Responding to Mexican Drug-Related Terrorism
[Guest post by DRJ]
Following up on Patterico’s post earlier today, I think finding long-term solutions to Mexico’s problems could make Iraq look easy but we have to find solutions because of Mexico’s proximity to the U.S.
In the meantime, I support continued efforts to increase border security (including use of enhanced technology like the Texas Border Watch, better communications, and building a fence) so we can slow down the flow of people between the two countries. Not only will this help protect us from Mexican violence but it will also put increased pressure on Mexico to solve its problems rather than use America as an escape valve for its people and fiscal policies.
In addition, improved border security could help prevent stories like this from El Paso last week:
“Shortcomings in the communications system between government agencies allowed a Juárez tuberculosis patient to continue traveling across the border against his doctor’s instructions, according to a General Accountability Office report released recently.
The report said Customs and Border Protection officials at the Bridge of Americas failed to notify Department of Homeland Security senior officials until 14 days after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requested the CBP’s assistance in the 2007 case.
The incomplete information allowed the Mexican citizen, who was under treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, to continue traveling from Juárez to El Paso for business purposes at least 20 times. He also had failed to surrender his travel visa as his doctor requested.”
Some people view border enforcement and a fence as counterproductive or extreme, but these are mild responses compared to those who believe the answer is to “solve” the U.S. demand for drugs. I doubt America will legalize all drug use any more than it will eliminate all drug consumers as former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates sarcastically suggested yesterday in a speech to graduating El Paso-area peace officers:
“Gates, who led the Los Angeles Police Department from 1978 to 1992, also predicted that the violence in Juárez would spill over into El Paso and that law enforcement agencies on the U.S. side should be prepared.
“I don’t think the people in the United States are grasping what a serious problem it is. Mexico has lost more people in a very short period of time than those lost in Iraq or Afghanistan,” he said.
“I think, you know, I have such a low opinion of the people in the United States who continue to use drugs. They are really responsible for what’s happening in Mexico — they really are. We go along every day. We don’t take that responsibility that we ought to assume. Somebody asked me one time about casual drug users, I said they ought to take them out and shoot them.”
The statement, he said, is an exaggeration, but it emphasizes the point.”
As I write this, soldiers at El Paso’s Fort Bliss are learning to respond to urban insurgencies in Iraq by incorporating economic and social outreach tactics into their military response. Someday these tactics may come in handy closer to home.
— DRJ
Daryl Gates…
I think he also said that drug users, or drug sellers – can’t remember which, and I just don’t want to search through the Dog Trainer to find it, should be hung from the nearest lamp-post.
It might not be PC, but it would be effective.
Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:28 amI live a mile from Disneyland. The state of California’s biggest heroin arrest took place a few miles from my home. Most of those taken into custody were Mexican nationals. Yet any attempt to control the border is framed as racism by our own elected officials.
The good people are losing, the bad people are winning.
tyree (158c98) — 12/5/2008 @ 11:09 amEven if drugs were completely legalized, the cartels would fight to the death to be the one and only supplier. What makes anyone think they would give up that money?!
The hypocrisy of the left sickens me. They have made smoking cigarettes unacceptable in polite society; when will they do the same for “casual” drugs?
Patricia (94c68d) — 12/5/2008 @ 12:00 pmGates quote above Or how about shoot em all and let god sort em out?
As a nation we really have learned nothing from our actions of the past and are dead set upon repeating them on an even grander scale, aren’t we?
On Tuesday, December 2, a group of law enforcers who fought on the front lines of the “war on drugs” and witnessed its failures will commemorate the 75th anniversary of alcohol prohibition’s repeal by calling for drug legalization. The cops, judges and prosecutors will release a report detailing how many billions of dollars can be used to boost the ailing economy when drug prohibition is ended.
