Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're right.  That chart doesn't speak to lives saved/lost.

But this one does:

bi_graphics_overdose-death-rates%20(2).p

The harder we fight the "drug war"....the more we lose.

There is no logical way to conclude that the drug war is worth our time, treasure, and the lives sacrificed in fighting it (I'm not kidding -- it's in the millions).  By any reasonable metric, we either have failed to gain ground, or have actually lost ground.  What we have done has not worked.  At all.  We should stop doing things that are proven failures.  I don't give a fuck how you feel, or what you believe.  I look to real-world results and data.  And they scream "FAILURE" at 10,000 decibels.

I feel like I’m resorting to tautology at this point, so forgive me, but I have no issue with changing strategy. 

Posted
Just now, Chrispy said:

I feel like I’m resorting to tautology at this point, so forgive me, but I have no issue with changing strategy. 

"changing strategy" is so broad as to be meaningless.  What sort of strategy change would you have in mind?  And remember, this all started with your continued support for massive interdiction efforts at our southern border, which is the epitome of the "war on drugs," and is a proven failure.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If by "change tactics" you mean "treat it as a health problem, not a criminal problem," then you'd finally be on to something.

If by "change tactics" you mean "go after drug dealers even HARDER!", then you're wasting everyone's damned time.  We've been attacking drugs on the supply side for decades.  It has completely failed.  Just stop.

That’s fine, but the genesis of the debate started from focusing on the southern border. It will not matter one iota if you treat it like a health concern, if your border is merely a sieve. Keeping track of what enters this country is a basic function, one that shouldn’t be terribly difficult. 

Posted
25 minutes ago, ndawg said:

It pains me to say this, but if it feels like I'm insisting on going backwards to you, it's because you aren't comprehending me. If we spent $1 trillion on the war on drugs, and saved just, say, 10 lives from fentanyl overdoses, was our drug policy effective or wasteful?

But I get why you feel this way. It sounds like drugs have affected you or people close to you, as they've affected too many of us. It really is shitty, and I'll say that we have that in common. However, you are choosing to allow your personal emotions to override analysis that would demonstrate that your position, well-intentioned as it may be, is utterly impractical in the real world. This really isn't a whole lot different that commies concluding that we can just end poverty by letting the state control wealth.

So, you've shown us you've got a bleeding heart, just like us libs, so now own it!

Forgive me, I have about ten responses I’m trying to respond to and it gets a bit exhausting. Sounds like we have a common experience, so I will take what you said and chew on it for a bit. Well, except the Lib part. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

That’s fine, but the genesis of the debate started from focusing on the southern border. It will not matter one iota if you treat it like a health concern, if your border is merely a sieve. Keeping track of what enters this country is a basic function, one that shouldn’t be terribly difficult. 

"Shouldn't be terribly difficult."

Yet we have decades of failed efforts as evidence to the contrary.

Treating substance abuse as a criminal matter has never been a successful path.  Treating it as a health concern, alternatively, HAS had some measure of success when it's been tried.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"changing strategy" is so broad as to be meaningless.  What sort of strategy change would you have in mind?  And remember, this all started with your continued support for massive interdiction efforts at our southern border, which is the epitome of the "war on drugs," and is a proven failure.

Well, it’s time to get my rear out of the office and get home. What a productive day it proved to be. My entire point was to beef up the border so we could get an idea of what and who was entering our country, I think that should be the first step to be sure. 

Posted
45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Shouldn't be terribly difficult."

Yet we have decades of failed efforts as evidence to the contrary.

Treating substance abuse as a criminal matter has never been a successful path.  Treating it as a health concern, alternatively, HAS had some measure of success when it's been tried.

It’s become a revenue matter as well. Too many law enforcement organizations and private companies are pulling in too much money from it. They don’t want that gravy train to stop. 

Posted
13 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

OR....you could reach the conclusion that makes sense: no human-created system, of ANYTHING, has a 0% error rate.  That doesn't mean "it doesn't work, so let's get rid of the thing it allows altogether."

Folks have bribed examiners, or cheated on tests, etc., to get a driver's license.  But we don't say "well, the driver's license process doesn't work -- let's shut down letting people drive."

Although, you raise an interesting point -- do you apply that reasoning across the board?  If we have a system for X, and that system has failed in at least one instance, should we stop doing X?  Do you feel that way about capital punishment?  About the FAA-mandated inspection and maintenance processes for aircraft?  About the FDA process for approving drugs?  I'd be quite interested to know about your logical consistency.

