Mexican drug cartels threaten arizona policemen with snipers

[quote name='Clak']Don't take this as me saying it's fine that the area is so dangerous, but most large cities have areas where it's unsafe to go, especially after dark. Now, I don't see anyone on the national news complaining that areas of *insert city here* are dangerous. Yet I don't see a lot of difference between that and this, get shot by some drug smuggler or get shot by a gang member, not a lot of difference there.[/QUOTE]

The problem with your analogy is that the border is the federal governments concern, not the states. The federal government has the power and duty to secure our borders. When the border states are pleading for the governments help and it is ignoring them, you would think there is a problem.
 
[quote name='speedracer']There is profit to be made by satisfying the market desire for illegal labor and narcotics. Said market providers defend their supply chains with force. If you want stop the problem, you eliminate the black market by legalizing and/or facilitating supply in order to squeeze out illegal profit motive.

Why do our lazy faire market friends suddenly turn drooling big government nutters when we talk about this subject?

When grown ups are allowed to actually address the issue, there are easy answers. Until then, we have to put up with the pretending that if a magic unicorn shits out a fence and 18 year olds with guns (because naturally this won't cost tens of billions amirite?), everything will be fine.

I live in a sanctuary city in a border state. Where do you live?[/QUOTE]

So release the floodgates of drugs into our country to get rid of the bad guys? Consumption of said drugs will most certainly RISE once they are legal but I guess you may be going with the lesser evil although Im not really sure. Securing the border is a much less reasonable solution though, you are right.....:roll:

Houston eh? I live in Buffalo, NY, another border but the opposite one. Actually very close to where the Lackawana six crossed over, but shhhh dont tell anyone, terrorists are just supposed to be an urban legend...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"Pass the buck" for defending the border to the Fed? Really? Isn't defending the border pretty much one of the main things our Federal Government is supposed to be doing?



That "lazy faire" thing is almost as awesome as "Faux News". Not quite as cool as "M$". Steps above "Barack Hussein Osama" though.[/QUOTE]
Not saying they aren't entirely, but you can either complain about it. or do something about it yourself by sending the national guard to defend that state's section of the border. They would at least be defending the state they belong to like they were designed to do, rather then being sent off to act as the backup to the army reserves.
 
[quote name='Clak']Not saying they aren't entirely, but you can either complain about it. or do something about it yourself by sending the national guard to defend that state's section of the border. They would at least be defending the state they belong to like they were designed to do, rather then being sent off to act as the backup to the army reserves.[/QUOTE]

As you said the states budgets are tapped as it is, they have been pleading with the federal government to help them with the border for some time.
 
Actually the lack of any talk about securing our northern border is what i find the most ridiculous about all of this. You'd think we only had one border. I guess it would take the tanking of the Canadian government and flocks of illegal Canadians taking our jerbs to get anyone's attention.
 
[quote name='Knoell']As you said the states budgets are tapped as it is, they have been pleading with the federal government to help them with the border for some time.[/QUOTE]
But I thought conservatives wanted the fed to stop spending money, building this wall or fence or whatever the hell would take money with no guaranteed results.
 
[quote name='Clak']But I thought conservatives wanted the fed to stop spending money, building this wall or fence or whatever the hell would take money with no guaranteed results.[/QUOTE]

we want the fed to perform the duties it was designed to do, why is this so hard to understand?

[quote name='Clak']Actually the lack of any talk about securing our northern border is what i find the most ridiculous about all of this. You'd think we only had one border. I guess it would take the tanking of the Canadian government and flocks of illegal Canadians taking our jerbs to get anyone's attention.[/QUOTE]