“America’s leaders had the good sense to realize that we couldn’t afford to keep enforcing the ineffective prohibition of alcohol during the Great Depression,” said Terry Nelson, a 30-year veteran federal agent and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). “Now, cops fighting on the front lines of today’s ‘war on drugs’ are working to make our streets safer and help solve our economic crisis by teaching lawmakers a lesson from history about the failure of prohibition. We can do it again.”
TC (0b9ca4) — 12/5/2008 @ 12:06 pmEven if drugs were completely legalized, the cartels would fight to the death to be the one and only supplier.
No, they wouldn’t – homegrown competition would spring up immediately and eventually take their entire market away. Do you have any idea how much marijuana is currently grown in the US and Canada right now? Most of the operations are involved in indoor hydroponics, which produce the kinds of strains that outside drug suppliers could only dream about. The same has already happened with the Meth problem, and you could expect a similar result with cocaine and the others.
Dmac (e30284) — 12/5/2008 @ 2:43 pmThe end of alcohol prohibition led to the end of organised crime based on selling illegal booze. I don’t see why ending drug prohibition would be any different.
Evil Pundit (843b74) — 12/5/2008 @ 3:55 pmComment by Evil Pundit — 12/5/2008 @ 3:55 pm
Yes, they stopped selling illegal booze, converted their whiskey contacts overseas into import agreements (Oopps, not the mob, but Josepth Kennedy), and used the money and muscle they possessed to move into other areas of the economy: Prostitution, gambling, labor-racketeering, the garment industry, the docks.
Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:05 pmYes, organized crime just disappeared!
And J.Edgar Hoover had nothing to do but try on new smocks.
…Joseph Kennedy…
Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:05 pmOf course they did. They also embraced the new Prohibition, and began selling new illegal drugs.
But the crime associated with smuggling alcohol was pretty much gone.
There will always be crime, and we shouldn’t legalise everything. But some things do more harm when they’re illegal than when they aren’t.
Evil Pundit (843b74) — 12/5/2008 @ 4:16 pmThe prohibition on drugs causes a black market. The money from that black market is the motive and funding for the Mexican cartels. End the prohibition, therefore end the black market; therefore end the funding for the cartels.
Even if a Mexican cartel becomes the primary importer of high grade weed, they’ll not need to do it criminally. And if they simply transfer their criminality into other areas of illegal activity, they’ll simply join the others who are already there ahead of them.
kishnevi (f97483) — 12/5/2008 @ 5:00 pm“Even if a Mexican cartel becomes the primary importer of high grade weed, theyll not need to do it criminally.”
First, it’s not just weed, so please don’t discuss the drug war as though it is. Include cocaine, heroin, etc.
Second of all, these cartels make hundreds of millions of dollars selling these drugs. Legalization will only increase demand — but you think these cartels will meet this increased demand by putting down their AK’s and donning suits and ties??
You drug legalization people are living in a fantasy world.
Patterico (e52829) — 12/5/2008 @ 5:25 pm“….I think finding long-term solutions to Mexico’s problems could make Iraq look easy but we have to find solutions because of Mexico’s proximity to the U.S….”
Just what, praytell, should those “long-term solutions” be, DRJ? And should some Republican (or, given how some of you “conservative, not Republican” folks think, a moderate Democrat) politician embrace your ideas and try to get them implemented, will you stand behind that Republican (or moderate Dem) politican when the inevitable crap-storm of criticism comes?
Given your track record of “hey, Brad, either way I’m covered” when it came to fallout from your advocacy of rejecting the financial bailout, forgive me if I have considerable doubts you will stand behind said politician.
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 6:30 pmI think the cartels would oppose legalisation any way they could. Including attempts to bribe legislators.
The selling of illegal drugs is the source of massive profits, which makes the risks worthwhile to criminals. If the drugs were legal, they would be cheap, and the profits of selling them would be much smaller.
Let us assume there is increased demand for drugs if they are legalised. Even so, prices would drop drastically — it’s very cheap to produce a drug, but the prices are inflated hugely by the risk factor of illegality.