Not blowing you off, but slammed on a project and want to respond to you and atom when I have time. All I am going to say is I think we need to have a system, which does result in citizenship, for migrants from all places. The current checks we have in place do not, and have not worked. My mom was a Consulate Officer in the Dominican Republic in the early 1980's. She saw the same level of corruption then as we see now on all sides. 

I am on record saying for Central America we should think about an economic revitalization plan that would strengthen the region and at the same time keep the Chinese a bit at bay. Win Win for our Hemisphere. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

he was indeed here illegally. 

And that’s the only reason this story has absurd national right wing media attention.

Stephen Paddock, who killed 58 people, was not here illegally.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Posted
10 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

Not that anybody will care but he was indeed here illegally. 

I hope nobody with any intelligence was swayed by some sleazy lawyer trying to smokescreen via twitter or whatever. Of course everyone knew he was here illegally.

Posted
On August 23, 2018 at 1:02 PM, JimmyHoffa said:

 

Not that anybody will care but he was indeed here illegally. 

That made him a member of a set of people who are statistically less likely than American citizens to commit a crime. What the president is trying to do is use anecdotal evidence to suggest that all illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals. His racist base eats that shit up. 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

It’s strange, albeit humorous, to see individuals  bending over backwards to defend illegal aliens. 

I guess it's the utilitarian streak that dismisses the negatives/cons/avoidable-death-suffering because the positives/pros/contributions-to-society outweigh them. I can see why it's a sticky issue and I honestly see both sides. I don't envy anyone having to stake a career in trying to appease people and curry votes/favor because it's a hard issue. I would argue that anyone who is creative and intelligent enough to fix this issue of immigration, will have done so with a very novel and genius approach and should get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

It’s strange, albeit humorous, to see individuals  bending over backwards to defend illegal aliens. 

Yeah, treating them as humans, what a terrible thing to do. . .

Posted
3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I guess it's the utilitarian streak that dismisses the negatives/cons/avoidable-death-suffering because the positives/pros/contributions-to-society outweigh them. I can see why it's a sticky issue and I honestly see both sides. I don't envy anyone having to stake a career in trying to appease people and curry votes/favor because it's a hard issue. I would argue that anyone who is creative and intelligent enough to fix this issue of immigration, will have done so with a very novel and genius approach and should get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Sure, immigration is an important life blood to any thriving country and worthy of defense. Illegal aliens, on the other hand, have broken the law and should be treated accordingly. I’m with you on the Nobel Peace Prize, as I envision this divisive issue raging for the foreseeable future.

Posted
29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, treating them as humans, what a terrible thing to do. . .

I’m not quite sure how the treatment of illegal aliens is pertinent to the discussion. I was merely expressing my disappointment that some choose to defend those that break the law. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Sure, immigration is an important life blood to any thriving country and worthy of defense. Illegal aliens, on the other hand, have broken the law and should be treated accordingly. I’m with you on the Nobel Peace Prize, as I envision this divisive issue raging for the foreseeable future.

c99c80442a43b9a4ab458cffea61d9e6.jpg

Posted

A misdemeanor. Wherein they work for our businesses (often paying SS tax that they’ll never benefit from), pay rent and buy food, clothes and goods.

Yes, they shouldn’t do it. Yes, we need to fix our broken immigration system where so many feel they have to.

Posted
6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

c99c80442a43b9a4ab458cffea61d9e6.jpg

lol. They absolutely should have done this. Is this cartoon arguing AGAINST the idea that the natives should have protected their land, culture and way of life from those who, as we have the benefit of hindsight, completely genocide'd them?

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I’m not quite sure how the treatment of illegal aliens is pertinent to the discussion. I was merely expressing my disappointment that some choose to defend those that break the law. 

Oddly enough, in this country even conviction of more serious crimes (e.g., felonies) does not waive constitutional rights or allow inhumane treatment. So yes, I will defend the rights of those that are accused of crimes, any crimes, because these are fundamental rights and beliefs of our country. We must jealously guard them, especially for the worst of us, so that they may not fade and so that they may continue to benefit us all.

And, from a practical stand point, spending a bunch of resources to address crimes that at worst have a very slight negative overall effect on society (and the evidence is actually that illegal immigrants have a significant net benefit) is wasteful and inefficient. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 3
Posted
14 minutes ago, Lurch said:

A misdemeanor. Wherein they work for our businesses (often paying SS tax that they’ll never benefit from), pay rent and buy food, clothes and goods.