securing both borders would be ideal, but you would be naive to start claiming the canadian border has as many problems as the mexican one.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So release the floodgates of drugs into our country to get rid of the bad guys? Consumption of said drugs will most certainly RISE once they are legal but I guess you may be going with the lesser evil although Im not really sure.[/quote]
No, you're right. A person would have to be insane to think that allowing drugs in our country would be a net positive. That's why we should read facts instead of just believing whatever shit we choose to make up.
Securing the border is a much less reasonable solution though, you are right.....:roll:
Click to expand...
No, you're right. A bigger fence will stop market forces. Just ask Gorbachev how that worked out for him.
[quote name='Clak']But I thought conservatives wanted the fed to stop spending money, building this wall or fence or whatever the hell would take money with no guaranteed results.[/QUOTE]
It's a fool's game. Only the ultra deluded are crazy enough to actually believe dropping 15% of GDP on a fence that's not guaranteed to work is a good idea. They have no other idea other than stationing troops, which along a 1,969 mile border is just as insane as the fence. And they know it. So they keep moving the goal posts. YOU aren't taking it seriously enough. They have zero answers though. Major conservative political donors want illegals (gee, still can't figure out why Repubs never got a bill even voted on the floor. Quite the head scratcher, huh?) labor and love what the narcotic menace does to incarceration and "war on drugs" budgets (you think those are liberals running for-profit jails and stocking police forces?).

Libs don't give a hot shit Knoell. We don't care about drugs and we don't care about labor going to market. We don't want you spending our entire nation's health care costs in a year to build a fence that won't work. We want you to butt out of people's lives and what they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']No, you're right. A person would have to be insane to think that allowing drugs in our country would be a net positive. That's why we should read facts instead of just believing whatever shit we choose to make up.

No, you're right. A bigger fence will stop market forces. Just ask Gorbachev how that worked out for him.

It's a fool's game. Only the ultra deluded are crazy enough to actually believe dropping 15% of GDP on a fence that's not guaranteed to work is a good idea. They have no other idea other than stationing troops, which along a 1,969 mile border is just as insane as the fence. And they know it. So they keep moving the goal posts. YOU aren't taking it seriously enough. They have zero answers though. Major conservative political donors want illegals (gee, still can't figure out why Repubs never got a bill even voted on the floor. Quite the head scratcher, huh?) labor and love what the narcotic menace does to incarceration and "war on drugs" budgets (you think those are liberals running for-profit jails and stocking police forces?).

Libs don't give a hot shit Knoell. We don't care about drugs and we don't care about labor going to market. We don't want you spending our entire nation's health care costs in a year to build a fence that won't work. We want you to butt out of people's lives and what they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes.[/QUOTE]


On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal
took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including
cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal
framework, all drugs were “decriminalized,” not
“legalized.” Thus, drug possession for personal
use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited,
but violations of those prohibitions are
deemed to be exclusively administrative violations
and are removed completely from the criminal
realm. Drug trafficking continues to be​
prosecuted as a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

That was from the first paragraph of the executive summary in the link from your quote. It is an interested read but I dont see how it fits in here.
How would decriminalizing the stuff stop the drugs from being smuggled in again?​

We can secure the border, it is simply nonsense to think it is impossible lol just nonsense.​

I would love to see where you are getting these cost estimates from? Also we can make cuts to a plethora of nonsense progams and subsidies such as the previously mentioned golf cart to pay for our security. ​




 
[quote name='speedracer']It's a fool's game. Only the ultra deluded are crazy enough to actually believe dropping 15% of GDP on a fence that's not guaranteed to work is a good idea.[/QUOTE]

So, what percentage of our GDP should we drop on fixing our health care with plans that are not guaranteed to work?

[quote name='Clak']Actually the lack of any talk about securing our northern border is what i find the most ridiculous about all of this. You'd think we only had one border. I guess it would take the tanking of the Canadian government and flocks of illegal Canadians taking our jerbs to get anyone's attention.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I hadn't seen any topics around here lately of Canadian drug smugglers threatening to shoot our cops.
 
How would decriminalizing the stuff stop the drugs from being smuggled in again?
Click to expand...
Market forces. When less of something is being used, less of it is being brought in.

Secondarily, when the demand is being met locally, less of it needs to be brought in. I mean, you can still smuggle stuff in if you want. But you would be less inclined to and/or foolish.

