Mexican Cartel attempts to blow dam

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Mikeintx, Jun 6, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

  2. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Cartel's with military-grade capabilities are now attempting military-type goals? That's horrifically brazen.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2010
  3. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    They really need to legalize drugs.
     
  4. An Angel in Black

    An Angel in Black Well-Known Member

    i dont think legalizing drugs is gonna do shit. its gonna make things worse.. think if you legalized them, with illegal aliens ignoring our border laws.. whats to ostop them from coming over here and sellin gdrugs to our kids with no consequences? not only would that be true, but they would be encouraged to do it.. i dont think youve thought that one through lol
     
  5. Axiom

    Axiom Account Closed

    Leaglizing the distribution of drugs doesn't mean allowing it to be sold to a 12 year old. The age would range around alcohol.

    I dont think you thought that one through :tongue:
     
  6. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Yeah... Gangs wouldn't have access to billions of dollars if drugs were legal. It'd be distributed like tobacco or alcohol.
     
  7. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    More and more Mexicans are certainly starting to lean to the legalization solution, as are a good amount of Americans (including those opposed to drug usage). It wouldn't be a perfect solution, and it would likely start off with an uptick in drug abuse, but in all the places that it has been done (particularly Portugal, which legalizes even hard drugs), usage rates and trafficking are lower.
     
  8. kitanai

    kitanai Well-Known Member

    legalise it ftw
    ya no drug gangs just the man the biggest gang of all
     
  9. An Angel in Black

    An Angel in Black Well-Known Member

    by whos authority? the law? do 14 yr old kids have sex and do kids underage drink? i mean cmon.. get a grip on reality. in the end ppl are going to do what they want to. while you cant always prevent crime, you can put an effort forth to stop it. explain how legalizing drugs is going to solve our problems? dont you think by doing that all of these illegals coming across the border with shitloads of drugs are just going to be encouraged? i mean the federal government doesnt do jack shit to start with on the border issue.. do you really think any of them care what crimes they commit? no they just go back after theyre deported it doesnt mean a damn thing. no youre encouraging them to come over here and bring theyre drugs with them because its a profiting business.. along with that the mob is going to get rich. remember in the 50-60s when the speakeasies were big? guess who those were run by selling alcohol to minors? the mob.. so youre supporting gangs and illegal drug trafficking when you support the legalization of heavy drugs.. have you thought about that one? if we legalize drugs are we gonna all just hold hands and north korea and mexico and going to sing in harmony with us without wanting to blow anything else up? think about that one for a sec before you answer. it isnt going to do anything other than make things worse.. if you want legalized drugs go to somewhere like holland. the kinds of ppl who want drugs legalized are the type with no ambitions for the future.. or at least thats the sterotype which makes sense to me.. i hope youre not like that. and i hope if you post again you can explain how legalizing drugs is gonna do anything related to this matter. more of all if youre an idiot who thinks marijuana should be legalized and it will fix the economy, explain how and what your reasons are. ive heard all of the bullshit, it will put money back in the economy. so will a government that doesnt rob ppl. that way we wont end up with another socialist radical karl marx identical twin like obama. and no, all it will do is give drug drealers and illegals coming across the border selling it more money to send back to their country taking away money from our economy. i dont think anyone has taken the time to actually think when they say something stupid like that. so.. tell me how legalizing drugs using a logical explanation is going to prevent things like this from happening?
     
  10. An Angel in Black

    An Angel in Black Well-Known Member

    sure bro whatever you say.. according to what statistics? again statistics dont mean shit.. theyres no substitute for common sense.. do you actually believe that usage rates are lower in a country that legalizes drugs? ok well lets take a look at why that might be.. number 1 is i know the population of portugal recorded at 2008 cause i cant find 2010 is 10,622,413... thats pretty weak.. compared to the us population which is in 2009 only 1 year apart 307,006,550. hmm.. ya know i wonder why it is that the usage isnt as big.. could it be that portugal has only about 3.5% of the US population? that must mean its a statistic.. :O we all know how easy those are manipulated.. anyone who doesnt have the logical thinking ability to understand this is a moron.
     
  11. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Ah yes, the common sense argument: ignoring scientific research in favour of making shit up.
     
  12. hokey pokey

    hokey pokey Member

    Perhaps Angel should re-read his signature line: there's no substitute for common sense.. please if you're stupid silence is your best bet. :cool:
     
  13. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    What Aeou said sums up my response. Common sense is far more objective than facts. Sure, statistics can be subject to bias or a margin of error, but compared to something as fluffy as 'common sense' they're more far more reliable.

    I don't have to believe it, it's proven. The Economist, Interpol, EU, and other sources have compiled drug usage rates among a number of developed countries and found that, generally speaking, those without strict laws against drugs tend to have less drug related crime in the long term. Since drugs aren't illegal, criminals are almost automatically cut out and the drugs are subject regulation and scrutiny. Furthermore, without the stigma of being criminals, drug abusers could receive treatment and thus not feed a criminal enterprise with their addiction.

    No one is saying it would be a perfect solution. Decriminalizing and/or legalizing drugs will have it's flaws, as alcohol and tobacco abuse show. But it couldn't be any worse than the horrific levels of crime and corruption that we're seeing both in Mexico and parts of the US. We've tried this war against drugs for some time, without success. I think it's safe to say we should at least consider a shift in strategy.

    I don't have the time to look it up now, but I'll be happy to dig up the sources if you don't care to search yourself. I'm sure you're common sense would tell you to figure it out on your own rather than take my word for it.

    That's a very poor understanding of how statistics work. Obviously, stats would take account of the disparity in population and measure drug abuse on a *per capita* basis, i.e. as a proportion of the population. "Common sense" should tell you that no comparison of anything could be accomplished without factoring in such differences.

