I watched Texas Border Wars yesterday, a program about now brazen drug
dealers are becoming along the Texas/Mexico borders.

What ****es me off is when the rules of engagement stop our LEOs in pursuit,
or in doing some things that could interdict or wipe out some of these
groups. And that involves pursuits on OUR SOIL.

The thing that got me the most ****ed was when the helos were taking
incoming ground fire, and were restricted in firing back. Google some fine
viewing on "Iraqi insurgents" to see how the military boys THERE treat
anyone shooting at them.

A few Attack Helicopters on the border that are armed could put a kink in
this crap in one day. A few snipers taking 100 yard shots would certainly
make a change in attitude among the swimmers who swim the dope across.

We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason, and our
LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of dollars in drugs
coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by the rules set up
by politicians.

Rules should be, once you hit US soil, you are what is called a target.

It's time to treat the situation with the force it deserves.

People who sell drugs to our children rank right up there with the
chicken**** that plants IEDs on the roadside.

Steve

Steve B wrote:

We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason, and our
LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of dollars in drugs
coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by the rules set up
by politicians.

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict since
WWII due to our allowing politicians to try to micro manage our
military. The politicians need to be prohibited from exercising any
control over the military beyond setting the initial goal, after that it
should be 100% under military control how to accomplish the specified
goal.

Pete C. wrote:
Steve B wrote:

We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason,
and our LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of
dollars in drugs coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must
play by the rules set up by politicians.

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict since
WWII due to our allowing politicians to try to micro manage our
military. The politicians need to be prohibited from exercising any
control over the military beyond setting the initial goal, after that
it should be 100% under military control how to accomplish the
specified goal.

You sure nailed that one ! Give 'em their mission , then stand back and let
'em do their job .

--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
I watched Texas Border Wars yesterday, a program about now brazen drug
dealers are becoming along the Texas/Mexico borders.

What ****es me off is when the rules of engagement stop our LEOs in
pursuit, or in doing some things that could interdict or wipe out some of
these groups. And that involves pursuits on OUR SOIL.

The thing that got me the most ****ed was when the helos were taking
incoming ground fire, and were restricted in firing back. Google some
fine viewing on "Iraqi insurgents" to see how the military boys THERE
treat anyone shooting at them.

A few Attack Helicopters on the border that are armed could put a kink in
this crap in one day. A few snipers taking 100 yard shots would certainly
make a change in attitude among the swimmers who swim the dope across.

We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason, and our
LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of dollars in drugs
coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by the rules set
up by politicians.

Rules should be, once you hit US soil, you are what is called a target.

It's time to treat the situation with the force it deserves.

People who sell drugs to our children rank right up there with the
chicken**** that plants IEDs on the roadside.

Steve
What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?

Pete C. wrote:
Steve B wrote:
We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason, and our
LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of dollars in drugs
coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by the rules set up
by politicians.

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict since
WWII due to our allowing politicians to try to micro manage our
military. The politicians need to be prohibited from exercising any
control over the military beyond setting the initial goal, after that it
should be 100% under military control how to accomplish the specified
goal.



Short of "Seven Days in May", I'd agree.


And


Didn't Eisenhower warn about the Military-Industrial Complex?

--

Richard Lamb

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Pete C. wrote:
Steve B wrote:
We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason, and
our
LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of dollars in
drugs
coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by the rules set
up
by politicians.

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict since
WWII due to our allowing politicians to try to micro manage our
military. The politicians need to be prohibited from exercising any
control over the military beyond setting the initial goal, after that it
should be 100% under military control how to accomplish the specified
goal.



Short of "Seven Days in May", I'd agree.


And


Didn't Eisenhower warn about the Military-Industrial Complex?

....and little did we know then about General Jack D. Ripper, and all the
little Rippers who wanted to nuke the commies. g

And then there are the folks who believe that campesinos and drug dealers
are pretty much the same thing, and that it's a military invasion.

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out...

--
Ed Huntress

Why are people so cruel wrote:
What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?

The demand, which is common to every country. What distinguishes some
countries is they are suppliers.

So it doesn't matter which came first.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Why are people so cruel wrote:

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
I watched Texas Border Wars yesterday, a program about now brazen drug
dealers are becoming along the Texas/Mexico borders.

What ****es me off is when the rules of engagement stop our LEOs in
pursuit, or in doing some things that could interdict or wipe out some of
these groups. And that involves pursuits on OUR SOIL.