Alternatively, depending on the terms of the legalization, it could be legally imported. That is to say - trade. So bringing it in legally by definition, is not smuggling.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Market forces. When less of something is being used, less of it is being brought in.

Secondarily, when the demand is being met locally, less of it needs to be brought in. I mean, you can still smuggle stuff in if you want. But you would be less inclined to and/or foolish.

Alternatively, depending on the terms of the legalization, it could be legally imported. That is to say - trade. So bringing it in legally by definition, is not smuggling.[/QUOTE]

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal
took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including
cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal
framework, all drugs were “decriminalized,” not
“legalized.” Thus, drug possession for personal
use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited,
but violations of those prohibitions are
deemed to be exclusively administrative violations
and are removed completely from the criminal
realm. Drug trafficking continues to be
prosecuted as a criminal offense. ​
Click to expand...

He quoted the decriminalization in portugal. Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. Any arguement that less will be used cannot be proven by that case because this is not what you guys are arguing for. Drug trafficking is still illegal in portugal, possession and use are still prohibited, and selling the stuff is still illegal. The only thing different is that instead of getting jail time, you will get a fine like a speeding ticket. You still cannot buy it from a store, and someone will still have to smuggle it in. ​

This also does not offer any proof that less people will use drugs if we legalize them. Controlled drugs are not legal in portugal.​
 
[quote name='speedracer']We want you to butt out of people's lives and what they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes.[/QUOTE]

We want you (and the government) to butt out of our lives as well. If we choose to open up a business (say, in our home) who we choose to associate with in the privacy of our property should not be up to you or the government. Likewise, butt out of my life when it comes to my work. Stop pinching taxes from my paycheck. Stop forcing me to join your pathetic retirement fund. Stop trying to force me to pay for your medical treatments. Butt out of my life - and my wallet.
 
Knoell, we don't want to decriminalize. We want to legalize.

And Bob, there's a big difference between the gov't saying you can bang a chick in the ass and saying you can't force out teh gayz, coloreds, and messicans.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Knoell, we don't want to decriminalize. We want to legalize.

And Bob, there's a big difference between the gov't saying you can bang a chick in the ass and saying you can't force out teh gayz, coloreds, and messicans.[/QUOTE]

So, you only want the government to butt out (heh) when it's something you want. If it's something you don't like, then gung-ho for the government interference!
 
Not at all. There's a big difference between me sitting in my living room smoking a joint and you putting up a sign that says "Negros, Bitches, Gays, and Jews Ain't Welcome To Shop Here"
 
[quote name='depascal22']Not at all. There's a big difference between me sitting in my living room smoking a joint and you putting up a sign that says "Negros, Bitches, Gays, and Jews Ain't Welcome To Shop Here"[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know.

You're personally okay with one and the thought of the other disgusts you.

That's a good thing, though.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']We want you (and the government) to butt out of our lives as well. If we choose to open up a business (say, in our home) who we choose to associate with in the privacy of our property should not be up to you or the government. Likewise, butt out of my life when it comes to my work. Stop pinching taxes from my paycheck. Stop forcing me to join your pathetic retirement fund. Stop trying to force me to pay for your medical treatments. Butt out of my life - and my wallet.[/QUOTE]

You work for Walmart right? If you're working poor I think you do have a right to healthcare, and should be taxed less. Sounds like we agree on at least a few things.

The people you and I need to be going after are the wall street bankers and CEOs who add little value for outrageous compensation, and on top of that pay almost no taxes. But until you and your ilk see that, this country will remain broke and clueless.
 
Nah man. It's all Barack HUSSEIN Osama I mean Obama's fault. The government never took our money away when ole' GW was in office. God bless Ronald Reagan.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Nah man. It's all Barack HUSSEIN Osama I mean Obama's fault. The government never took our money away when ole' GW was in office. God bless Ronald Reagan.[/QUOTE]

Thank whatever gods may exist that I never voted for any one of those three men. Although, to be fair, I wasn't eligible to vote for Regan...
 
