusively for?
-
OK, if you want to be pedantic, it is the AGs decision. And he works exclusively for?
The American People.
He serves at the pleasure of the president.
-
The American People.
He serves at the pleasure of the president.
Uh, actually - no. He works for the US govt. Again, being pedantic everyone in govt service works for the American people(small p). Read the judiciary act.
-
Uh, actually - no. He works for the US govt. Again, being pedantic everyone in govt service works for the American people(small p). Read the judiciary act.
Who hires and fires the AG? The American people, or the President? How could JFK hire his brother as AG?
-
All cabinet officials serve at the pleasure of the president.
-
All cabinet officials serve at the pleasure of the president.
I remember back when that was the case.
But now we are suppose to believe that congress and the senate shall pick the cabinet, and the President should not be able to fire any of them without the approval of congress.
We're even suppose to believe now that the President doesn't have the right of a recess appointment.
-
If someone truly is seeking asylum, wouldn’t they do so in the first country they came to? Why didn’t the Hondurans go to the American Embassy in Mexico?
-
If someone truly is seeking asylum, wouldn’t they do so in the first country they came to? Why didn’t the Hondurans go to the American Embassy in Mexico?
Wouldn't you rather come to the US than Mexico? :)
-
They could have gone to the American Embassy in Mexico.
If life is so bad in Honduras, Mexico would look good.
-
If someone truly is seeking asylum, wouldn’t they do so in the first country they came to? Why didn’t the Hondurans go to the American Embassy in Mexico?
Isn't that the asylum law? You stop in the first country that offers you asylum, and Mexico did offer it to the Hondurans. But nooooooooooo.
-
Wouldn't you rather come to the US than Mexico? :)
US has an embassy in Mexico City. If you are truly an asylum seeker, you would head there and make your case.
But that also means risking being turned down. Second best plan is to get into the US, then ask for asylum. Get a court date then disappear into the population.
-
Wouldn't you rather come to the US than Mexico? :)
Yes. That wasn’t the question.
Immigration law grants the Attorney General discretion in enforcing this. Anyone claiming asylum can be ruled ineligible if they don’t stop at the first country. Doesn’t mean he will do it, but I would.
Obama would have pulled his pen out and governed. Republicans need to learn to quit howling and start lawyering up when those things happen.
-
Getting interesting.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/11/licensed-to-kill.html
-
Well isn't that the purpose of the military? If you invade us, and threaten us we will defend ourselves with force. We will first let you know we will do that, but don't bitch when the Browning M2's start talking instead of our voices.
-
We should have been doing that all along (shoot on sight anyone sneaking across the border). The reason we're in this mess is we've been too soft and accommodating for decades. I don't think we can reverse it now. The Democrat machine with their MSM tool and their urban sissified unarmed soy-milk-lattee drinking brainwashed believers are now far too removed from the concept of defending a nation's border and far too invested in defeating the "evil Republicans". They've got the illegals swelling the ranks of Democrat voters. That's what they want and they'll do anything to keep it continuing. If not the illegals voting it's their legal anchor babies which we continue to provide free delivery and neonatal care in our hospital maternity wards.
We haven't seen anything yet. If there is a single shot fired in defense of this illegal invasion the uproar will be massive. I don't know if the Republicans (politicians) collectively have a single ball between all of them. I certainly have no faith they will withstand the onslaught and properly defend the military for doing its job. They'll probably haul the poor trigger man into court and charge him with "murder". Efforts to impeach Trump and remove him from office will go into overdrive.
And if none of this works, all they have to do is wait one or two more election cycles. Each year brings a new crop of adolescent voters thoroughly indoctrinated in the new religious orthodoxy (leftism) by educators who are now so overwhelmingly leftist that there is now OVERT discrimination against conservatives and Republicans in academic circles, driving the imbalance ever bigger. There is no hope of reversing the death of the U.S. unless we fix the imbalance in universities and public schools.