Yes, they shouldn’t do it. Yes, we need to fix our broken immigration system where so many feel they have to.

It's funny that we will jail them, but not the people who knowingly employ them or don't bother doing checking.

It's not a mystery why they are here - plenty of "law-abiding" Americans are more than happy to pay them, including completely under the table, to do their lawns, raise their kids (which was alway a WTF? to me), marry them, etc.

And they will keep on coming as long as they are hearing there is work here.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Looking back, I bet they wish like hell they would have done just that. 

 

14 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

lol. They absolutely should have done this. Is this cartoon arguing AGAINST the idea that the natives should have protected their land, culture and way of life from those who, as we have the benefit of hindsight, completely genocide'd them?

It would have worked about as well as Trump's fabled wall.  Which is to say, not really.

Maybe they would have asked England, The Netherlands, France, and Spain to pay for it.

Posted
8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

It would have worked about as well as Trump's fabled wall.  Which is to say, not really.

Maybe they would have asked England, The Netherlands, France, and Spain to pay for it.

So you are saying that ultimately invasion, and whatever may come with it, is inevitable. There and now?

Posted
10 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So you are saying that ultimately invasion, and whatever may come with it, is inevitable. There and now?

Yes, he’s saying bend over here it comes. 

Posted
27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oddly enough, in this country even conviction of more serious crimes (e.g., felonies) does not waive constitutional rights or allow inhumane treatment. So yes, I will defend the rights of those that are accused of crimes, any crimes, because these are fundamental rights and beliefs of our country. We must jealously guard them, especially for the worst of us, so that they may not fade and so that they may continue to benefit us all.

And, from a practical stand point, spending a bunch of resources to address crimes that at worst have a very slight negative overall effect on society (and the evidence is actually that illegal immigrants have a significant net benefit) is wasteful and inefficient. 

I failed in explaining my position if you believe I advocated for inhumane treatment, I certainly find that behavior appalling. I’m arguing for deportation and it’s a perfectly reasonable stance. 

Your second paragraph is peddling selective law enforcement, that’s a position I find completely insane. 

Posted
44 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I was merely expressing my disappointment that some choose to defend those that break the law. 

You constantly defend trump, please express disappointment in yourself hypocrite. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Invasion.

Nice.

I mean, I'm not wrong. And this isn't equivalent to infestation-gate, this is simply a matter of fact declaration using a word that means something. Google invasion, this is what we did to the Natives in America and it's what any culture of illegal immigrants do to a sovereign nation with immigration laws of record. I am not necessarily saying that invasion is bad; an invasion of beautiful women and an invasion of those who give money away or whatever would be awesome of course, but realistically even an invasion of low-skill/low-value workers is valuable to us within reason. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, seven said:

You constantly defend trump, please express disappointment in yourself hypocrite. 

When have I involved Trump in this thread? You may have the wrong guy. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I mean, I'm not wrong. And this isn't equivalent to infestation-gate, this is simply a matter of fact declaration using a word that means something. Google invasion, this is what we did to the Natives in America and it's what any culture of illegal immigrants do to a sovereign nation with immigration laws of record. I am not necessarily saying that invasion is bad; an invasion of beautiful women and an invasion of those who give money away or whatever would be awesome of course, but realistically even an invasion of low-skill/low-value workers is valuable to us within reason. 

Your attempt is admirable, but I’m going to save you the time and energy, everything comes down to pigmentation for David. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Your attempt is admirable, but I’m going to save you the time and energy, everything comes down to pigmentation for David. 

You all fired up about those Russian anchor babies?

Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You all fired up about those Russian anchor babies?

Yes, I know it’s a huge problem in Miami. We can’t forget the Chinese, though, that are doing similarly in California.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Total invasion.

Buh bye, Murica.

America is just a name for the patch of earth we live upon. It's not going anywhere, anytime soon, and will be afoot whomever eventually rules-- invasion, wars, or otherwise.

Edited by Guest
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I suppose if you insist on derailing the thread there’s not much I can do, so have a good one. 

Derailing the thread by pointing out your blatant hypocrisy, so transparent 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, seven said:

Derailing the thread by pointing out your blatant hypocrisy, so transparent 

Is Trump here illegally? If so, I’m willing to listen. 



×
×
  • Create New...