"Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?"

What's the difference? Why are you trying to separate the two? Either way, neither the drugs nor those delivering them will ever be a problem again. Never ever ever. Done, cooked, finished. That particular piece of the puzzle has been solved.

I agree the answer doesn't matter, but per Rubio, the idea was to blow them out of the water, regardless of the group.

He also mentioned that the only way to stop this was to do what they did, that interdiction had been tried for years without reasonable effect, because the perpetrators usually were released at some point by our criminal justice system to start right back up again.

He also said it would send a message to other traffickers that they would suffer the same fate.

(09-03-2025 11:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ill take it you dont give a **** about interdicting, boarding, gathering evidence and handing them over. Cool cool.

Not even a little bit.

(09-03-2025 11:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Glad you go that good ol' blood lust thingy going on. You be you, champ.

They started it.

(09-03-2025 11:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Should we bazooka alleged crime bosses cars in the streets here in the United States? I mean, you all seem to have some weird ass blood lust / sexual urge over this action -- so do we simply blow up alleged crime boss cars in the US as well?

Absolutely

(09-03-2025 11:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Naw, I simply dont think blowing up boats for the fing jollies of it are really productive.

Yeah but you're a pansy.

(09-03-2025 11:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am amused at your now recent conundrum -- by not wanting to simply blow up boats, cars, people on whim, I am now a 'bad human being' in your weird ass world view. Lolz. Do you see the shallowness of your plaintive name calling there? Probably not.

You ARE a bad human being. You don't give a $hit about your own kind.

(09-04-2025 07:00 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:03 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 05:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The War on Drugs spent obscene amounts of money going after supply. The actual root cause of the problem is demand. Always has been, always will be.

Its never been about 100% elimination of drugs and drug use. That is just impossible, just as its impossible to eliminate poverty 100%.

But you CAN curb usage and deaths considerably with the right policy such as going after the suppliers in a much more heavy handed way.

No one starts out looking to become a drug user. You have to be introduced to drugs first, and if you can curb and limit the amount of drugs and the access (not eliminate but curb) then you can cut out a fair amount of regular drug users and bring drug deaths down.

Its never been about 100% elimination of guns and gun ownership. That is just impossible, just as its impossible to eliminate poverty 100%.

But you CAN curb shootings and deaths considerably with the right policy such as going after the gun manufacturers in a much more heavy handed way.

No one starts out looking to become a violent criminal. You have to be introduced to guns first, and if you can curb and limit the amount of guns and the access (not eliminate but curb) then you can cut out a fair amount of gun crimes and bring shooting deaths down.

That is one of the most absurd comparisons I have ever seen. Drug addition to legal gun ownership?

Legally owning guns is not a gateway to being a criminal.

The ignorance of that post is staggering, and you are not an ignorant person.

Its a pathetically sad reach you should have never made.

"going after the gun manufacturers" ???

(09-04-2025 07:22 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-03-2025 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Last I saw, when a force can track a boat, it can sure as hell can interdict it.

Last I saw the policy was to interdict, board, gather evidence and hand them over.

Now I guess it is to simply spot someone and blow it up. Seems pretty inane to me given the above. Something best reserved to a tinpot authoritarian and geared to those who dont really understand anything but 'show of force' as the only solution to anything and everything.

But Trump seemingly has to play 'splodey macho man to his minions who think that every issue is best solved with a missile, or best solved with sending military force in to quell stuff in the streets.

The DC mayor has asked that the program Trump launched to help clean up DC be continued indefinitely, that's how badly that's going.

And that is a decision of the Washington Mayor, and literally of Trump (being the commander of the DC Natl Guard). That is absolutely *their* prerogative.

That was *not* the viewpoint of the governor of California, nor that of the mayor of LA.

Quote:Now, if I have intel that tells me there's a boat heading to America full of deadly drugs, I'd blow them right out of the water too. There's no risk of flight, no expense to American taxpayers to take them to trial and then house and feed them and no chance for recidivism. They are not Americans, they are hostile actors who may as well be an invading force, they are heading to your homeland with drugs enough to probably kill 100k or more and you're worried about their due process??

Would prefer not to be tagged as being in violation of several aspects of international law regarding use of force without being in direct harm way to be specific.

Look, its painfully obvious that Trump wants to get into a scrap with Venezuela. For various reasons. So he does what he does best by being a dumb*** bully -- up to and including blowing up a boat that may have been filled with drugs.