[quote name='depascal22']Did you really vote for Gore and Kerry or some crazy third party candidate?[/QUOTE]

Third party, all the way.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Knoell, we don't want to decriminalize. We want to legalize.

And Bob, there's a big difference between the gov't saying you can bang a chick in the ass and saying you can't force out teh gayz, coloreds, and messicans.[/QUOTE]

Again he posted a link to an article that listed the out come of portugal decriminalizing drug offenses. He used it as an example as to why legalizing it would gain the same benefits. I was only correcting him that what happened in portugal is not the same as what you guys are suggesting here, nor would they have similiar effects.
 
[quote name='Knoell']That was from the first paragraph of the executive summary in the link from your quote. It is an interested read but I dont see how it fits in here.
How would decriminalizing the stuff stop the drugs from being smuggled in again?[/quote]
Criminalization of enterprise begets militarization of enterprise. If we truly want to end the black market, that's how it starts. We just don't wanna.

To make a very base plea to reason, libertarians would remember that if Americans chose to not purchase goods and services made by illegals, they wouldn't come here anymore and we wouldn't have to lift a finger. Same with illegal drugs.
We can secure the border, it is simply nonsense to think it is impossible lol just nonsense.
Click to expand...
How?
I would love to see where you are getting these cost estimates from? Also we can make cuts to a plethora of nonsense progams and subsidies such as the previously mentioned golf cart to pay for our security.
Click to expand...
I'm pulling them out of my ass based on my living on the border most of my life and basic knowledge of what a fence + a moat + alligators with lasers + militarization of the border would cost.

Has zero policy ideas: http://www.securetheborder.org/

From DHS:
Staffing
Under SBI, our goal is to have operational control of both the northern and southern borders within five years.

* The President recently signed the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill into law, which included an 11% increase for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, bringing total funding to more than $7 billion – funds that will enable us to increase our physical presence at the border by hiring an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents. With these new hires, Border Patrol will increase by nearly 3,000 agents since 9/11.
* The Homeland Security Appropriations Bill also includes roughly $3.9 billion in total funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) this fiscal year, a 9% increase over last year. Included are significant funding increases for ICE criminal investigators, detention beds, fugitive operations teams, and Immigration Enforcement agents.
* The increased funding will allow ICE to add roughly 250 new criminal investigators to better target the human smuggling organizations and other criminal groups that exploit our nation's borders. It will also allow ICE to add 400 new Immigration Enforcement Agents and 100 new Deportation Officers.
Click to expand...
That was written in 2005, so we know how well they got operational control. Thank god we flushed another $35 billion (7 x 5 years) JUST ON CUSTOMS down the shitter. Moar money for this government agency pronto! Moar regulation is needed!

Or: we can realize that the market will overcome any obstacle because that's what it does if there is profit to be made.

What's the font about? That shit is hard to read, man.
[quote name='UncleBob']We want you (and the government) to butt out of our lives as well. If we choose to open up a business (say, in our home) who we choose to associate with in the privacy of our property should not be up to you or the government. Likewise, butt out of my life when it comes to my work. Stop pinching taxes from my paycheck. Stop forcing me to join your pathetic retirement fund. Stop trying to force me to pay for your medical treatments. Butt out of my life - and my wallet.[/QUOTE]
Grown ups are talking about the border Bob. You could have chosen to talk about why your position is such a glaringly huge counter position to your normal "rawr gubmint bad, market good" and that would have been interesting. But you didn't. You did very well to stay away from that hole and make it about a bunch of other things. Politicians would be proud, Bob.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']Grown ups are talking about the border Bob. You could have chosen to talk about why your position is such a glaringly huge counter position to your normal "rawr gubmint bad, market good" and that would have been interesting. But you didn't. You did very well to stay away from that hole and make it about a bunch of other things. Politicians would be proud, Bob.[/QUOTE]