    Clearly no one knows that better than you. Instead of berating everyone in such an abrasive manner, why not do the research yourself or find evidence to back your own claims to the contrary. It's the logical thing to do.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 9, 2010
  14. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    The irony of calling the most logical person on SF a moron :?
     
  15. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    You flatter me sir! =P
     
  16. An Angel in Black

    An Angel in Black Well-Known Member

    common sense is only fluffy if you have so little of it.

    ok, number 1, you cant name the economist so wheres the credibility in your statement. and out of all of the economists only a single one agrees? way to back that bro. number 2, i thought interpol sounded familar so i looked it up.. its the international police for the new world order kind of thing in which obama so fucked us in giving them power and he did so unconstitutionally. they are also marxists.. so let me stop you here and ask why would a marxist be in favor of legalizing drugs.. just because they tell you shit doesnt make it true.. i mean cmon, hello.. poppy fields? cocaine fields? thast less use for sure bro LOL! marxists are in favor of legalizing drugs because they are a submissive.. it makes ppl easier to control.. get a bunch of stupid ppl together and walla, you can control them which is what communism is about to begin with. and to top it all off .. i give you the award for the stupidest statement of the year! :yay: and i quote.. "those without strict laws against drugs tend to have less drug related crime in the long term" have you thought about what youre saying? probably not so let me translate for you.. what youre saying is that countries with less restrictions have less crime.. NO SHIT!! REALLY??!!! could that be because its no longer restricted it isnt a crime anymore? that sounds like another statistic.. :eek:hmy: i think it is.. if only you knew what a statistic was... in case you still dont get it.. let me further explain.. if i made it to where nothing in the united states was illegal.. i could go around saying the US is crime free! now why do you think that is..in case you still dont get it.. let me cite another example.. remember the alcohol prohibition in the 1920s? if when we say alcohol was legalized and the prohibition repelled we could easily say theyres less alcohol related crime in the long run :O it doesnt get any clearer than this.

    weve tried it? bro where have you been? we have not been punishing the mexican drug lords coming across the border but instead shipping them back!! when we get someone with some real balls that will prosocute these assholes then we can say we have tried.. hell arizona is the only state that does jack! they all bitch about having rights.. well if they have rights it means they can be prosocuted and put into jail too.. yet we fail to have anyone with a good enough head on their shoulders to have the guts to carry that out. the only person thats doing anything is the arizona sheriff joe arpaio. and of course jan brewer is having to uphold the federal law and do their job for them.. its really pathetic.

    thats ok.. if youre digging up sources is interpol which speaking of interpol you should read this.. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/read/3829/obamas-666-international-police-order-/ it might help deface what interpol really is.

    no thats exactly how statistics work and thats exactly how someone with something to hide says that. its the same as saying.. crime has reduced in chicago.. when in fact crime has been reduced in one city and has jumped up in others.. common sense should tell that.

    ive got the evidence to back my claims ive already stated them. but you gave me an economist with no name.. an interpol reference.. i mean cmon..ive pointed out the flaws in your statements and hopefully youll see things a little bit more clear now. one can always hope right..
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 9, 2010
  17. An Angel in Black

    An Angel in Black Well-Known Member

    ok... then give me the links to the scientific research bullshit.. go ahead.. i suppose next youre gonna fucking tell me global warming has the scientific research to support that too right?! HA!! you know.. global warming.. the scam pulled off for years by the company ACORN? in ties with the carbon credit company.. you know the one al gore owns.. probably dont know that either.. give me these bullshit links ot the so called SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE..
     
  18. An Angel in Black

    An Angel in Black Well-Known Member

    i feel the need when i read your statement to ask you to be quiet please. thank you :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 9, 2010
  19. Axiom

    Axiom Account Closed

    I just woke up , 4pm. Yep. Man angel.. my logic, and your logic just don't mix. Lets just agree to completely disagree.
     
  20. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    "The Economist" is the name of a publication, not an individual economist. It did a very in-depth report on the subject about 5 months ago, and while I have a physical copy, I am no longer subscribed to access the online version. Though you'll probably exploit that against me, it's the truth.

    And, once again, your description of statistics is not how *real* statistics work. You're invoking a straw man argument, where-by you focus on just one flawed example and extrapolate it to represent all others. Some people falsely apply statistics in that way (namely amateurs) but professional organizations and institutions do no such thing.

    You're refutation of Interpol as a source over some nonsensical conspiracy is bizarre, especially since Marxist regimes were generally pretty harsh on drug abuse (and still are, in the case of Laos, China, and Cuba). But since you will probably insist it's Marxist and corrupt, and there will be no real evidence of that, I can't possibly convince you otherwise - so I won't bother.

    Yes, less restrictions means less crime - that was exactly my point. I'm glad you've got the common sense to catch on. But you overlooked my other point completely: if something is legalized, it can be regulated, scrutinized, and treated. If it's illegal, it's left in the black market, to criminals, and to organized crime - it's allowed to fester and thrive. By legalizing drugs, they reach the status of alcohol and tobacco, which, last I checked, don't create the level of crime and exploitation that the drug trade does.

    Clearly, you're unaware of our funding of drug wars in Colombia, Afghanistan, and now Mexico. We've poured billions and drug use still remains a problem. It only shifts to other countries or innovates it's way from law enforcement. And the term drug war doesn't necessarily denote strong punishment, just punishment in general.

    If you want to bait me with petty attacks, don't bother. I really don't care to waste time insulting each other on the internet, especially for absolutely no reason. Clearly, and with all genuine sincerity, you're an extremely angry and troubled person. This sort of debate should not be causing you to lash out at everyone like this. If you ever need to talk, give me a buzz.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.