The thing that got me the most ****ed was when the helos were taking
incoming ground fire, and were restricted in firing back. Google some
fine viewing on "Iraqi insurgents" to see how the military boys THERE
treat anyone shooting at them.

A few Attack Helicopters on the border that are armed could put a kink in
this crap in one day. A few snipers taking 100 yard shots would certainly
make a change in attitude among the swimmers who swim the dope across.

We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason, and our
LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of dollars in drugs
coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by the rules set
up by politicians.

Rules should be, once you hit US soil, you are what is called a target.

It's time to treat the situation with the force it deserves.

People who sell drugs to our children rank right up there with the
chicken**** that plants IEDs on the roadside.

Steve

What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?

The supply of a drug invariably has to come first before there can be a
demand for it. The more general demand for "something to distract me
from my pathetic life" of course has existed as long as sentient life
has existed.

"Why are people so cruel" wrote in message
pond.com...

What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?



Relaxed morals...if in fact using drugs has a moral element. I think the question is
"What is the attraction to drugs?" Is it ingrained into the human psyche? Why
weren't humans designed better? (Especially in the lower back area, pancreas, knees,
eyes and hail loss.)

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Why are people so cruel" wrote in message
pond.com...

What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?



Relaxed morals...if in fact using drugs has a moral element. I think the question is
"What is the attraction to drugs?" Is it ingrained into the human psyche? Why
weren't humans designed better? (Especially in the lower back area, pancreas, knees,
eyes and hail loss.)

As I noted, the more general demand for "something to distract me
from my pathetic life" of course has existed as long as sentient life
has existed. This distraction takes many forms, good food, sports, sex,
music, drugs, etc. and for pretty much any distraction from your
pathetic life, there is some self proclaimed prophet or the like who
will claim it's somehow immoral. The only immoral thing is the person
trying to impose their beliefs on others.

I think the restrictions on our LEO have been going on for a
while. It angers me, that our guy can't deal properly with
criminals. And the judges release the criminals.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
I watched Texas Border Wars yesterday, a program about now
brazen drug
dealers are becoming along the Texas/Mexico borders.

What ****es me off is when the rules of engagement stop our
LEOs in pursuit,
or in doing some things that could interdict or wipe out
some of these
groups. And that involves pursuits on OUR SOIL.

The thing that got me the most ****ed was when the helos
were taking
incoming ground fire, and were restricted in firing back.
Google some fine
viewing on "Iraqi insurgents" to see how the military boys
THERE treat
anyone shooting at them.

A few Attack Helicopters on the border that are armed could
put a kink in
this crap in one day. A few snipers taking 100 yard shots
would certainly
make a change in attitude among the swimmers who swim the
dope across.

We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever
reason, and our
LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of
dollars in drugs
coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by
the rules set up
by politicians.

Rules should be, once you hit US soil, you are what is
called a target.

It's time to treat the situation with the force it deserves.

People who sell drugs to our children rank right up there
with the
chicken**** that plants IEDs on the roadside.

Steve

Supply. People don't just wake up and say "you know, I sure
wish I had some qwertyuiop, but it hasn't been invented
yet."

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Why are people so cruel"
wrote in message news:ESufp.12897


People who sell drugs to our children rank right up there
with the
chicken**** that plants IEDs on the roadside.

Steve
What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of
the drug?

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:41:08 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

I watched Texas Border Wars yesterday, a program about now brazen drug
dealers are becoming along the Texas/Mexico borders.

What ****es me off is when the rules of engagement stop our LEOs in pursuit,
or in doing some things that could interdict or wipe out some of these
groups. And that involves pursuits on OUR SOIL.

Indeed!


The thing that got me the most ****ed was when the helos were taking
incoming ground fire, and were restricted in firing back. Google some fine
viewing on "Iraqi insurgents" to see how the military boys THERE treat
anyone shooting at them.

Considering that terrorists are coming along with the drug smugglers
and S/A illegals, those goddamned doors should be shut permanently.
Vaporizing lasers covering the terrain between countries would easily
handle this load with only a few operators. AI could be trained to
spot wildlife and let it through safely, alerting the operators to
handle the human targets.


A few Attack Helicopters on the border that are armed could put a kink in
this crap in one day. A few snipers taking 100 yard shots would certainly
make a change in attitude among the swimmers who swim the dope across.

If not lasers, dope or not, anyone caught crossing illegally should be
given the 50 round test. Anyone surviving 50 rounds from a gat or
squad machine gun (as well as collectible sized parts of the rest)
should be deported.


