Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 7 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

    Two points:

    1. The religion of Mexico is Mexico, and the central tenet of that religion is that the gringo is clever, fierce, and always looking to rip away more territory. (We are clever and fierce, I think the extra territory thing passed.) They would rather have a disease than have us help cure it. They don't like cartels, but if you want to make every cartel into Robin Hood and the Merry Men, let the US help hunt them down.

    2. The brute force attacks on cartel locations are Standard Operating Procedure for the Mexican military. If you can read between the lines, you can see that many of their "battles" are them jumping a cartel ranch, shoot the lookouts, the rest try to surrender, and in proper Third World form, La Marina kill the rest and pose them with weapons. There are almost never any wounded survivors.

    2B. Places where they grow the pot for the cartels are loyal to them. The Mexican government can start local revolutions easier than they can bring these places back into the fold. Because who owes anything to some Mexico City politician who is just stealing? The cartel bosses pay good money, and at Christmas time they bring in trucks full of toys.

     

    Whatever they do, Mexico has to be seen as solving things themselves. Too much wounded pride for it to be otherwise.

    I dont disagree.  It has to be to the point that the mexican citizens really want change and the elected folks realize they cant do it themselves.  Might never get to that point.

    But, I also think there are some prudent folks in mexico that really care about the future of their country.  I do not think they would be afraid to swallow their pride if they thought help from the US could seriously help the problem.  It could be spun a lot of different ways.  Maybe a joint military operation with a mexican figure head at the top.  The mexicans can spin it that it is the us and their appetite for drugs that is causing the violence and, therefore, it is only right that the americans help pay for and die for the solution.  

    This approach would clearly be a last option.  Legalizing would hurt the cartels the most.

  2. I realize that this is just fun speculation, but you guys need to differentiate between who you want as potus and who has an actual chance of beating trump.  If the economy is still humming then he is going to be very hard to beat, especially by the same old tired people that have been around forever.  If the economy is humming, the only way a dem beats trump is if that dem is has good economic credentials and will essentially espouse many of the same economic policies as trump.  Then they can make moves away from trump's  idiocy on other things.

    But if the dems run a fairly liberal candidate and their approach to the economy is tax the rich, higher min wage, bad ceos and tax companies then they are going to get bludgeoned.  

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  3. I have thought about the solution to the mexican drug problem a bunch.  Like all things, there are no easy answers.  But I think there are only 2 choices.

    1) The easiest and least violent way is to legalize most drugs that come in from mexico.  Weed, cocaine, meth, heroin etc.  I realize that this is highly unlikely to happen, but we have made progress on weed.  I have no idea what it would look like but I envision stores similar to liquor stores that sell narcotics.  Let US companies manufacture the narcotics and let the FFA regulate the quality and then let them sell to retailers that are also well regulated.  Heck, I would even let mexico supply much of the drugs if they can compete.  have them sell to licensed dealers here in the us.  Likely a pipe dream but it would eliminate a ton of the profits for the cartels. 

    2) Negotiate with mexico (tell them basically) that the us military is coming in.  The drug trade is just too lucrative and the state and local police are in a horrible spot.  Take money from the cartels or get killed and have your family killed.  That scenario is never, ever, going to eliminate the problem.  The cartels make so much money that they have arsenals of weapons, more than the local police.  So, imo, an outside group has to intervene.  It would be unbelievably brutal in the short term.  The policy would have to be scorched earth.  Assaults on cartel locations.  Total burning of fields and plants and equipment.  An eradication of the trade.  Then, help mexico to police the areas so that it never grows so big and out of hand again.  In a large scale operation, you essentially eliminate all of the known bad guys and wipe out all of their supply.  Make it very, very difficult for someone to come in and start from scratch.

    Obviously, solution 1 is the best avenue.  Maybe some combination of both.  But I can not blame the local police in many of these mexican communities for not stopping the problem.

  4. I would vote for Bloomberg over anyone that has run in the last 20 years except for maybe Romney.  He may just be too old.