Quote:What if there was actionable intel that stated they had a dirty bomb on board? Would you be OK with advocating for their rights to due process then? Or would you be OK with taking them out in the middle of the ocean?

The consequences of a dirty (or even actual normal) nuclear device constitute a direct and *immediate* threat to the United States. In that case I wouldnt have a problem.

11 dudes on a speedboat with a lot of drugs *isnt* that direct, immediately consequential as a dirty bomb, a normal nuclear bomb. The issue is immediacy and consequences.

Take that same speedboat and pile it with explosives. No, not enough to warrant an obliteration of that boat on the high seas. The closer it comes to the US, or for that matter US military assets -- then the ability and properness of obliterating it increases the closer and more immediate it comes.

And my position isnt based at all on 'due process' as everyone seems to think. Its based on the structure of self-defense.

The more immediate the threat is, the more justification for using it. The more consequential the immediate threat is, the more justification for using it.

Just like in standard self-defense laws that everyone is taught about in carry permit classes -- just applicable at a national level so to speak. And enshrined in a gamut of treaties and international laws.

Quote:Answer me that without equivocating or erecting strawmen to support your asinine support of not just your garden variety criminals, but also insane killers who would cut your throat without a second thought.

Answered above. Taking your last clause as an example, if such 'insane killer' threatened me with *immediate* and *consequential* harm (say by brandishing an operating chainsaw at me) -- by any right of self-defense I have a right to use deadly force to address that.

I *dont* have that right when it comes to actively stalking him, and using a sniper rifle on him when he is entering the hardware store to purchase the chainsaw.

Quote:Yours must be a pretty neatly packaged world where everything is in black and white,

Everything in my world is not 'black and white' as you say. I do hold some concepts pretty high and absolutely try to abide by them.

Quote:If it was up to me we'd still be hanging dangerous criminals in the middle of Anytown, USA's town square.

When properly charged, and properly tried, and sentenced to that -- Ill join you there.

Quote:If you were a criminal defense attorney are there any cases you would turn down because the act your potential client is accused of is so horrifying that your conscience wouldn't allow you to be engaged by them?

Two part answer -- one real life, one 'my construct'.

Real life -- I actually have and do turn down representation of a variety of issues, some even from good clients and/or friends, because I dont believe in the goal that they wish to accomplish. And I have 'fired' clients when they insist either on 'breaking the rules of the game', or when it is clear that their goal is to simply cheat the counterparty.

Construct -- when it comes to criminal work (which I havent done at all for 25 years, and only as a white collar gig and a few pro bono things as law student and newly minted attorney), I regard it as having two issues in it.

First -- everyone (and I mean everyone) deserves a process where the government plays by the rules. And that requires and advocate to make sure the govt actually dots the i's and crosses the t's in their criminal pursuit.

The consequences require that. At the same time, there are some so horrific that it would be best served if someone else takes their issue, and not me.

Quote:Delivering drugs that will contribute to our death toll of kids and adults dying from poisoned drugs should carry the death sentence.

I dont have a problem with that.

Quote:And yeah, I know, they are just as entitled to a legal defense as you or I

Absolutely.

Quote:but could you be that kind of lawyer or would your conscience prevent it?

Ive never had to make that decision. if it came down to it -- I would probably pass. For two reasons. The conscience thing being one. The second is that I know that I do not have the skill set to properly defend someone in that situation. Beyond the initial stage of entering a plea on a really low level issue (think A, B, or C misdemeanor) -- there are far better people than me to handle that in a professional sense.

Quote:Please note that I have not attacked you and have tried to be as respectful as I possibly can toward someone with whom I usually find myself in disagreement.

I havent noted any sort of attack in your comments. And, to be honest, you have some great questions. And to reiterate -- I am not viewing the 'splodey boat in the eyes of due process. More one of a proper exercise of lethal self-defense.

Quote: I will always defer to your experience in matters of the law but I won't usually agree with your opinions on the issues you seem to favor talking about.

No problems with your differing opinions on their own. None whatsoever.

(09-04-2025 08:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 07:22 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-03-2025 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Last I saw, when a force can track a boat, it can sure as hell can interdict it.

Last I saw the policy was to interdict, board, gather evidence and hand them over.

