The useless war against drugs in Mexico

[OldTrapper]

LOL, now that is the epitomy of assinine, and only shows your contempt for Americans, and American law

If you don't like the laws here then go change the laws in your country. An American would not be allowed to live there, and demonstrate against the government if there illegally.

Nor would an American be allowed to have a free education, food stamps, get a drivers license, or any of the other benefits you enjoy here as an illegal.

Go home.

BTW, whose identity did you steal today?

 

[ktucan1]

I say the war on drugs is the gift that keeps on giving...I mean without it wouldn't have an excuse to continue to waste tax payer dollars on a failed policy that has added billions of dollars to our national debt. I say keep it coming....

 

[Rafael Norma]

LOL, now that is the epitomy of assinine, and only shows your contempt for Americans, and American law

If you don't like the laws here then go change the laws in your country. An American would not be allowed to live there, and demonstrate against the government if there illegally.

Nor would an American be allowed to have a free education, food stamps, get a drivers license, or any of the other benefits you enjoy here as an illegal.

Go home.

BTW, whose identity did you steal today?

I only can say that again you have shown your contempt for all people that aren't waspand you are wrong to say that the United States Citizens are the only ones who live in America. probably you should know better .....


Regards...

 

[dahermit]

I only can say that again you have shown your contempt for all people that aren't waspand you are wrong to say that the United States Citizens are the only ones who live in America. probably you should know better .....


Regards...

I have contempt for people who are here illegally, no matter what their ethnicity.

Only American citizens have the right to live in the U.S. or enjoy its benefits; the rest, get the hell out.

 

[Gipper]

I say the war on drugs is the gift that keeps on giving...I mean without it wouldn't have an excuse to continue to waste tax payer dollars on a failed policy that has added billions of dollars to our national debt. I say keep it coming....

Can I take the liberty to revise your post? Thanks.

I say the war on POVERTY is the gift that keeps on giving...I mean without it politicians wouldn't have an excuse to continue to waste tax payer dollars on a failed policy AND buying votes...that has cost TRILLIONS and added HUNDREDS OF billions of dollars to our national debt.

I get a kick out of libs complaining about SPENDING on the drug war, but welfare spending is sacrosanct.

 

[PLC1]

Can I take the liberty to revise your post? Thanks.

I say the war on POVERTY is the gift that keeps on giving...I mean without it politicians wouldn't have an excuse to continue to waste tax payer dollars on a failed policy AND buying votes...that has cost TRILLIONS and added HUNDREDS OF billions of dollars to our national debt.

Actually, you're both right.

The war on drugs is a hugely expensive failed government program, as is the war on poverty. What is not apparent is why "conservatives" want to support one hugely expensive failed government program, "liberals" want to support another, and yet they tend to be seen as having different philosophies.

Statism is statism, regardless of whether it is "left" "right" "liberal" "conservative" or whatever.

 

[ktucan1]

Can I take the liberty to revise your post? Thanks.

I say the war on POVERTY is the gift that keeps on giving...I mean without it politicians wouldn't have an excuse to continue to waste tax payer dollars on a failed policy AND buying votes...that has cost TRILLIONS and added HUNDREDS OF billions of dollars to our national debt.

I get a kick out of libs complaining about SPENDING on the drug war, but welfare spending is sacrosanct.

Seems to me they both go hand in hand wouldn't you think? The War on Drugs and the War on poverty?

 

[Gipper]

The war on poverty cost EXPONENTIALLY more than the war on drugs. Its a fact libs often miss.

The US is not really serious about it stopping drugs from reaching our shores. If they were, the border would be under much greater supervision and penalties for selling and smoking reefer would much greater.

I am indifferent on drugs. Americans (mostly liberals) love using illegal drugs. The demand is high so unless you are going to impose heavy prison time it is not going to stop.

I do think the government wants to legalize pot so they can tax it. Plus they like the idea of keeping the libs stoned all the time so they can even more easily impose their evil plans.

 

[PLC1]

The war on poverty cost EXPONENTIALLY more than the war on drugs. Its a fact libs often miss.

The US is not really serious about it stopping drugs from reaching our shores. If they were, the border would be under much greater supervision and penalties for selling and smoking reefer would much greater.

I am indifferent on drugs. Americans (mostly liberals) love using illegal drugs. The demand is high so unless you are going to impose heavy prison time it is not going to stop.

I do think the government wants to legalize pot so they can tax it. Plus they like the idea of keeping the libs stoned all the time so they can even more easily impose their evil plans.

First of all, if you factor in the cost of law enforcement and imprisonment, it is difficult to support the idea that the war on poverty is costing more than the war on drugs. About the only way you could perhaps do so would be to include Social Security and workman's compensation as a part of it, which is also not supportable.

As for your jab at "liberals", meaning, according to the definition you have given, people who favor a big government over individual liberty, it would logically be the liberals who would favor the government controlling drugs over the individual making his own decisions as to the use of them.

Therefore, it would be liberals supporting both the war on drugs and the war on poverty.

Libertarians would be the ones opposed to both failed government programs. Conservatives should be in line with libertarians, that is if conservative really means favoring individual liberty over big government.

 

[Gipper]

First of all, if you factor in the cost of law enforcement and imprisonment, it is difficult to support the idea that the war on poverty is costing more than the war on drugs. About the only way you could perhaps do so would be to include Social Security and workman's compensation as a part of it, which is also not supportable.