    It is going to be hard for the people mentioned to beat trump just from an oversized personality standpoint.  Bloomberg is certainly smarter and much more polished (not exactly a high bar) than Trump.  He is also not an ideologue.  I hope he runs.

  5. 2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    LOL.  So you're not only a racist xenophobic bitch you're also a liar?  Please, try harder.  It's pretty well know that the 50K-75K number is the daily estimate of people legally crossing from Mexico to the United States.

    Hoisted on your own retard.

    You are truly a weird little man.  You are also so full of shit it is amazing.  I have little hope that anyone will call you out for calling me a liar and then using total bullshit lies to justify it.  This just seems par for the course for this place and people like you.

    The daily estimate of people crossing legally everyday is about 1,000,000.  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/19/opinion-million-people-cross-border-legally-every-day-and-that-good-thing.html

    Seems a little higher than 50,000.  But I will link several articles from left news agencies that all agree that the monthly number arrested/apprehended is 50,000.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/crossing-attempts-at-us-southwest-border-triple-in-march-from-year-ago.html

    http://time.com/5303831/trump-illegal-immigration-border-arrests-may/

    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/06/617750865/may-marks-another-increase-in-border-arrests-despite-trump-crackdown

    I wonder if anyone will call you out.

     

    • Fuck You 1
  6. 55 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Same reasons as always, I suppose. To obtain power and wealth.  

    Maybe.  It still doesn't make much sense to me.  If the generals were ready to pounce pre-summit and then Un gets some perceived respect from the US then what does that buy him?  6 months?  A year?  I think it is much, much more likely that Un has risked way more on the summit than the us.  If he doesn't deliver change now, then the people will be much more inclined to revolt.  Un played his trump card (no pun).  I think a coup of the generals is much more likely as a result of them not wanting to get executed by unruly mobs than trying to take out Un to get power.  

  7. 1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

    You fucking pig.  You're referring to the number of people who cross from Mexico into the United States LEGALLY on a daily basis, via 16 bridges.  Need another dog whistle, bitch?  You've blown that one clean up.

     

    1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

    Its hilarious that he uses that as his justification. Just shows that he’s a troll though. The trumpkins have no earthly idea how many people cross legally every day, including actual white Americans. They don’t give a shit whether its legal or not. Only a troll would actually know that number. 

    Jesus.  You guys are high strung.  I made a mistake when typing.  Meant to say month not day.  I based it on this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/border-arrests-exceed-50000-for-third-month-in-a-row/2018/06/06/db6f15a6-680b-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.9893499e8685

    My point still stands.  If 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people were crossing the Canadian border every MONTH then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada.  

     

    • Fuck You 1
  8. 36 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    People eating bark don't stage coups.  Well-fed generals stage coups.  They are absolutely paying attention to whether Kim is strong or weak and his standing in the world. 

    I am curious, what do you think would be the reason that the well-fed generals would stage a coup?

  9. 10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    How’s that wall between us and Canada coming along? Isn’t that how Al Queda that blew up the twin towers got in here in the first place? 

    If there were 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people crossing the Canadian border everyday then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada.  

    Personally, I am against the wall but I can certainly realize that it is a complex situation with no easy fixes.

    • Fuck You 3
  10. 25 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Sure, Kim is always at risk of a coup.  Much of what he does is aimed at preventing one.    The propaganda he got from the meeting likely solidified his hold on the country.  It's one thing for him to claim that he's staring down the big bad United States.  It's another to actually get photos and video to prove it. 

    Obviously it is way too early to know much of anything, but I do take some issue with the above.  The people of NK that are eating bark and pulling tape worms out of their stomachs could care less if Un stared down the US.  The economy of NK is just as bad today as it was before the Summit.  If conditions do not change on the ground in NK then the exact same situation will exist for a coup.  

    Saying the US lost leverage or gave Un some modicum of acceptance is fun to talk about and bash trump about but it has exactly zero practical affect.

  11. violating the 5 year rule but films like old school and wedding crashers were funny from start to finish and carried the theme well.  I think it is just hard to make/write good comedies for a full 2 hours.  Comedy is also very subjective.  I loathe slapstick type comedy where the jokes are so obvious and so predictable.  Finding clever and original comedy is hard.