If drugs were legalised, then anyone could make them, as with cigarettes and alcohol. The price would drop, and the profits would be only those of legitimate business.
Some drug cartels might object, but without the supply of money, what could they do? Other drug cartels might convert to legitimate businesses, and accept a much smaller profit margin in exchange for legitimacy and peace.
There will always be criminals, and there will always be organised crime. Of course these things wouldn’t stop if drugs were legalised — the worst mobsters would look elsewhere for their income.
But legalising drugs would significantly reduce the amount of money that currently finances criminal gangs.
Evil Pundit (843b74) — 12/5/2008 @ 6:36 pmYou’re failing to factor in what the tax and license fees will be for the production, transportation, and sale of legalized drugs.
Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 6:41 pmOnce the politicians get involved, there might not be that big of a reduction in the retail price.
Brad S,
Hey, what’s got your goat tonight?
I don’t have any magic answers for Mexico. I assume it will involve a range of economic, political and diplomatic solutions. We’ve tried these before and we’ll have to keep trying them. I don’t have great confidence we can change much because Mexico is different culturally than the US and it always will be. But I’m glad to see Bill Richardson appointed as Commerce Secretary. I hope his background as Governor of New Mexico can help find answers to this problem, because there are economic similarities between Mexico and New Mexico.
For the record, I’m a conservative and a Republican. And I was for the bailout from the beginning but I think it’s getting out of hand now.
Now that I’ve addressed your points, Brad, tell me: Where have I ever said I’m covered either way? For that matter, where have I ever said I’d stand behind or support any politician no matter what s/he did?
DRJ (a50047) — 12/5/2008 @ 6:52 pmEvil Pundit,
Aren’t you failing to factor in the increased sales and reduced security/overhead that would result from legalization?
DRJ (a50047) — 12/5/2008 @ 6:54 pmOrganized crime will find other rackets. Some may go “legit” because they can. Legalization didn’t put an end to stills or moonshine but there’s a whole lot less of that today than there was during prohibition.
h0mi (d2c7b6) — 12/5/2008 @ 6:59 pmDRJ,
Under your post “House Defeats Bailout,” I ask the following question under Comment 58: “What are YOU, PERSONALLY, DRJ, going to do to help him and the GOP House members weather this storm until 11/4? This failure was done in YOUR NAME; it’s now time for YOU (and most of the commenters here who railed against this) to step up to the plate.”
Under Comment 86, you state: “Anyway, Brad S., I’m covered. I have one family member who adamantly opposes the bailout, one in favor, and one on the fence. Someone at my house will be happy no matter what happens.”
I took that comment as a position of “I don’t want to go too far deep into advocacy of my position.”
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:22 pmWhat one person defines as a failure another defines as a success.
Brad S is not the friendly type.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:25 pmOne can take something however they wish, but it tends to help if the conclusion you draw is actually based on what the person actually said. Your conclusion does not logically flow from what DRJ said.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:26 pmMy major source of discontention is this: The real reason why My Republican Party lost on 11/4 was NOT due to the policies of Bush, or those EWWWW-Social Conservatives! It was due to too many Intellectual and Media Conservatives REFUSING to take ownership and responsibility of the candidiates they “supported,” and the policies they advocated.
The American public has a very reasonable expectation that the supporters of a Party and its President will stick by that Party and that President through thick and thin. When the American public sees Intellectual/Media Conservatives throwing the GOP and President Bush in the garbage at the first sign of bad press from its liberal peers, that public sees no reason to support the GOP/President Bush, either. The American public gets even more disgusted when they see one side of a debate say “Hey, not me; it was those Stoopid GOPers” when something bad gets proposed, then tries to shift further blame toward unrelated parties for the blowback they receive. Think of some of the things you folks have said about who supported Prop 8, for example.
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:30 pmSomeone seems anxious to point fingers at people tonight.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:41 pmBrad S,
Thanks for pointing out my earlier comment. I thought it was a joke but if you want to view it as waffling, that’s fine with me.