As for your jab at "liberals", meaning, according to the definition you have given, people who favor a big government over individual liberty, it would logically be the liberals who would favor the government controlling drugs over the individual making his own decisions as to the use of them.

Therefore, it would be liberals supporting both the war on drugs and the war on poverty.

Libertarians would be the ones opposed to both failed government programs. Conservatives should be in line with libertarians, that is if conservative really means favoring individual liberty over big government.

Oh Lord...did you hit the bong too many times today?

We debated this in my thread "costliest war" earlier this year. Apparently your memory is impaired which is common with heavy pot users.

Nothing and I mean nothing in the history of the world exceeds the cost of America's welfare programs other than the overall budget.

You need to review the costs of welfare. As stated in the initial post, welfare costs far exceed the costs of ALL of America's wars.

* And speaking of war, the federal and state governments spent $15.92 trillion (adjusted 2008 dollars) on welfare from 1965 to 2008. By comparison, the cost of all American wars since the Revolution is $6.39 trillion (adjusted 2008 dollars).

Lets see now...the drug war cost more then $16 TRILLION DOLLARS...thinks the lib...

 

[PLC1]

Oh Lord...did you hit the bong too many times today?

We debated this in my thread "costliest war" earlier this year. Apparently your memory is impaired which is common with heavy pot users.

Nothing and I mean nothing in the history of the world exceeds the cost of America's welfare programs other than the overall budget.



Lets see now...the drug war cost more then $16 TRILLION DOLLARS...thinks the lib...

First, you have failed to show that the war on poverty has cost $16 trillion dollars.

Second, I seriously doubt that you can do so without factoring in programs that are not a part of it.

Third, you failed to understand my point. I am not defending the war on poverty, and never have. I also am against the war on drugs.

Fourth, you failed to address the conflict between what you have described as liberal ideology and support of the war on drugs.

Once again, the war on drugs is a huge, expensive failed government program. If "liberal" means someone who favors huge expensive government programs, then the war on drugs is a liberal dream come true.

Fifth, if you continue to ignore the points I've made and propound your own overly simplistic political philosophy of lib bad, non lib good, that would call into question your own use of cannabis or other mind altering substances.

Not that it would matter if you were, as use or non use of a controlled substance should be the decision of the individual, not the government, as anyone but a lib would understand.

My personal choice is moderation in alcohol, no tobacco, no other drugs not prescribed by a doctor. My philosophy is live and let live, if someone else wants to mess up their mind, that is their business.

 

[Gipper]

Stay with me now.

Please see this: http://www.bobbeauprez.com/policy/most-expensive—and-least-successful—war-us-history

Consider these findings:

* Welfare to poor and low-income families is now the third most expensive government function after aid to the elderly in the form of Social Security and Medicare and after education. We spend less on national defense than on welfare.
* Welfare spending in 2008 was $714 billion. That’s 13 times greater than welfare spending in 1964, when President Lyndon B. Johnson started the War on Poverty.
* During his bid for the presidency, Obama repeatedly bemoaned the fact that the war in Iraq cost each American household about $100 each month. By comparison, welfare spending costs each American family $560 per month this year; next year, that number will jump to $638.
* And speaking of war, the federal and state governments spent $15.92 trillion (adjusted 2008 dollars) on welfare from 1965 to 2008. By comparison, the cost of all American wars since the Revolution is $6.39 trillion (adjusted 2008 dollars).

Now has the US government spent more on the war on drugs or the war on poverty?

 

[ktucan1]

Stay with me now.

Please see this: http://www.bobbeauprez.com/policy/most-expensive—and-least-successful—war-us-history



Now has the US government spent more on the war on drugs or the war on poverty?

Whats so funny is that people like Gipper like to bash the poor in this country just like the left likes to bash the rich but neither side offers a solution on how to fix the problem so they resort to bashing each others causes. Just goes to show the maturity level of both the left and the right. By the way Gipper in regards to your avatar.....Reagan is Dead too....so get over it!!!!

 

[OldTrapper]

Seems to me they both go hand in hand wouldn't you think? The War on Drugs and the War on poverty?

That would take some examination. The "war on drugs", one could argue, began back in the early 1900's with laws banning cocaine, and heroin, usage. While one could argue that a "war on poverty" began with the formation of the labor unions, and the end to the "robber barons" (something that is being resurrected under the corporate structure). it did not become government policy till the mid-60's with Johnson. FDR, while establishing the groundwork for the "welfare" system, was mostly concerned with the farmer, and to some extent with the elderly.

What is "funny" is that neither "war" has had any success. Drug use is up, and poverty continues to rise. Then too, the threshhold for what determines who is in poverty continues to rise also.

 

[Gipper]

Whats so funny is that people like Gipper like to bash the poor in this country just like the left likes to bash the rich but neither side offers a solution on how to fix the problem so they resort to bashing each others causes. Just goes to show the maturity level of both the left and the right. By the way Gipper in regards to your avatar.....Reagan is Dead too....so get over it!!!!

My my...we will be great friends.

My avatar is not The Great Ronald Reagan. It is the murdering Che. Don't tell me you do not know him.

I did not bash the poor. I merely pointed out the outrageous cost of welfare. But you being a lib naturally believe a conservative bashes the poor by pointing out the cost. Silly yes?

See the thread "costliest war" from Jan of this year. You will see many silly comments like yours.

Why do libs always respond so similarly? I guess it is the brainwashing they have endured.