You were the one who brought up that you wanted Government to "butt out". Perhaps you missed it. I could see how you might have. I mean, it would make sense that you would skip over your own posts and all. I mean, you should already know what's in them, so why bother reading them? Anywhoo, I was just agreeing with you - that government needs to butt out of our lives. Are you saying you disagree with yourself now?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You were the one who brought up that you wanted Government to "butt out". Perhaps you missed it. I could see how you might have. I mean, it would make sense that you would skip over your own posts and all. I mean, you should already know what's in them, so why bother reading them? Anywhoo, I was just agreeing with you - that government needs to butt out of our lives. Are you saying you disagree with yourself now?[/QUOTE]
It was a minor and obvious aside about the actual subject at hand, bob. Remember the actual subject? The one you're not talking about?

edit: I know better than to leave it like that without drawing a picture for you (because who wants another analogy) so in the interest of making it interesting, I'll go ahead.

How do you propose handling the border, bob?
 
[quote name='speedracer']It was a minor and obvious aside about the actual subject at hand, bob. Remember the actual subject? The one you're not talking about?[/quote]

No, it was a "It's convenient for me now to say that I want government to butt out, but when it isn't I'll backtrack and stumble over what I wrote." moment. It's okay though, I understand.

How do you propose handling the border, bob?
Click to expand...
Legalize most all drugs.
Penalize those who aid and abed criminal activity.*
Penalize those who partake in criminal activity.*
Move away from an income-based Federal tax system and move toward a consumption-based system.*
Secure the border with troops recalled from foreign countries and partial structures where needed.
Cut Federal assistance to all non-citizens.

*These three kinda go hand-in-hand. My issue isn't so much with those who are working "off the grid" - it's when they're not paying their share of taxes. If we moved to a consumption-based tax, then it really wouldn't matter to me if someone was working here "illegally" - they'd still be paying taxes into the system.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Criminalization of enterprise begets militarization of enterprise. If we truly want to end the black market, that's how it starts. We just don't wanna.

To make a very base plea to reason, libertarians would remember that if Americans chose to not purchase goods and services made by illegals, they wouldn't come here anymore and we wouldn't have to lift a finger. Same with illegal drugs.

How?

I'm pulling them out of my ass based on my living on the border most of my life and basic knowledge of what a fence + a moat + alligators with lasers + militarization of the border would cost.

Has zero policy ideas: http://www.securetheborder.org/

From DHS:

That was written in 2005, so we know how well they got operational control. Thank god we flushed another $35 billion (7 x 5 years) JUST ON CUSTOMS down the shitter. Moar money for this government agency pronto! Moar regulation is needed!

Or: we can realize that the market will overcome any obstacle because that's what it does if there is profit to be made.

What's the font about? That shit is hard to read, man.

[/QUOTE]

The font was from your cato report sorry.

But the magic here is that yes we could trust the market here, but the problem is the market will grow if we legalize it. Redo some of your own research and look back at the countries in europe that legalized drugs. The market expanded for those drugs. People are not just buying drugs from smugglers because its illegal. Making it legal will not make people not want to do it. If anything if the criminal stigma of drugs is gone, what would stop people from taking them up?

Its all about the lesser evil. Should we get rid of smugglers, and have an increase in the addiction to particular drugs. Or should we keep the smugglers and have a lower addiction rate. Or we could go with a third option that would hurt the smuggling business, make drugs less available in the country, by securing the border with the military.

Our federal governments job is to neutralize outside threats. I would consider smuggling drugs that could harm our population an outside threat. There is no benefit to these drugs for recreational use and legalizing them to gain more tax money is ridiculous.
 
[quote name='speedracer']It was a minor and obvious aside about the actual subject at hand, bob. Remember the actual subject? The one you're not talking about?

edit: I know better than to leave it like that without drawing a picture for you (because who wants another analogy) so in the interest of making it interesting, I'll go ahead.

How do you propose handling the border, bob?[/QUOTE]

Does anyone have any idea of the kind of resources were poured into building and operating the Berlin wall?

And that was Berlin mind you, you know a city.

The costs of anything resembling a super secure border across a country would be immense.

But like another poster was saying cons don't actually care about costs or deficits, they just want to be mollified on their pet peeve of the week.