We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason, and our
LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of dollars in drugs
coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by the rules set up
by politicians.

Rules should be, once you hit US soil, you are what is called a target.

Agreed.


It's time to treat the situation with the force it deserves.

People who sell drugs to our children rank right up there with the
chicken**** that plants IEDs on the roadside.

Not EVEN, Steve. If people didn't want their drugs, drugs couldn't
fetch the price they do and make the whole smuggling thing profitable.
If there weren't a market, the drug dealers would dry up.

Think about it.

--
Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
-- Demosthenes

On 3/14/2011 6:29 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the restrictions on our LEO have been going on for a
while. It angers me, that our guy can't deal properly with
criminals. And the judges release the criminals.


you want lower taxes don't you? releasing the criminals reduces cost of
incarceration. In fact, eliminating jails and police will save even
more money.

Steve B wrote:
I watched Texas Border Wars yesterday, a program about now brazen drug
dealers are becoming along the Texas/Mexico borders.

Do they have non-DU ammo for the GAU-8?

If not, then may I suggest an AC-130 or some CBU-87s?


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Why are people so cruel" wrote in message
pond.com...

What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?



Relaxed morals...if in fact using drugs has a moral element. I think the question
is
"What is the attraction to drugs?" Is it ingrained into the human psyche? Why
weren't humans designed better? (Especially in the lower back area, pancreas,
knees,
eyes and hail loss.)

As I noted, the more general demand for "something to distract me
from my pathetic life" of course has existed as long as sentient life
has existed. This distraction takes many forms, good food, sports, sex,
music, drugs, etc. and for pretty much any distraction from your
pathetic life, there is some self proclaimed prophet or the like who
will claim it's somehow immoral. The only immoral thing is the person
trying to impose their beliefs on others.
********************

How does one KNOW they have a pathetic life? Some of the happiest people I've ever
met were dirt poor and I've known some very unhappy rich people. I know these are
philosophical things that just can't be answered but it's brain candy to ponder.
Throughout history laws and social acceptability have been in a state of flux for the
use of what we call drugs. I'll go back to the premise that humans are flawed and
there is a propensity to "distract", like you say. So, is there a solution to
substance abuse? Probably not a panacea but as many solutions as there are people. I
think the biggest part of the drug situation isn't the users, it's the lust for the
money involved...an even more basic human flaw.

John R. Carroll wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Steve B wrote:
We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason,
and our LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of
dollars in drugs coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must
play by the rules set up by politicians.
You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict
since WWII due to our allowing politicians to try to micro manage our
military. The politicians need to be prohibited from exercising any
control over the military beyond setting the initial goal, after
that it should be 100% under military control how to accomplish the
specified goal.


Short of "Seven Days in May", I'd agree.


And


Didn't Eisenhower warn about the Military-Industrial Complex?

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist. "

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. "

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and
fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war"


Read mo
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...#ixzz1GbqGCrjX




Yep, something like that right there...


--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Why are people so cruel" wrote in message
pond.com...

What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?



Relaxed morals...if in fact using drugs has a moral element. I think the question
is
"What is the attraction to drugs?" Is it ingrained into the human psyche? Why
weren't humans designed better? (Especially in the lower back area, pancreas,
knees,
eyes and hail loss.)

As I noted, the more general demand for "something to distract me
from my pathetic life" of course has existed as long as sentient life
has existed. This distraction takes many forms, good food, sports, sex,
music, drugs, etc. and for pretty much any distraction from your
pathetic life, there is some self proclaimed prophet or the like who
will claim it's somehow immoral. The only immoral thing is the person
trying to impose their beliefs on others.
********************

How does one KNOW they have a pathetic life? Some of the happiest people I've ever
met were dirt poor and I've known some very unhappy rich people. I know these are
philosophical things that just can't be answered but it's brain candy to ponder.
Throughout history laws and social acceptability have been in a state of flux for the
use of what we call drugs. I'll go back to the premise that humans are flawed and
there is a propensity to "distract", like you say. So, is there a solution to
substance abuse? Probably not a panacea but as many solutions as there are people. I
think the biggest part of the drug situation isn't the users, it's the lust for the
money involved...an even more basic human flaw.

Realize that the money involved in drugs only comes about when someone
tries to ban them and thus increases cost and demand. It's pretty clear
that if marijuana was legal it would have essentially no "street value",
and people would simply grow it on their windowsill like catnip from a
$0.25 packet of seeds from Wal Mart.