    Also, I went to a larry the cable guy stand up show and thought it was really funny.  I wouldnt go to one of his movies for free.

  12. 40 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    No sir, I’m pretty sure he posted that your point that there is no collusion, is absolute shit, because despite your word salad outcry, the investigation is not done.   I know you wish it was.   

     You seem to have plenty of time on your hands. Maybe you can find the post where I said I know for a fact that there was no collusion. Of course, I have never said that. All I have done is offer my opinion.  

     But, apparently, my opinion is full of shit because we don’t know all of the evidence yet but all of the other opinions are  perfectly valid because… 

  13. 3 minutes ago, scottsins said:

     


    Also, “I have an opinion about collusion, even though myself and the rest of the world has not seen the evidence relevant to the issue.”

     

    Wow. Did you just claim that my opinion on collusion is invalid because we have not seen all of the evidence relevant to the issue, on a board where literally 1000s of opinions have been given on collusion by other people that also have not seen all of the evidence.  I must have missed the posts where you pointed that out to them.

  14. On 6/22/2018 at 4:56 PM, jimmyjazz said:

    And you've provided no cogent argument to support that assertion, whereas there is substantial evidence (circumstantial or not) that indicates it possibly happened.  If you don't agree, you're a Trumpkin.  Plain and simple.  You can't look at the evidence offered, with no final judgement on that evidence and say "see!  no collusion!" and be considered anything but a shill.  There is a key difference between you and those you are arguing with -- the latter are saying "man, this smells bad.  Let's see what Mueller turns up."  You, on the other hand, are furious that nobody gives a fuck about your premature conclusion.

    LULZ.  What gibberish.  I have no idea if trump colluded or not.  From what I have scene, my opinion is that he did not.  Virtually every act of collusion talked about in the media does not stand up to close inspection.  It is all based on anonymous sources and innuendo.  

    Just be honest.  What you guys dont like is when you go off on a new tangent (and there have been tons of them and they continue to come) about collusion and how this is the one that will bring trump down and then someone like me actually takes a little closer look at the allegations and applies a little logic and common sense and determines that the allegations are flimsy you guys freak out.

     I just give my opinion.  My opinion could very well be wrong.  I doubt it, but it could.

    Example, just recently one of the usual suspects said that there has been foreign intel for years now that shows collusion.  When I read this i think it "smells bad".  Then I apply just a tiny bit of logic and critical thinking.  I note that the DNI (coats) has every single piece of intelligence that exists in the US at his disposal.   I note that he has testified to the house and senate investigations into russsia/collusion.  I note that these intel committees have interviewed dozens of intelligence officials including virtually all of the higher ranking ones.  I note that, by law, these intelligence folks must reveal what intelligence they have.  I then read quotes by 7 or 8 different members of the intel committees who have seen all of this information and none of them say hey have seen any collusion yet.  So based on that, my opinion is that there is not any foreign intel that shows collusion.  The evidence that the intel exists is based on anonymous sources through media, twitter and blogs.  I feel pretty confident betting on the testimony of the Director of National Intelligence over anonymous sources and twitterers.  

    So, as I always do, I outline my position and offer my reasons for why I believe it.  And the best rebuttal to my opinion is not a well thought out counter argument or even an attempt at a counter argument.  It is met with "Go fuck your face with smokey's dick you dissembling, disingenuous bag of cat shit.".  That is reality in this place today.

  15. On 6/22/2018 at 4:45 PM, NameAlreadyInUse said:

    Here's the thing @sheeeit, I don't believe you.  You can keep saying it til your blue in the face, but at some point, you have to quit supporting Trump if you want anyone more worldly than a typical 3rd grader to believe that first paragraph. As to the other paragraphs, I didn't read them.  I'm going back to my policy of not reading troll posts or replying to troll posters now.  I'll try you again in a couple months to see if anything has changed.  Til then, be best!

    Just for fun, how about you post something from me that supports some action of trump.  FYI, me arguing that trump did not collude with russia is not support of trump as potus.  It is my opinion that there was not collusion.  You be best too!