So we have this massive unemployment problem cons consider verboten to spend money on (it's communism) but building walls like the actual commies?

Yes, please.
 
OK, I'll be constructive (literally). We've got 2,000 miles of border here, how many people do we currently have on it and how many do we need? 5 per mile? 10 per mile? 3 shifts to cover the day, say $50k salary for each person. That's $1.5 billion to $3 billion a year on salaries using those numbers.

So how many outposts do you guys think would be necessary? One for every 10 miles? 20 miles? How many do they have now? I'm guessing here, but say they cost $250,000 each to build (way lowballing probably). You'd need 100-200 of them, so that's $25-50 million. I have absolutely no idea what the maintenance or daily costs in general would be.

Using those numbers from the customs story it seems like that adds up to nothing, so I've got to be missing something here. If it costs ~$700,000 to hire 1,000 people as it did with that (and I guess there was some building going on there), hiring the 30,000 to 60,000 people necessary for what I'm talking about would be $21-42 billion a year.
 
But....illegals take 16 billion a year out of the pockets of a government! A government that is supposedly evil and turned their back on half the people of this nation anyway!

20 billion a year building a wall that won't work is WAY BETTER than letting those shits live in our country and stimulate the economy by buying basic necessities like food and shelter! That's not the American way! We want to spend 10x the amount to get back a small piece of the pie!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']No, it was a "It's convenient for me now to say that I want government to butt out, but when it isn't I'll backtrack and stumble over what I wrote." moment. It's okay though, I understand.[/quote]
Feel free to open a thread and QQ.

Secure the border with troops recalled from foreign countries and partial structures where needed.
Click to expand...
How much would that cost?
[quote name='Knoell']But the magic here is that yes we could trust the market here, but the problem is the market will grow if we legalize it. Redo some of your own research and look back at the countries in europe that legalized drugs. The market expanded for those drugs.[/quote]
And yet their societies have not burned to the ground and the data from Portugal shows that drug use will shift from the god awful stuff to pot. I think that's a win. Plus the whole saving American lives through diminished drug use death, HIV infections, treatment levels, etc.
People are not just buying drugs from smugglers because its illegal. Making it legal will not make people not want to do it. If anything if the criminal stigma of drugs is gone, what would stop people from taking them up?
Click to expand...
Social stigma perhaps? Do you knowingly cavort with drug abusers? I sure as shit don't. The Portuguese report specifically said the #1 reason for declining drug use was social stigma.
Its all about the lesser evil. Should we get rid of smugglers, and have an increase in the addiction to particular drugs. Or should we keep the smugglers and have a lower addiction rate.
Click to expand...
The evil of drug operations is world wide and destructive on levels that far exceed legal usage. Mexico, (by world standards) a rising 2nd world nation, has been reduced to a narco-state with zero law enforcement. Columbia has been that way for decades. Major swathes of South America are the same. Illicit drug money fuels fantastic rates of violence, torture, and murder. Illegal opiate production funds Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and unreal levels of official corruption. 1,100 people have died in one city in one country (Juarez) this year alone because of drug wars and it's not even fucking July. Media has been completely destroyed. Culture has been completely destroyed. Commerce has been completely destroyed.

And there's other fun shit that hides in illegal drug trade. Like the lack of law enforcement has coincided with a massive spike in rape and murder rates against women in drug war areas. Might as well take advantage of the situation, huh?

Let's make sure all that gets weighed in the lesser evils comparison.
Or we could go with a third option that would hurt the smuggling business, make drugs less available in the country, by securing the border with the military.
Click to expand...
First off, how much money are we talking about? Second, do you really believe you're going to stop a hundreds of billions of dollar annual business by putting 100,000 soldiers on the border? You don't think they've already got contingency plans for delivery?
Our federal governments job is to neutralize outside threats. I would consider smuggling drugs that could harm our population an outside threat. There is no benefit to these drugs for recreational use and legalizing them to gain more tax money is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No open democracy can possibly stop a hundred billion dollar commerce activity. Sure, we could seal borders (which would completely hose a bunch of other commerce areas) but if there's even a squeak, there will be a way.