Now I guess it is to simply spot someone and blow it up. Seems pretty inane to me given the above. Something best reserved to a tinpot authoritarian and geared to those who dont really understand anything but 'show of force' as the only solution to anything and everything.

But Trump seemingly has to play 'splodey macho man to his minions who think that every issue is best solved with a missile, or best solved with sending military force in to quell stuff in the streets.

The DC mayor has asked that the program Trump launched to help clean up DC be continued indefinitely, that's how badly that's going.

And that is a decision of the Washington Mayor, and literally of Trump (being the commander of the DC Natl Guard). That is absolutely *their* prerogative.

That was *not* the viewpoint of the governor of California, nor that of the mayor of LA.

Quote:Now, if I have intel that tells me there's a boat heading to America full of deadly drugs, I'd blow them right out of the water too. There's no risk of flight, no expense to American taxpayers to take them to trial and then house and feed them and no chance for recidivism. They are not Americans, they are hostile actors who may as well be an invading force, they are heading to your homeland with drugs enough to probably kill 100k or more and you're worried about their due process??

Would prefer not to be tagged as being in violation of several aspects of international law regarding use of force without being in direct harm way to be specific.

Look, its painfully obvious that Trump wants to get into a scrap with Venezuela. For various reasons. So he does what he does best by being a dumb*** bully -- up to and including blowing up a boat that may have been filled with drugs.

Quote:What if there was actionable intel that stated they had a dirty bomb on board? Would you be OK with advocating for their rights to due process then? Or would you be OK with taking them out in the middle of the ocean?

The consequences of a dirty (or even actual normal) nuclear device constitute a direct and *immediate* threat to the United States. In that case I wouldnt have a problem.

11 dudes on a speedboat with a lot of drugs *isnt* that direct, immediately consequential as a dirty bomb, a normal nuclear bomb. The issue is immediacy and consequences.

Take that same speedboat and pile it with explosives. No, not enough to warrant an obliteration of that boat on the high seas. The closer it comes to the US, or for that matter US military assets -- then the ability and properness of obliterating it increases the closer and more immediate it comes.

And my position isnt based at all on 'due process' as everyone seems to think. Its based on the structure of self-defense.

The more immediate the threat is, the more justification for using it. The more consequential the immediate threat is, the more justification for using it.

Just like in standard self-defense laws that everyone is taught about in carry permit classes -- just applicable at a national level so to speak. And enshrined in a gamut of treaties and international laws.

Quote:Answer me that without equivocating or erecting strawmen to support your asinine support of not just your garden variety criminals, but also insane killers who would cut your throat without a second thought.

Answered above. Taking your last clause as an example, if such 'insane killer' threatened me with *immediate* and *consequential* harm (say by brandishing an operating chainsaw at me) -- by any right of self-defense I have a right to use deadly force to address that.

I *dont* have that right when it comes to actively stalking him, and using a sniper rifle on him when he is entering the hardware store to purchase the chainsaw.

Quote:Yours must be a pretty neatly packaged world where everything is in black and white,

Everything in my world is not 'black and white' as you say. I do hold some concepts pretty high and absolutely try to abide by them.

Quote:If it was up to me we'd still be hanging dangerous criminals in the middle of Anytown, USA's town square.

When properly charged, and properly tried, and sentenced to that -- Ill join you there.

Quote:If you were a criminal defense attorney are there any cases you would turn down because the act your potential client is accused of is so horrifying that your conscience wouldn't allow you to be engaged by them?

Two part answer -- one real life, one 'my construct'.

Real life -- I actually have and do turn down representation of a variety of issues, some even from good clients and/or friends, because I dont believe in the goal that they wish to accomplish. And I have 'fired' clients when they insist either on 'breaking the rules of the game', or when it is clear that their goal is to simply cheat the counterparty.

Construct -- when it comes to criminal work (which I havent done at all for 25 years, and only as a white collar gig and a few pro bono things as law student and newly minted attorney), I regard it as having two issues in it.

First -- everyone (and I mean everyone) deserves a process where the government plays by the rules. And that requires and advocate to make sure the govt actually dots the i's and crosses the t's in their criminal pursuit.

The consequences require that. At the same time, there are some so horrific that it would be best served if someone else takes their issue, and not me.

Quote:Delivering drugs that will contribute to our death toll of kids and adults dying from poisoned drugs should carry the death sentence.