I support President Bush, especially when it comes to the War on Terror. I also support his actions in Iraq and even during Katrina. That makes me somewhat rare. However, that doesn’t mean I support every single thing Bush has done as President. I think his nominations of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court were excellent but Harriet Miers was a self-inflicted disaster. I oppose Bush’s historical positions on amnesty and immigration. And his unwillingness to say “No” to any spending bill makes me grit my teeth.
But that’s life. There will never be a President that I support 100% of the time and I don’t think I should have to. Why do you think I should?
DRJ (a50047) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:45 pmJD,
Since some (if not all) of you folks blogging and commenting have been more than willing to take a dump on my fellow Republicans and Evangelicals for the last 4 years, I just thought I’d be charitable and throw some of it back on you.
Or are you one of those folks who believes that being part of “New Media” lets you off the hook for the positions you take?
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:46 pmDRJ – I think that they tend to value the party over the principles.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:47 pmBecause, DRJ, when Patterico lets you blog in support of various policies/candidates/elected officials, you are, in effect, a public figure. This carries certain responsibilities, namely involving how you conduct any criticism of your own people.
The American public does not expect 100% support of President Bush from you. It also does not expect you to conduct a very public condemnation of the man, either; that’s the opposition’s job.
When Right-wing bloggers decided to throw President Bush and the GOP under the bus shortly after Katrina, they let the Dems/MSM/public follow suit. And you wonder why losses like 11/4 happened.
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:52 pmBrad – I comment on a blog. I am not the New Media. Additionally, you will not find me dumping on Republicans and Evangelicals that did not deserve to be dumped on. You can throw whatever you want at me. Not sure what good that is going to do, unless your goal is to throw blame and piss of people that are pulling on the same end of the rope.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 7:57 pmThank you! Let’s not forget meth and ecstasy as well. Drugs are not in the same class of liquor, which was once legal and then illegal for a time.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:18 pmOkay, Brad, but since you expect me to take full responsibility for the GOP’s loss in the last election, I expect you to give me full credit for the next time the GOP wins.
DRJ (a50047) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:23 pmDRJ – We all know that the only way Republicans can win an election is to steal it.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:28 pmDRJ:
I accept that sales would be increased by drug legalisation. So, therefore, harm to the health of the public due to drug use would also increase.
But this is exactly the same case as with alcohol and tobacco. Both are known to be harmful and addictive, yet both are legal. The attempt to prohibit alcohol caused so many problems that it was abandoned.
The reasonable solution, I think, is to calculate the health costs of drug use. Illegal, legal, whatever. Then impose a tax on each drug that covers the costs to the community of people using that drug. I think that, even with such taxes imposed, all the drugs would still be cheaper than they are now, thus driving the cartels out of business.
As for security, there are already random tests available which can ensure that people affected by alcohol and other drugs can be prevented from performing critical jobs. Aircraft pilots are, AFAIK, required to have zero blood alcohol levels at work, but they are free to drink when they’re off-duty. The same standards could be applied to other drugs — do what you like at home, but at work you must be stone cold sober.
Evil Pundit (843b74) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:31 pmOne of the chief architects of the diminished support of the GOP by the electorate is the President himself, due to his inability to defend his own policies when attacked by the opposition.
Another Drew (46c816) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:39 pmI, as an average voter, feel no requirement to defend the policies of the President when he won’t do so in the face of the most personal of attacks.
You just get tired!
Evil – So everyone will submit to mandatory daily piss tests as a condition of employment?
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:40 pmAmen, brother. Amen.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 8:41 pm“One of the chief architects of the diminished support of the GOP by the electorate is the President himself, due to his inability to defend his own policies when attacked by the opposition”
And your willingness to trash the GOP over stupid things like a “Bridge to Nowhere” exacerbated the attacks from the Dems/Left/MSM just when the President could’ve drawn strength from your support. Some of this started even before the ’04 election; I can’t tell you how many bloggers got upset over the Prescription Drug bill, or over some ill-timed comments by Trent Lott.