"." wrote in message
...
On 3/14/2011 6:29 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the restrictions on our LEO have been going on for a
while. It angers me, that our guy can't deal properly with
criminals. And the judges release the criminals.


you want lower taxes don't you? releasing the criminals reduces cost of
incarceration. In fact, eliminating jails and police will save even more
money.

I would go for that in a second if there was a lifting of hunting season,
hunting means, and bag limit. Some of those ranchers down there are in a
boatload of **** for just protecting their own properties. I guarantee if
you let Texicans use their guns the way they want to, this foolishment would
drop by half in a week. Just like Nam, shoot 'em, and let them drift down
the river. Crab food.

Steve

On 3/14/2011 11:53 AM, Pete C. wrote:

Steve B wrote:

We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason, and our
LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of dollars in drugs
coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by the rules set up
by politicians.

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict since
WWII due to our allowing politicians to try to micro manage our
military. The politicians need to be prohibited from exercising any
control over the military beyond setting the initial goal, after that it
should be 100% under military control how to accomplish the specified
goal.


Why mess around? Just hand the country over to the military. You like
them so much just let them run things. We can get rid of the
constitution and all the legal crap and just let the generals run
things. Look at history, they have a great record whenever they run a
country. Don't they?

Hawke

On 3/14/2011 1:27 PM, Why are people so cruel wrote:

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
I watched Texas Border Wars yesterday, a program about now brazen drug
dealers are becoming along the Texas/Mexico borders.

What ****es me off is when the rules of engagement stop our LEOs in
pursuit, or in doing some things that could interdict or wipe out some
of these groups. And that involves pursuits on OUR SOIL.

The thing that got me the most ****ed was when the helos were taking
incoming ground fire, and were restricted in firing back. Google some
fine viewing on "Iraqi insurgents" to see how the military boys THERE
treat anyone shooting at them.

A few Attack Helicopters on the border that are armed could put a kink
in this crap in one day. A few snipers taking 100 yard shots would
certainly make a change in attitude among the swimmers who swim the
dope across.

We have armed foreigners landing on our soil for whatever reason, and
our LEOs are handcuffed by rules of engagement. Billions of dollars in
drugs coming in to decay us from the inside, and we must play by the
rules set up by politicians.

Rules should be, once you hit US soil, you are what is called a target.

It's time to treat the situation with the force it deserves.

People who sell drugs to our children rank right up there with the
chicken**** that plants IEDs on the roadside.

Steve
What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?




Maybe it would just be easier to shoot the kids who go looking for the
drugs. It would be a lot easier, and it would prevent them from ever
doing it again. Kill the drug users and win the drug war. A genius plan
so I'm sure the conservatives will go for it.

Hawke

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Why are people so cruel" wrote in message
pond.com...

What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?



Relaxed morals...if in fact using drugs has a moral element. I think the
question
is
"What is the attraction to drugs?" Is it ingrained into the human psyche? Why
weren't humans designed better? (Especially in the lower back area, pancreas,
knees,
eyes and hail loss.)

As I noted, the more general demand for "something to distract me
from my pathetic life" of course has existed as long as sentient life
has existed. This distraction takes many forms, good food, sports, sex,
music, drugs, etc. and for pretty much any distraction from your
pathetic life, there is some self proclaimed prophet or the like who
will claim it's somehow immoral. The only immoral thing is the person
trying to impose their beliefs on others.
********************

How does one KNOW they have a pathetic life? Some of the happiest people I've ever
met were dirt poor and I've known some very unhappy rich people. I know these are
philosophical things that just can't be answered but it's brain candy to ponder.
Throughout history laws and social acceptability have been in a state of flux for
the
use of what we call drugs. I'll go back to the premise that humans are flawed and
there is a propensity to "distract", like you say. So, is there a solution to
substance abuse? Probably not a panacea but as many solutions as there are people.
I
think the biggest part of the drug situation isn't the users, it's the lust for the
money involved...an even more basic human flaw.

Realize that the money involved in drugs only comes about when someone
tries to ban them and thus increases cost and demand. It's pretty clear
that if marijuana was legal it would have essentially no "street value",
and people would simply grow it on their windowsill like catnip from a
$0.25 packet of seeds from Wal Mart.

Chia-Pot!

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Why are people so cruel" wrote in message
pond.com...

What comes first? The demand for the drug or the supply of the drug?