Our only hope otherwise is a massive reversal of the black vote. If it swings 90% Republican we might limp along for another century but walkaway blacks notwithstanding I think the odds of that are slim to none. Still, the blacks are thoroughly resenting all the love bestowed on illegal hispanics. You never know.
Regardless, even if blacks go Republican and Republicans regain majority, we are still doomed because it's not like Republicans understand or practice free market economics either. They are just a little slower and not so open and honest with their destruction of the greatest advancement in human history (the United States).
-
Continued urbanization is also a real problem. Now the suburbs are all Democrat as well as the cities. These metro areas (cities, burbs, ex-burbs) are growing and turning entire States BLUE. It is a vey disturbing trend. Soon there won't be a State you can move to that won't be Blue. We see it happening in places like TX, and FL. It's already happened on much of the coasts, and places like IL, and MN.
Urbanites are dictating their Progressive values, and policies to those that live outside those metro areas, and that want nothing to do with them. It is like a cancer. Also, soon the Electoral College won't matter. States don't have an EC so we see what is happening there. Once the states are all converted we will have one party, urban rule. All the EC votes will be Democrat with a few pockets of exceptions, but not many. Most states have a large metro area, or several metro areas controlling them now.
-
Continued urbanization is also a real problem. Now the suburbs are all Democrat as well as the cities. These metro areas (cities, burbs, ex-burbs) are growing and turning entire States BLUE. It is a vey disturbing trend. Soon there won't be a State you can move to that won't be Blue. We see it happening in places like TX, and FL. It's already happened on much of the coasts, and places like IL, and MN.
Urbanites are dictating their Progressive values, and policies to those that live outside those metro areas, and that want nothing to do with them. It is like a cancer. Also, soon the Electoral College won't matter. States don't have an EC so we see what is happening there. Once the states are all converted we will have one party, urban rule. All the EC votes will be Democrat with a few pockets of exceptions, but not many. Most states have a large metro area, or several metro areas controlling them now.
Heck, Vermont doesn't have any real urban areas* and yet this has happened here too. It isn't just the cities, but the rural areas too that have been colonized by progressive urbanites. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of old guard Vermonters who are very conservative or libertarian in their politics - they are, and they are quite vocal. But they are drastically outnumbered.
*The entire Burlington "metro area" is much smaller than most big US cities even considered without their suburbs. The city itself has something like 40,000 people; the metro area has about 200,000. That is still, I think, less than 1/3 of the entire state population.
-
Vermont is a bit different from the rest of the country, but who is moving there? Bostonians. Urbanites.
-
Vermont is a bit different from the rest of the country, but who is moving there? Bostonians. Urbanites.
Exactly, and that has been the case for decades - since the 1970s at least.
-
So all the news outlets were busy putting out this picture yesterday as representative of the situation. The situation according to the narrative, that is.
Like the letter bomber, and Kavanaugh, and boxes of ballots, however, a few discrepancies cast suspicion on the narrative.
Tear gas is clear, is it not? Smoke makes better optics, though. No one seems to be clutching their eyes or face.
-
So all the news outlets were busy putting out this picture yesterday as representative of the situation. The situation according to the narrative, that is.
Like the letter bomber, and Kavanaugh, and boxes of ballots, however, a few discrepancies cast suspicion on the narrative.
Tear gas is clear, is it not? Smoke makes better optics, though. No one seems to be clutching their eyes or face.
Wow! Thanks Becky!
-
So all the news outlets were busy putting out this picture yesterday as representative of the situation. The situation according to the narrative, that is.
Like the letter bomber, and Kavanaugh, and boxes of ballots, however, a few discrepancies cast suspicion on the narrative.
Tear gas is clear, is it not? Smoke makes better optics, though. No one seems to be clutching their eyes or face.
The MSM narrative is as usual completely biased.
"Tear gas" can be many different compounds. The stuff that the border patrol uses is a very, very, very dilute form of CS gas, which is a Chlorine activate in a oil solution. Most types of "tear-gas" are vaporous and have a consistency of steam/smoke. Easily visible on purpose. If you see the vapor, everyone runs immediately. Very effective, completely non-lethal. One of the greatest inventions of modern warfare.