  16. College days in Cali.  Long ago.  I had no experience in sports betting.  Roommate has a bookie (bookie is a loose term as it was just another college guy that took bets for someone else) and convinces me to bet with him.  Usual story, we start at like $50 a game and start losing early saturday and try to double up.  By monday we are down about $5K (which included a $1K bet my roomate did not tell me about) and I had about $150 to my name.  We want to double it on monday night but bookie says we have to pay first.  My roommate goes to his apartment and gives him his car keys as collateral .  My college was in northern cali and roommate was huge 49er fan.  We went to the game, Niners vs Redskins.  This was montana, rice days.  Niners won easily.  We were drunk.  I did not bet on a sporting event again for nearly 15 years.

    • Like 1
  17. I also love how statistics work sometimes.  There are a myriad of studies on child poverty that rank the USA either even with or worse off than Mexico.  Yet, there are literally hundreds of thousands of mexicans willing to risk their lives and their kids lives to get into the USA and there are virtually zero americans risking anything to get into mexico.

  18. 20 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    I will admit economics is not my specialty.  However, I don’t think people in the United States have any idea how hard our population works compared to other free societies like France or Spain.

    Our lifestyles are completely different.  Those are the shackles I’m referring to.  We are so economically powerful because our population works themselves to death.  Why?  What are we working so hard for? What do we hope to achieve? 

     

    15 hours ago, David Dennison said:

    Fuck yes we should be more like them. 

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/40-of-spanish-children-live-in-poverty/

    But they apparently do get great vacation days.

  19. 1 hour ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

    When I run across people like Avenatti, I appreciate the facts they bring to the table.  However, I do not defend their bullshit.  I wouldn't support or vote for them for any office.  I also stay away from them financially.  What happens when you run across people like this, @sheeeit?  Do you make sure to go on message boards and say bad things about them?  Because that's an awful lot what it looks like when you come on here trying to discredit every single person who has ever had a bad thing to say about Trump.  And let's not forget, those bullet points of yours do a pretty fantastic job of describing Trump as well.  Since that's the case, what is it about your first bullet that applies to Avenatti but that makes it ok for you to overlook it when you are on here defending Trump?  Why do you call out bankruptcies as a disqualifying factor for being a commentator on current events, but are ok with bankruptcies for the guy who *is* the current event? I'm just asking questions, here, I hope you'll take the time to answer them @sheeeit

    So you know, you've laid out an effective case against Avenatti.  I will continue not to believe anything he says without evidence.  I will not vote for him for public office.  I will not provide any kind of financial support for him. I will agree he's a scumbag, and I'll laugh at him when he ultimately does something stupid and makes the walls around him collapse.  Are you prepared to do the same thing, @sheeeit, and jump off the bandwagon of the other guy who fits your description, whose cock stays in your mouth pretty much round the clock?  I'm just asking questions.

    Clearly you guys missed the point completely.  I can only say that I think Trump is an awful person so many times.  I think he is awful, narcissistic, has no morals, cheated on his wives, etc.  I think he is a bad human being.  I have said, hundreds of times, that if Mueller finds any collusion, or obstruction or financial fraud that I would support impeachment proceedings immediately.  I have said that if Trump fires mueller i would support immediate impeachment proceedings.  I have said this stuff numerous times.  The only thing I have ever done that is interpreted as supporting trump is that I do not think he colluded with the russians.  Thats it.  

    My post above is merely pointing out exactly what you guys are saying.  So many of the very things that cause you to hate trump are identical to Avenatti.  Yet Avenatti gets white knighted and trump is the worst person in the history of the world.  One guy above stated "i Like him".  Why?  There is absolutely nothing likable about him at all.  The hypocrisy is glorious.  He has been on CNN hundreds of times.  Been on many of the late night talk shows.  Why?  He shits on trump so everyone gives him a platform even though he is a total piece of shit individual.  It has been somewhat shocking to me that this guy has become such a media darling when he, if we truly believe them, represents everything the media says they deplore.  