Relaxed morals...if in fact using drugs has a moral element. I think the
question
is
"What is the attraction to drugs?" Is it ingrained into the human psyche? Why
weren't humans designed better? (Especially in the lower back area, pancreas,
knees,
eyes and hail loss.)

As I noted, the more general demand for "something to distract me
from my pathetic life" of course has existed as long as sentient life
has existed. This distraction takes many forms, good food, sports, sex,
music, drugs, etc. and for pretty much any distraction from your
pathetic life, there is some self proclaimed prophet or the like who
will claim it's somehow immoral. The only immoral thing is the person
trying to impose their beliefs on others.
********************

How does one KNOW they have a pathetic life? Some of the happiest people I've ever
met were dirt poor and I've known some very unhappy rich people. I know these are
philosophical things that just can't be answered but it's brain candy to ponder.
Throughout history laws and social acceptability have been in a state of flux for
the
use of what we call drugs. I'll go back to the premise that humans are flawed and
there is a propensity to "distract", like you say. So, is there a solution to
substance abuse? Probably not a panacea but as many solutions as there are people.
I
think the biggest part of the drug situation isn't the users, it's the lust for the
money involved...an even more basic human flaw.

Realize that the money involved in drugs only comes about when someone
tries to ban them and thus increases cost and demand. It's pretty clear
that if marijuana was legal it would have essentially no "street value",
and people would simply grow it on their windowsill like catnip from a
$0.25 packet of seeds from Wal Mart.

Chia-Pot!

How do you get it to grow in dreadlocks?

Pete C. wrote:

Realize that the money involved in drugs only comes about when someone
tries to ban them and thus increases cost and demand. It's pretty clear
that if marijuana was legal it would have essentially no "street value",
and people would simply grow it on their windowsill like catnip from a
$0.25 packet of seeds from Wal Mart.

People with the reefer madness simply can't, or won't, see this simple fact.

Plus, there are too many people making too much money off the war.

I guess that's one of the benefits of the idiocracy.

Thanks,
Rich

Pete C. wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message

Realize that the money involved in drugs only comes about when someone
tries to ban them and thus increases cost and demand. It's pretty clear
that if marijuana was legal it would have essentially no "street
value", and people would simply grow it on their windowsill like catnip
from a $0.25 packet of seeds from Wal Mart.

Chia-Pot!

How do you get it to grow in dreadlocks?

Genetically select for plants that only grow big mongo buds? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Mexicans would stay home if their country was better. And if
the elected reps in the US would stop handing out my tax
dollars to illegals.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Realize that the money involved in drugs only comes about
when someone
tries to ban them and thus increases cost and demand. It's
pretty clear
that if marijuana was legal it would have essentially no
"street value",
and people would simply grow it on their windowsill like
catnip from a
$0.25 packet of seeds from Wal Mart.

But, someone might get hurt!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every
conflict since
WWII due to our allowing politicians to try to micro manage
our
military. The politicians need to be prohibited from
exercising any
control over the military beyond setting the initial goal,
after that it
should be 100% under military control how to accomplish the
specified
goal.

It's been a couple decades. But, I remember reading that
some class of criminals are far more expensive "loose".
Because they burgle, steal, assault, etc. Actually cheaper
for society when locked up.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"." wrote in message
...
On 3/14/2011 6:29 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

you want lower taxes don't you? releasing the criminals
reduces cost of
incarceration. In fact, eliminating jails and police will
save even
more money.

It may lead to increased violence as the border criminals
would take up arms. But, interesting to try for a while. At
least the constitutional rights (to keep and bear arms, and
protect oneself) would be restored for the ranchers.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

I would go for that in a second if there was a lifting of
hunting season,
hunting means, and bag limit. Some of those ranchers down
there are in a
boatload of **** for just protecting their own properties.
I guarantee if
you let Texicans use their guns the way they want to, this
foolishment would
drop by half in a week. Just like Nam, shoot 'em, and let
them drift down
the river. Crab food.

Steve

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:41:46 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


Tom Gardner wrote:
Chia-Pot!

How do you get it to grow in dreadlocks?

Play gnarly Marley Jamaican moosick, mon.

--
Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
-- Demosthenes

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:40:24 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
SNIP
It's been a couple decades. But, I remember reading that
some class of criminals are far more expensive "loose".
Because they burgle, steal, assault, etc. Actually cheaper
for society when locked up.
SNIP
==========
Not that difficult a calculation to make, although it drives
some people wild.