As a young man of 17, I was put into a small dark room with sealed doors with about 20 others. There were two canisters(about the size of a soup can) of CS gas of moderate strength deployed. Each person had to state their name, rank, hometown and service number. Then they were allowed to leave the room. A few people puked, everyone coughed, choked, spit, cried, and produced voluminous mucous from various orifices. It was - unpleasant. No one died, no one had issues running 3 miles back to barracks. Another day in the Corps.
-
Obama admin used CS gas or pepper spray > 500 times from 2012-16.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/27/border-patrol-obama-tear-gas-pepper-spray-use/
Selective outrage anyone?
-
Obama admin used CS gas or pepper spray > 500 times from 2012-16.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/27/border-patrol-obama-tear-gas-pepper-spray-use/
Selective outrage anyone?
Obama was the messiah to most libs. It's not selective outrage if you believe he can do no wrong.
-
Here’s the unvarnished truth. I’d sure like to send this to a certain family member ... :( ... but no.
Have been instructed by them not to talk politics.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2230592780286679&id=179587888720522&_ft_=mf_story_key.2230592780286679%3Atop_level_post_id.2230592780286679%3Atl_objid.2230592780286679%3Acontent_owner_id_new.179587888720522%3Athrowback_story_fbid.2230592780286679%3Apage_id.179587888720522%3Astory_location.4%3Apage_insights.%7B%22179587888720522%22%3A%7B%22role%22%3A1%2C%22page_id%22%3A179587888720522%2C%22post_context%22%3A%7B%22story_fbid%22%3A2230592780286679%2C%22publish_time%22%3A1543283626%2C%22story_name%22%3A%22EntStatusCreationStory%22%2C%22object_fbtype%22%3A266%7D%2C%22actor_id%22%3A179587888720522%2C%22psn%22%3A%22EntStatusCreationStory%22%2C%22sl%22%3A4%2C%22dm%22%3A%7B%22isShare%22%3A0%2C%22originalPostOwnerID%22%3A0%7D%2C%22targets%22%3A%5B%7B%22page_id%22%3A179587888720522%2C%22actor_id%22%3A179587888720522%2C%22role%22%3A1%2C%22post_id%22%3A2230592780286679%2C%22share_id%22%3A0%7D%5D%7D%2C%2213204463437%22%3A%7B%22page_id%22%3A13204463437%2C%22role%22%3A16%2C%22actor_id%22%3A179587888720522%2C%22psn%22%3A%22EntStatusCreationStory%22%2C%22sl%22%3A4%2C%22dm%22%3A%7B%22isShare%22%3A0%2C%22originalPostOwnerID%22%3A0%7D%7D%2C%221220332944702810%22%3A%7B%22page_id%22%3A1220332944702810%2C%22role%22%3A16%2C%22actor_id%22%3A179587888720522%2C%22psn%22%3A%22EntStatusCreationStory%22%2C%22sl%22%3A4%2C%22dm%22%3A%7B%22isShare%22%3A0%2C%22originalPostOwnerID%22%3A0%7D%7D%2C%22484505185343767%22%3A%7B%22page_id%22%3A484505185343767%2C%22role%22%3A16%2C%22actor_id%22%3A179587888720522%2C%22psn%22%3A%22EntStatusCreationStory%22%2C%22sl%22%3A4%2C%22dm%22%3A%7B%22isShare%22%3A0%2C%22originalPostOwnerID%22%3A0%7D%7D%2C%2215877306073%22%3A%7B%22page_id%22%3A15877306073%2C%22role%22%3A16%2C%22actor_id%22%3A179587888720522%2C%22psn%22%3A%22EntStatusCreationStory%22%2C%22sl%22%3A4%2C%22dm%22%3A%7B%22isShare%22%3A0%2C%22originalPostOwnerID%22%3A0%7D%7D%7D&__tn__=%2C%3B
-
Cool. French police and firefighters are refusing Macron’s orders to stand against French citizens protesting costs of immigration.
https://gab.ai/BonaPolly/posts/42562170