All the Dems/Left/MSM had to do, shortly after GWB first was nominated for President in 2000, was wait for the Intellectual/Media Right to turn on Bush. It took a LOT of agony and pettiness in the middle of a war and a bad economy, but they succeeded. And I suspect the Intellectual/Media Right tried to look for every excuse to dump on Bush and the GOP at the same time.
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:00 pmI can’t tell you how many bloggers got upset over the Prescription Drug bill
The Republicans were rightfully criticized for this bit of trying to be Dem-lites. Again, Brad is a Party before principle kind of guy.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:09 pmThe President and the Republicans would not have been in such a bad place had they not been betraying their party’s principles. Sure they could have drawn strength from some support, but they would have not needed to had they not alienated the very people that put them in office.
People like you concern me as much as the Obama folks calling for “unity”.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:11 pmJD,
What is it about Conservative Principles that are so Non-Negotiable and so demanding of adherence that people find it necessary to trash fellow Republicans for not fully adhering to them, even if the times demand some modification and adjustment of those Conservative Principles?
Furthermore, If certain “more conservative than Republican” folks are wedded to the principles as opposed to the Party, what is it that makes them so committed to those principles?
In addition, I keep hearing talk about how the GOP “brand” is damaged. Yet I saw very little effort by conservatives to want to GROW THE BRAND. Leaving aside the asinine idea that a party is a “brand,” don’t conservatives want more people to adopt their ideas and expand upon them? And if so, why is it necessary to show the world that you want to play “keep away” when it comes to blacks and Latinos who naturally want to get into the game?
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:16 pmWhere did I argue that the brand is damaged? If you want someone to explain their position, you would do well to ask someone that actually held that position? So, if you want to argue with such an assinine idea, I would suggest that you direct said arguement at someone else.
Gee, when my fellow Republicans start acting like Democrats, we are just supposed to sit there and smile? No thanks. They spent like idiots. The prescription drug bill you referenced is a picture-perfect example of where the Republicans simply capitulated, gave in, and then tried to just reduce the initial price.
So, when did spending like a Dem become a modification of the Republican party principles?
Keep away with blacks and Latinos? It really never takes people long to accuse someone of being racist. My old axiom holds true, regardless of party.
JD (059bab) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:29 pmPlease cut us some slack, Brad. Sticking to the subject of the thread, drug smuggling, what is there to support about Doofus 43’s southern border policy?
If there is a policy at all. Or just a clown who wanted to have been President but could not be bothered to be President. Relegating his duties to cronies even lazier and stupider than he is.
nk (5fa892) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:36 pmDude, you are joking, right?
If you don’t have certain core principles that you are willing to stand up and defend against all comers, you are wishy-washy and a fence sitter. What’s that old quote? Oh yeah, “If you don’t stand up for something, you will fall for anything”.
The core principles I believe in are smaller government, lower taxes, less intrusion into our lives by government and strict adherence to the Constitution. Based on those, the Republicans in Washington scored an epic failure. When the politicians are so far out of touch with their constituents that Prescription Drug benefit, out of control spending and stupid, intrusive laws seem okay to them, then it is time to make them realize that they no longer speak for me. If that means calling their offices often enough that the call center employees know me by my voice, so be it. If that means registering as an Independent instead of a Republican, then so be it. If that means letter writing campaigns, stumping for their competition at election time, I am there.
What I can’t stand are those that will give a polititian a pass on some stupid thing they say or do simply because of the letter after their name. At this point, you have ceased to be a productive member of the body politic and have become part of the problem. If the politician knows that there are a certain number of votes who will ALWAYS vote for him, he stops having to work so hard for you and what you really want.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:44 pmBrad S, is the Republican party perfect? Has Bush made no mistakes at all? Do you support someone even though you see the person making a mistake, just because you owe them your allegiance?