As a general rule of thumb, a criminal must steal/rob about
10X as much as he actually spends on his life style,
assuming he is a full-time criminal. From what I can tell,
most criminal lifestyles are pretty marginal despite what
you see on TV and in the movies. The ones that make the
headlines are the "super stars," during their "peak earning
years."

Assuming a marginal life style for the average criminal,
about 25,000$ per year total will be required depending on
the area, social safety net services such as subsidized rent
in public housing, emergency room medical care, food stamps,
etc.

FWIW -- it appears that in many cases, low level criminal
activity is undertaken to augment the low pay from the
available McJobs, so the total from marginal criminal
activity like car clouting will be less.

This indicated a direct loss to society of about 250,000$
per year for a typical full time criminal. This goes higher
when collateral property damage, vic medical care, lost
productivity because of need to file police reports, etc. is
included, and there is considerable additional consequential
costs generated such as police apprehension [attempts] and
court processing.

The probabilistic factor is the likelihood that a typical
perp would have changed his ways out on the street during
the time he is in prison.

Even in California which AFAIK is the highest cost state per
prisoner at 133$ per inmate per day or $48,500 per year,
this appears to be highly cost effective in the aggregate,
but not in direct state [tax payer funded] costs, which is
where the problems arise.
http://reason.org/blog/show/cutting-...sts-california


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
...
In .com, on Mon, 14 Mar
2011 12:53:34 -0600, Pete C., wrote:

Steve B wrote:

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict since
WWII

I think we "won" Grenada.


And Panama. And Kosovo. And the Dominican Republic. And Iraq (Desert Storm).

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:37:09 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
SNIP
Mexicans would stay home if their country was better. And if
the elected reps in the US would stop handing out my tax
dollars to illegals.
SNIP
==========
Major portion of the problem is that many areas in Mexico
and Central/South America were destabilized when NAFTA/WTO
was rammed through.

Significant segements/amounts of the population [huge in
absolute numbers] were dependent on subsistence and small
scale agriculture which were destroyed when Cargill and ADM
flooded the markets with cheap corn and other agriculture
products.

Additional problems were created when the land for
subsistance/small scale agriculture was seized to be used
for modernization/industrialization. The people displaced
had no place to go other than the enormous cities, with only
the most marginal or no work, with the result that they were
starving to death. What alternative do they have except to
head north or engage in the dug trade or its support
activities? As is generally the case, we have largely
brought these problems on ourselves as a result of the
actions of a few for their personal gain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatis...nal_Liberation
http://www.sonic.net/bantam1/tdjb.html


In many ways the troubles to the south are not primarily a
drug problem but a revolution financed by the drug trade,
waged by people with nothing left to lose, e.g. like
Columbia. As such it is likely to get far worse, for
example as the revolutionaries/drug gangs acquire heavier
and more modern weapons than the **** ant AKs/SKSs/M16s they
are currently acquiring in the US. Shoulder fired
antiaircraft munitions, RPGs, and wire guided anti armor
munitions should be a particular concern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K34_Strela-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...

As is generally the case, we have largely
brought these problems on ourselves as a result of the
actions of a few for their personal gain.

BINGO! Sorry to snip the rest of your post but this line is THE zinger! Volumes and
volumes could be and have been written about that which you so eloquently condensed
into one sentence.

Steve Ackman wrote:

In .com, on Mon, 14 Mar
2011 12:53:34 -0600, Pete C., wrote:

Steve B wrote:

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict since
WWII

I think we "won" Grenada.

Yeah, so, to what purpose? What did that accomplish? Are they now a US
"possession," like Puerto Rico? Is there anything there that we want,
that we couldn't just buy?

Thanks,
Rich

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
Mar 2011 12:53:34 -0600, Pete C., wrote:
Steve B wrote:

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict since
WWII

I think we "won" Grenada.

And Panama. And Kosovo. And the Dominican Republic. And Iraq (Desert
Storm).

Yeah, so how's that Iraq stuff workin' out for ya?

Thanks,
Rich

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
Mar 2011 12:53:34 -0600, Pete C., wrote:
Steve B wrote:

You may or may not have noticed, but we have lost every conflict since
WWII

I think we "won" Grenada.

And Panama. And Kosovo. And the Dominican Republic. And Iraq (Desert
Storm).

Yeah, so how's that Iraq stuff workin' out for ya?

Hey, we won the first conflict. The second one was Dumbya.

--
Ed Huntress


Thanks,
Rich