Putting 100,00 fingers in the broken dam isn't going to fix it.

Plus there is the whole thing about liberty and the right of an individual to do whatever the hell they want in the privacy of their own home if it affects exactly zero other people. I think that should weigh as well.
 
[quote name='SpazX']$21-42 billion a year.[/QUOTE]

Let's take the high number - $42 Billion/Year

I made this image for another forum, but I modified it to add in your number (green).

Red is the estimated Military-related spending in 2009 - $1,449 Billion.
Blue is the estimated amount spent annually on services for illegal immigrants - ~$10 Billion.

spending3.png

1.) There's more red directly behind the blue and green.
2.) This doesn't include Military spending like Veterans benefits and such. Add more red if you want to include that.

It seems to me, if we cut down on a heck of a lot of this military spending in the Middle East, Korea and elsewhere and focus it back home, we could do this border security thing pretty easily. There looks to be a whole lot of wiggle room in that red.

[quote name='speedracer']Feel free to open a thread and QQ. [/QUOTE]

You brought it up in this thread. You can either drop it or continue with it. Don't get mad at others because you say something then *gasp* it gets responded to. Even more so when the response agrees with you.
 
Get that done bob and even I'll agree to having the wall built, despite that i think it will do no good. Draw down the military to either very minimal levels in foreign countries or bring them all back, then we can build the wall.
 
[quote name='Clak']Get that done bob and even I'll agree to having the wall built, despite that i think it will do no good. Draw down the military to either very minimal levels in foreign countries or bring them all back, then we can build the wall.[/QUOTE]

Cons and Libertarians don't have a leg to stand on if you don't allow them to use wishful thinking and magic.
 
[quote name='Clak']Get that done bob and even I'll agree to having the wall built, despite that i think it will do no good. Draw down the military to either very minimal levels in foreign countries or bring them all back, then we can build the wall.[/QUOTE]

I've been supporting Federal candidates that support rolling back our military spending for years. Of course, with you people voting in the likes of Bush and Obama, it does no good.
 
Don't we actually have some sort of defense pact with Japan that was made after WW2? Or am I completely imaging that?
 
[quote name='Clak']Don't we actually have some sort of defense pact with Japan that was made after WW2? Or am I completely imaging that?[/QUOTE]

Japan has an extremely limited Armed Forces but the US has a military presence in several parts of Japan and Okinawa as well as in Korea.

You are probably thinking of:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html

Among others, even if it wasn't explicit we would still have their back for almost anything.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You brought it up in this thread. You can either drop it or continue with it. Don't get mad at others because you say something then *gasp* it gets responded to. Even more so when the response agrees with you.[/QUOTE]
There's a nuance there that's just a little too fine for you to grasp.
 
"Stay out of my pockets, fuck you and your health." ~???

Keep using libertarianism as a shield against empathizing with anyone.
 
And don't forget that he wants the right to discriminate against everyone that wants to shop at his fairy time make believe store.
 
[quote name='depascal22']And don't forget that he wants the right to discriminate against everyone that wants to shop at his fairy time make believe store.[/QUOTE]

Quite right.

It's fun how y'all can derail a thread from Mexicans shooting up our cops to those damn racist libertarians.

One of these groups is actively shooting at people. The other just wants the right to associate with people they choose. Let's go after that second group.
 
How do you even know they're Mexicans? Not every mercenary that works for a Mexican cartel is Mexican. You should look up the history of the Swiss Gaurd or the Hessians. Might open your eyes a bit.
 
As much as Haliburton is entwined with our government, I'd almost disagree. Same with the Mexican drug cartels and the Mexican Government.

But I digress - "Team Mexico" doesn't imply to me that these people represent Mexico any more than "Team America" implies to me that McChrystal represents you or I.
 
General McChrystal was the commander of American troops in a foreign theatre. He represented America over there as much as anyone could. What the hell are you talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top