Also, it’s elitist to say that the Republican party lost the election just because the public listened to Intellectual/Media Conservatives. The public can make its own decisions and it decided to vote against the Republican party. Unfortunately, Bush and party leaders wouldn’t listen to critique, even from its own.
Paul Hsu (646236) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:46 pmOn the border, a friend of mine suggest building a fence, putting signs on it warning of mines and certain death if you crossed illegally and then putting remote controlled machine guns every 100 yards with overlapping fields of fire. Then allow internet gamers to monitor a section of the border controlling one or more machine guns and competing for high score. Somehow, I don’t think we would have an illegal problem after about the first month or so.
Not seriously recommending this approach, but it would be effective. 😎
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:51 pmBrad S. – Before attempting to tar DRJ and other posters and commenters here with what you view as the various sins of right wing bloggers during the Bush Administration, it might be a good thing to check if they actually held the positions you are ranting about. Otherwise it just makes you sound like an asshole.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:52 pm“What I can’t stand are those that will give a polititian a pass on some stupid thing they say or do simply because of the letter after their name. At this point, you have ceased to be a productive member of the body politic and have become part of the problem.”
This comment smacks of someone who haughtily turns his nose up in the air and sneers about “Identity Politics.”
Look, the Republican Party has been around a LOT LONGER than nearly everything you’d call a “Conservative Principle.” This nation settled on having a GOP because they were on the right side of the Slavery/Civil War issue. This nation also settled on having the Democratic Party because a crazy backwoodsman named Andrew Jackson stood as a commoner alongside his fellow commoners. Both parties have ebbed and flowed with the shifting sands and changes in the issues of the day.
Politics, at its very heart, ITS VERY SOUL, is solely about IDENTITY and BEING WITH THE TEAM.
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:54 pm“On the border, a friend of mine suggest building a fence, putting signs on it warning of mines and certain death if you crossed illegally and then putting remote controlled machine guns every 100 yards with overlapping fields of fire. Then allow internet gamers to monitor a section of the border controlling one or more machine guns and competing for high score. Somehow, I don’t think we would have an illegal problem after about the first month or so.”
OK, let’s see you try to sell this position in ’10 and ’12 to minorities, young people, even small business owners. That’s quite a welcoming message, no? Surely that adheres to the spirit of the Statue of Liberty’s message “I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.”.
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 9:59 pmOn the border, a friend of mine suggest building a fence, putting signs on it warning of mines and certain death if you crossed illegally and then putting remote controlled machine guns every 100 yards with overlapping fields of fire.
The mines and machine guns would be for sale in a Tijuana flea market the next day. 😉
nk (5fa892) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:01 pmThe terrorism of the drug cartels is different from the Islamic extremists, so the approach needs to be different. The cartels are actually terrorizing for practical reasons: maintaining market share, furthering their business interests. I don’t think they’re out to prove a point. As a result, there are practical solutions to this problem and the first step is to make it a national issue. Also, the solution most be bilateral. If the US doesn’t work with Mexico, then nothing will improve. More intelligence and resources need to be shared, and both countries need to seek a long term solution as opposed to band aids.
Now terrorism based on ideology. That’s a different kind of battle and much more difficult to fight, I think. Because it’s an ideological battle, the way the US conducts itself can either help or hurt the terrorists’ cause. Because they’re not in the business of making money, they rely mainly on the support of their community and people who agree with their ideology. The less people who support their cause, the weaker their position. Every time the US makes a mistake abroad, it gives the terrorists fuel to energize their supporters. Thus, US conduct abroad is very important in the fight against terrorism.