I dont have a problem with that.

Quote:And yeah, I know, they are just as entitled to a legal defense as you or I

Absolutely.

Quote:but could you be that kind of lawyer or would your conscience prevent it?

Ive never had to make that decision. if it came down to it -- I would probably pass. For two reasons. The conscience thing being one. The second is that I know that I do not have the skill set to properly defend someone in that situation. Beyond the initial stage of entering a plea -- there are far better people than me to handle that in a professional sense.

Quote:Please note that I have not attacked you and have tried to be as respectful as I possibly can toward someone with whom I usually find myself in disagreement.

I havent noted any sort of attack in your comments. And, to be honest, you have some great questions. And to reiterate -- I am not viewing the 'splodey boat in the eyes of due process. More one of a proper exercise of lethal self-defense.

Quote: I will always defer to your experience in matters of the law but I won't usually agree with your opinions on the issues you seem to favor talking about.

No problems with your differing opinions on their own. None whatsoever.

magnanimous coming from you


Still not sure where they fall on the black/brown tanq prog filth color wheel.

Unbelievable

(09-04-2025 08:16 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 08:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 07:22 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-03-2025 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Last I saw, when a force can track a boat, it can sure as hell can interdict it.

Last I saw the policy was to interdict, board, gather evidence and hand them over.

Now I guess it is to simply spot someone and blow it up. Seems pretty inane to me given the above. Something best reserved to a tinpot authoritarian and geared to those who dont really understand anything but 'show of force' as the only solution to anything and everything.

But Trump seemingly has to play 'splodey macho man to his minions who think that every issue is best solved with a missile, or best solved with sending military force in to quell stuff in the streets.

The DC mayor has asked that the program Trump launched to help clean up DC be continued indefinitely, that's how badly that's going.

And that is a decision of the Washington Mayor, and literally of Trump (being the commander of the DC Natl Guard). That is absolutely *their* prerogative.

That was *not* the viewpoint of the governor of California, nor that of the mayor of LA.

Quote:Now, if I have intel that tells me there's a boat heading to America full of deadly drugs, I'd blow them right out of the water too. There's no risk of flight, no expense to American taxpayers to take them to trial and then house and feed them and no chance for recidivism. They are not Americans, they are hostile actors who may as well be an invading force, they are heading to your homeland with drugs enough to probably kill 100k or more and you're worried about their due process??

Would prefer not to be tagged as being in violation of several aspects of international law regarding use of force without being in direct harm way to be specific.

Look, its painfully obvious that Trump wants to get into a scrap with Venezuela. For various reasons. So he does what he does best by being a dumb*** bully -- up to and including blowing up a boat that may have been filled with drugs.

Quote:What if there was actionable intel that stated they had a dirty bomb on board? Would you be OK with advocating for their rights to due process then? Or would you be OK with taking them out in the middle of the ocean?

The consequences of a dirty (or even actual normal) nuclear device constitute a direct and *immediate* threat to the United States. In that case I wouldnt have a problem.

11 dudes on a speedboat with a lot of drugs *isnt* that direct, immediately consequential as a dirty bomb, a normal nuclear bomb. The issue is immediacy and consequences.

Take that same speedboat and pile it with explosives. No, not enough to warrant an obliteration of that boat on the high seas. The closer it comes to the US, or for that matter US military assets -- then the ability and properness of obliterating it increases the closer and more immediate it comes.

And my position isnt based at all on 'due process' as everyone seems to think. Its based on the structure of self-defense.

The more immediate the threat is, the more justification for using it. The more consequential the immediate threat is, the more justification for using it.

Just like in standard self-defense laws that everyone is taught about in carry permit classes -- just applicable at a national level so to speak. And enshrined in a gamut of treaties and international laws.

Quote:Answer me that without equivocating or erecting strawmen to support your asinine support of not just your garden variety criminals, but also insane killers who would cut your throat without a second thought.

Answered above. Taking your last clause as an example, if such 'insane killer' threatened me with *immediate* and *consequential* harm (say by brandishing an operating chainsaw at me) -- by any right of self-defense I have a right to use deadly force to address that.

I *dont* have that right when it comes to actively stalking him, and using a sniper rifle on him when he is entering the hardware store to purchase the chainsaw.