    I will bet I can find at least 15 people on this site who have posted praise for Avenatti.  Praise.  Again, for what?  For defrauding his former partners?  For, allegedly, abusing his ex wives?  For not paying his taxes?  For withholding money from employees and not sending it to the IRS?  For admittedly lying to the court to try and squeeze money out of his clients after he had already been paid in full?  You don't think it is a little funny?

    • Fuck You 1
  20. 1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

    "My issue is that the House (completed) and Senate did their own investigations of the collusion angle.  The members of those intel committees are privy to ALL of the intelligence that is available from the intel community.  That means that Adam Schiff has seen all of the intel compiled from our intel agencies to date. "

    false.

    Nunes and Gowdy believe they are privy to it, but they haven't seen all of it by any stretch.  That's what this deal is all about re considering holding the DAG Rosenstein in contempt - they're not getting to see all of what the OSC has, and they shouldn't as it relates to an ongoing investigation.  Rosenstein has been very clear about this.  What Nunes is attempting is unprecedented and is occurring for corrupt purposes.  What they seek is the smoking gun evidence OSC has possessed from its inception.

    JFC.  You have no clue what you are talking about.  The intel community must, by law, give the various intel committees any evidence they have.  Nunes and others are questioning the SOURCE of certain intel and wanting access to the investigative files that show means and procedures for the investigation and the DOJ does not want to provide that info.  I can see both sides of that argument.  But, there is zero argument that when the heads of the various intel agencies and agents who work in those agencies are made to testify to members of the intel committees in hearings that they can not withhold ANY intelligence they have found.  They can claim they do not want to name where the evidence came from or how they got it, butt hey have to disclose the evidence.

    Just go back yourself and read the questioning the house and senate investigators asked the members of the intel community under oath.  You seem to actually think they could be asked direct questions about collusion evidence and just lie.  

     

  21. 2 hours ago, Tuco said:

    I wasn't aware that anyone was arguing that there is "direct, smoking gun type evidence of collusion."  You'll need to point that out. 

     

    You serious?  You can start with the post I was responding too and search for any one of hundreds of posts on here that claim there is foreign intel that will bring everyone down.

    But you asserted yourself into this argument by mis-representing my point, which I have now made clear.  So how about you answer.  Do you believe that there is intel, foreign or otherwise, that the intel community has not shared with the various political committees that are investigating collusion?  That there is supposedly explosive intel that proves collusion on the part of trumpco?  Either it doesn't exist, or it does exist and either Gowdy read it and ignored it (which is impossible) or the intel community has broken the law by not sharing it.

  22. 33 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    Wait, your big issue with this is that you think it's impossible to imagine that British intelligence would provide information to US intelligence, and that House/Senate committees wouldn't make it public knowledge?  That's absurd and utterly clownish. 

    And going back to the Nunes memo, and the FISA application it selectively pulled from, the idea that British intel were providing US intel with information fits in seamlessly.  The FISA warrant indicates that they didn't think Steele provided information on an article which quoted "Western intel" sources.  They were wrong, but the fact that they thought it could be anyone else than Steele would imply they believed there were other "Western intel" sources which might have provided it. 

    No.  My issue is that the House (completed) and Senate did their own investigations of the collusion angle.  The members of those intel committees are privy to ALL of the intelligence that is available from the intel community.  That means that Adam Schiff has seen all of the intel compiled from our intel agencies to date.  And yes this would include any intel from the British.  All of it.  So have Nunes (even though retard pods thinks he doesn't have a security clearance) and Gowdy.  They have closed their investigation and have found that there was, essentially, no collusion.  Now I fully realize that these side investigations are pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things.  But the people that conduct them have seen all of the intelligence related to the issue.

    But people on here are arguing that there is direct, smoking gun type evidence of collusion provided by foreign govts from as early as 2016.  The only thing that is "absurd and utterly clownish" is that people believe this.  You think it is possible that a guy like Trey Gowdy has been shown foreign intel that shows irrefutable collusion between trump co and the russians and that he just disregarded it and co-authored the House memo with Nunes?  That is absurd and utterly clownish.

×
×
  • Create New...