Paul Hsu (646236) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:01 pmFunny, I was raised to believe that the job of politicians was to represent the will of the people who elected them. And when the politician stops representing those people, it is their duty to throw the bum out and hire someone who will represent them the way they want to be represented. What you are advocating is “win at any cost, even if it goes strongly against your most dearly held beliefs”. I find this reprehensible and can point to this attitude as one of the reasons that our elected politicians are some of the most reviled people in the country.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:05 pmO
I guess you missed the “Not seriously recommending this approach, but it would be effective.” part of my post.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:07 pmUnfortunately, we no longer live in a nation where the politicians are elected based on their ability to represent the people. The illuminati democrats have made this abundantly clear. The amount of elections that have been lied and cheated into are astronomic this election season. Fortunately they don;t always win, but they also weren’t as subtle as they thought they were (see Franken).
Rj (b3eac0) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:10 pmAnd yes, I do believe that it goes just fine with the statue of liberty as I have no problem with immigrants. I just have a problem with people who come here illegally, drop an anchor and then sign up for all the freebies that the Dems. seem to want those of us who work to pay for.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:10 pm“I just have a problem with people who come here illegally, drop an anchor….”
And just what is it about the situation you describe that makes the current immigration law so demanding of adherence and unquestioning respect? Not every law Congress passes and the President signs sends a message of “You must respect this law NOW, or face the harsh consequences outlined.”
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:22 pm#53 You are troll, right? Laws should either be obeyed or repealed. If you are not going to enforce the laws, you should repeal them. We have immigration laws. They are not perfect but they serve a purpose. If you want the laws changed, then work with your representatives to try and get them changed.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/5/2008 @ 10:43 pmOh, wait, your representative knows he doesn’t have to listen to you because you will vote for him, no matter what he does. Never mind, you will just have to sit back and feel superior because you are part of a TEAM, right, wrong or indifferent.
“Laws should either be obeyed or repealed. If you are not going to enforce the laws, you should repeal them.”
When you first got exposed to, and learned about, “conservative principles,” did you ever learn something about empathy for your fellow man and his individual situation? I’m genuinely curious, because a lot of conservatives and Republicans sure like to give off the impression that they couldn’t give 2 sh!ts about the consequences of passing, say, harsher immigration control laws.
“Laws should be either be obeyed or repealed” certainly doesn’t have much Christian ethic behind it.
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/6/2008 @ 6:19 am#55
Yep, you are a troll. Now you sound just like a lot of the moonbat liberals. And yes, empathy I have. I just have no sympathy for people who think that they are somehow entitled to take what others have to work hard for. I grew up poor. I worked hard within the system to get ahead. I didn’t ask for special treatment (jump the line to cross the border), take money from others (welfare, food stamps, etc.) or steal from anyone. I worked hard. Other people who are just as capable as I, seem to think that the world owes them something. These are the people who ignore the laws that they don’t like and complain about how heartless the conservatives are. I am conservative because I grew up poor and had to learn the value of an hours labor, a dollar and the benefits that I earned.
Who said anything about Christian?
If a person in need appeals to me for help, I will almost always take the time to help. (I am not perfect, thus the “almost”.) However, if it looks to me like he is making no effort to resolve his problem himself, then I wouldn’t waste my time.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 12/6/2008 @ 7:29 am“And your willingness to trash the GOP over stupid things like a ‘Bridge to Nowhere’…”
Point of Personal Privilege here, Brad S, @ 9:00pm…
I, in fact, defended the BTN on ther economic grounds that it facilitated travel into and out-of Ketchikan, and would be a growth factor for the community at large. I also defended the Knik Arm bridge that will connect Anchorage to the back-side of the Matanuska Valley for the same reason – it just makes economic sense.
Another Drew (98abde) — 12/6/2008 @ 10:55 amWhat I didn’t defend, was the earmark process itself.
These projects should have been voted on, up or down, on their merits, and not snuck into the appropriations process in the “dead of night” so to speak.
JD:
So everyone will submit to mandatory daily piss tests as a condition of employment?
No, I didn’t say that. I said
As for security, there are already random tests available which can ensure that people affected by alcohol and other drugs can be prevented from performing critical jobs.