Quote:Yours must be a pretty neatly packaged world where everything is in black and white,

Everything in my world is not 'black and white' as you say. I do hold some concepts pretty high and absolutely try to abide by them.

Quote:If it was up to me we'd still be hanging dangerous criminals in the middle of Anytown, USA's town square.

When properly charged, and properly tried, and sentenced to that -- Ill join you there.

Quote:If you were a criminal defense attorney are there any cases you would turn down because the act your potential client is accused of is so horrifying that your conscience wouldn't allow you to be engaged by them?

Two part answer -- one real life, one 'my construct'.

Real life -- I actually have and do turn down representation of a variety of issues, some even from good clients and/or friends, because I dont believe in the goal that they wish to accomplish. And I have 'fired' clients when they insist either on 'breaking the rules of the game', or when it is clear that their goal is to simply cheat the counterparty.

Construct -- when it comes to criminal work (which I havent done at all for 25 years, and only as a white collar gig and a few pro bono things as law student and newly minted attorney), I regard it as having two issues in it.

First -- everyone (and I mean everyone) deserves a process where the government plays by the rules. And that requires and advocate to make sure the govt actually dots the i's and crosses the t's in their criminal pursuit.

The consequences require that. At the same time, there are some so horrific that it would be best served if someone else takes their issue, and not me.

Quote:Delivering drugs that will contribute to our death toll of kids and adults dying from poisoned drugs should carry the death sentence.

I dont have a problem with that.

Quote:And yeah, I know, they are just as entitled to a legal defense as you or I

Absolutely.

Quote:but could you be that kind of lawyer or would your conscience prevent it?

Ive never had to make that decision. if it came down to it -- I would probably pass. For two reasons. The conscience thing being one. The second is that I know that I do not have the skill set to properly defend someone in that situation. Beyond the initial stage of entering a plea -- there are far better people than me to handle that in a professional sense.

Quote:Please note that I have not attacked you and have tried to be as respectful as I possibly can toward someone with whom I usually find myself in disagreement.

I havent noted any sort of attack in your comments. And, to be honest, you have some great questions. And to reiterate -- I am not viewing the 'splodey boat in the eyes of due process. More one of a proper exercise of lethal self-defense.

Quote: I will always defer to your experience in matters of the law but I won't usually agree with your opinions on the issues you seem to favor talking about.

No problems with your differing opinions on their own. None whatsoever.

magnanimous coming from you


Still not sure where they fall on the black/brown tanq prog filth color wheel.

Unbelievable

Maybe, when you are in doubt, go to your Shere Karen inane dumb*** issue wheel for guidance. Just a thought to help you out in your confusion there, Karen.

(09-04-2025 07:48 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  "Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?"

What's the difference? Why are you trying to separate the two? Either way, neither the drugs nor those delivering them will ever be a problem again. Never ever ever. Done, cooked, finished. That particular piece of the puzzle has been solved.

I think you know where I'm going with this.

Quote: I will always defer to your experience in matters of the law but I won't usually agree with your opinions on the issues you seem to favor talking about.

No problems with your differing opinions on their own. None whatsoever.
[/quote]

magnanimous coming from you


Still not sure where they fall on the black/brown tanq prog filth color wheel.

Unbelievable
[/quote]

Maybe, when you are in doubt, go to your Shere Karen inane dumb*** issue wheel for guidance. Just a thought to help you out in your confusion there, Karen.
[/quote]

Thats the low iq response expect from you

(09-04-2025 08:25 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 07:48 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  "Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?"

What's the difference? Why are you trying to separate the two? Either way, neither the drugs nor those delivering them will ever be a problem again. Never ever ever. Done, cooked, finished. That particular piece of the puzzle has been solved.

I think you know where I'm going with this.

Your posts, miko, are perfectly fine. The solution (if there is one) to the catastrophic damage being done to us by the illegal drug trade is BOTH a supply and a demand concern. That’s where I think it is fair for you to point out the demand side of the equation that.

But not to the exclusion of the supply side - - and I do not read you doing so. By bringing up demand side of the discussion in the context of THIS successful action, you are open to being associated with bad-faith arguments like those of tanq.

We all saw the clip. We all heard the explanations from those with first-hand intelligence. Someone who is not open to accepting this action as a clean kill, is (in my view) someone who is not arguing in good faith.

(09-04-2025 08:52 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 08:25 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 07:48 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  "Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?"