There would be no need to change from the situation as it applies to alcohol: Testing when there is some reasonable suspicion that someone might be impaired while doing a dangerous task.
If an airline pilot shows up at the airport with red eyes and spouting gibberish about seeing reptiles everywhere, then he should be tested. There’s no need to test everyone, every day.
Evil Pundit (843b74) — 12/6/2008 @ 2:52 pmAs I write this, soldiers at El Paso’s Fort Bliss are learning to respond to urban insurgencies in Iraq by incorporating economic and social outreach tactics into their military response. Someday these tactics may come in handy closer to home.
Obviously, Patterico, unsatisfied with his position as a prosecutor, has ambitions of someday becoming an Einsatzcommando SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer
John Sabotta (2d620a) — 12/7/2008 @ 2:40 amObviously, Patterico, unsatisfied with his position as a prosecutor, has ambitions of someday becoming an Einsatzcommando SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer
Who wrote the post? Hint: not me.
Second hint: she’s not a Nazi either.
Back to Balko’s site with you, nut-ball.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 12/7/2008 @ 2:55 am“Legalization will only increase demand…”
{cackle} Don’t look now, Frey, but demand is higher than it’s ever been. Demand is doing just fine even while you’re cheerleading the war.
You just don’t count, son.
Billy Beck (999a53) — 12/7/2008 @ 9:14 amI’m quite sure demand in the Beck household is higher than ever.
But for those who are reluctant to start shooting up because of the laws — including children — demand will increase if restrictions on selling are removed. Unless you want to repeal all economic laws for drugs, in addition to the criminal ones.
“Son.”
Patterico (cc3b34) — 12/7/2008 @ 11:55 amThis topic brought out some new trolls. We have Brad S – the party predates any principles person, and John Sabotta, who just strikes me as an aggressively unpleasant and not all that bright kind of guy, and Billy Beck – an arrogant little man.
JD (059bab) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:01 pm#60 and #62, rate “well done”, Pat.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:18 pm___________________________________________
Decriminalization will be the answer to the criminal nightmare that Mexico has become!? Yea, right. Maybe in an altered reality.
Moreover, Mexican society already is so rife with people, particulary in law enforcement, ignoring anti-narcotics laws, that for all intents and purposes drugs have been “decriminalized” in that country.
And so if a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged, then here’s a libertarian who’s experienced — up front and personal — his or her own form of harsh reality or moment of epiphany, regarding another issue or dilemma that perhaps even more folks think can be resolved through decriminalization:
Mark (411533) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:50 pm___________________________________________
One reason I like guest-posting here is that all the trolls think my posts were written by Patterico so he gets to deal with them. How’d I get so lucky?
PS to Brad S:
Let me get this straight. Republicans should have blind allegiance to Party “through thick and thin” (#21) but there’s no need for “adherence and unquestioning respect” when it comes to laws we don’t like (#53). You either have a skewed vision of what it means to be an American or you’re a troll. I’m going with troll.
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:50 pmThe longer it goes on, DRJ, I am starting to suspect Moby. Something does not ring true with this one.
JD (059bab) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:51 pmSorry about the Sooners devastating win last night. I still think that the national title game should be a round robin tournament between Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech, played in Lucas Oil Stadium.
JD (059bab) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:53 pmDRJ, trolls by definition have a skewed vision of what it means to be an American. At least the ones that show up here.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (1f5390) — 12/7/2008 @ 12:53 pmThere will always be substances that the government wisely deems are too dangerous and addictive to be sold. We can debate what they are, probably there should be very few, but there will always be some. These restrictions have always attracted criminal organizations that try to sell them anyway, profiting from highly addictive substances.
The solution, the ONLY ultimate solution, is rigorous Commissioner Lin-style enforcement. This works. Less than this will destroy society. Make it a war, and fight to win. From the perspective of one who once lived in occupied territory, this is not at all what has happened.
Amphipolis (e6b868) — 12/8/2008 @ 6:06 pm