What's the difference? Why are you trying to separate the two? Either way, neither the drugs nor those delivering them will ever be a problem again. Never ever ever. Done, cooked, finished. That particular piece of the puzzle has been solved.

I think you know where I'm going with this.

Your posts, miko, are perfectly fine. The solution (if there is one) to the catastrophic damage being done to us by the illegal drug trade is BOTH a supply and a demand concern. That’s where I think it is fair for you to point out the demand side of the equation that.

But not to the exclusion of the supply side - - and I do not read you doing so. By bringing up demand side of the discussion in the context of THIS successful action, you are open to being associated with bad-faith arguments like those of tanq.

We all saw the clip. We all heard the explanations from those with first-hand intelligence. Someone who is not open to accepting this action as a clean kill, is (in my view) someone who is not arguing in good faith.

Srill waiting in the offended country to declare war


Frick em

(09-04-2025 08:52 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 08:25 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 07:48 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  "Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?"

What's the difference? Why are you trying to separate the two? Either way, neither the drugs nor those delivering them will ever be a problem again. Never ever ever. Done, cooked, finished. That particular piece of the puzzle has been solved.

I think you know where I'm going with this.

Your posts, miko, are perfectly fine. The solution (if there is one) to the catastrophic damage being done to us by the illegal drug trade is BOTH a supply and a demand concern. That’s where I think it is fair for you to point out the demand side of the equation that.

But not to the exclusion of the supply side - - and I do not read you doing so. By bringing up demand side of the discussion in the context of THIS successful action, you are open to being associated with bad-faith arguments like those of tanq.

We all saw the clip. We all heard the explanations from those with first-hand intelligence. Someone who is not open to accepting this action as a clean kill, is (in my view) someone who is not arguing in good faith.

I have zero problems with destroying a drug carrying boat from bad actors who want to bring it to the U.S. That said, I think it's a fair question to determine whether the USG is determined to stop ALL drugs or whether they are picking and choosing which groups are allowed to bring it in vs which groups are not.

Rubio absolutely said this applied to ANYBODY attempting to bring drugs into our country, by whatever route and/or method.

You can choose to believe that, or not, but that's what he said.

About time

Politicians (Detroit thread) claim US is evil and should be destroyed...not a peep from Dems.

Narco-Terrorist drug running boat gets blown to smithereens...they lose their minds.

Welcome to the Democrat party of 2025.

Here in Singapore the penalty for smuggling or dealing drugs is the death penalty, and they use it. When asked about it by Western media, Lee Kuan Yew commented how despite the penalty, there were still people trying to smuggle drugs into Singapore. That alone justified the need for the death penalty.

Needless to say, Singapore is now a very safe, clean city without druggies sleeping on the sidewalk and mentally ill homeless attacking people with needles. The laws and enforcement do more than discourage would-be drug dealers and cartel networks - they also discourage the type of people who would use those drugs from coming here.

You have to understand that Singapore was a huge hub in the global opium trade in it's early years. Using opium was part of the local culture. Getting rid of it was not easy and did not happen overnight. But just like El Salvador, they cleaned it up and sent the drug cartels packing. We can clean it up too if we have strong enforcement.

So, though I have strong Libertarian leanings, I have seen the results of cleaning up drug trafficking, and it is very positive. The belief of a wild west America with total freedom requires a people where the vast majority of citizens share beliefs, culture, and habits of keeping the law as a matter of personal choice. The more corruption, communism and multi-culturalism subvert America, the less likely that Libertarian ideal is likely to work.

I support the short, fast, and deadly justice for terrorists seeking to invade our country, hurt our people and profit from it. It not only eliminates the immediate threat, it also discourages future activities and makes recruiting more expensive.

The cartels have used their money, influence, coyotes, and their illegal aliens to control both Mexican and US politicians and government agents. Mexico has interfered in our elections much more than Russia could ever dream. Cutting out that infection in our body politic will be very good for our democracy.

Well said, HC. Too bad our resident Texas attorney is blind to situational reality. On immigration. On the drug trade. Etc.

Again, it’s amazing how some criticize thwarting drug runners and the action taken by the administration to do just that.

(09-04-2025 10:30 AM)450bench Wrote:  Again, it’s amazing how some criticize thwarting drug runners and the action taken by the administration to do just that.

Especially when the feds are doing nothing illegal in either situation, drugs or immigration.