Such nonsense. Biden tried to remove the disastrous stay in Mexico policy, but was forced to keep Trump’s border rules until under three fucking weeks ago, dumbshit. He sent more back home to places like Hati than Trump did too. Derp.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-administration-ends-trump-era-remain-in-mexico-policy

Trump’s $40 billion fence hasn’t slowed immigration one percent, as expected. $40 billion more funding to border patrol would have been hundreds of times more effective….but not a monument to Trump.
Not using the border patrol to do useless, expensive political stunts instead of their job helps too.
Good BS blaming someone else. Republicans saying the borders are open is the number one reason people in South America believe it…that’s what THEY say, and why they’re coming now. This lies at least in part at their feet.

Funny how absolutely nothing was the president’s responsibility Jan 2017-21, but now everything in the country is his fault….except the things getting better like unemployment, wages, gdp, covid, the economy, gas prices recently, etc.

Bullshit. Trump never had any program to combat gang violence. Stop lying. His best plan was round up all Mexicans and you’ll get a lot of gang members too, but that’s a horrific and outrageous (and impossible) way to achieve that goal.

Calling them criminals invading is EXACTLY the point of this video, dummy. No one is barging into your house, most aren’t in the drug trade, for the vast majority crossing a line is the only crime they ever committed, and if our immigration/asylum policies were functional they wouldn’t have committed that crime. Just more nonsensical babbling from a ridiculous tool.

Funny how minor crime to save ones life is outrageous to you, but severe treasonous crimes for personal enrichment is a nothing burger. Stupid is as stupid does, and holy shit do you advocate for some stupid shit.

Denying asylum seekers entry was a crime when it started. Do it the right way or you are committing a crime every time you deny one. That’s Trump policy, no problem when he breaks the law, right? You don’t care a whit about law or crime, only about what you can pin on your rivals. Proven time and time and time and time and time and time again. You see no crime ever on the right, and fantasize about non existent crimes from the left, constantly.
Again, Barr lied and obstructed justice to protect Trump who lied and obstructed justice, court findings, but still not a crime because the statutes of limitations expired, right? No crime if they criminally slipped out of legal jeopardy….right?
And you also can’t see the hypocrisy. 🤦‍♂️

Answer this (I know you won’t, you are incapable of ever answering questions unless fed the far right answer, while I address every point you try to make every time)…how much has Abbot wasted on this stunt that hasn’t moved 1/2 days worth of immigrants out of state? Wouldn’t that money be better spent stopping crossings rather than with meaningless political stunts like this and the $10 billion waste of money with his border inspections that didn’t find a single stowaway or drug caches?

Funny, following the law isn't important when it's environmental law, or international law, charity law, fraud law, tax law, etc.....or when it takes effort to follow American law. That's why he spent money on building and running child jails instead of immigration judges, who could solve the problem 100% by making the application process last under 3 weeks.
Democratic politicians have tried to solve this repeatedly, but obstructionist republicans couldn't let any Obama laws pass and kicked it down the road to where we are now, where democratic bills stand zero chance of consideration, much less a vote.

Trump intentionally caused this with his presidential order to move to zero tolerance and arrest asylum seekers in an effort to force the political issue while Republicans only need to stop Democrats from filibustering, but enough Republicans balked at his monsterousness that he actually needs democrats votes now, something he won't get.

Since it's so often American policy and American drug trade that has made their homes terrible places, we owe those who our actions have displaced an opportunity for asylum.

It's like I come to your home, break in, take your valuables, burn the house down looking for more, then deride you for needing help, deny you shelter, and tell you to get your shit together and stabilize your life while my other gang members pick through the rubble of your home, then we dump you in Reno, your wife in Oklahoma, and your kids.....somewhere, not our problem, you find them.

There isn't some sudden rush of immigrants like Trump and oan/faux claim, the rate is still fairly steady.

Also, contrary to the lies you've repeated, no party advocates open borders. That's as true as saying Republicans are advocating the destruction of families and murder of children. Democrats have tried to fund rational immigration controls and have been stymied, but Republicans just want to lock the door and only let in those with connections and money.....like the Bin Ladens.

To think otherwise is just ignorant of the facts.

@Jerykk

i am trying to understand your position.
you state you cant regulate addictive substances.
yet we regulate:cigarettes,alcohol.both of these are addictive and both are regulated.

you also infer that if illegal drugs were decriminalized the situation would become far worse.

in relation to what,exactly?
are you positing that if illegal drugs were made legal,illicit drug use would rise? can you provide some evidence to back that up? because i cannot find any...at all.

you appear to actually agree with @SquidCap in regards to the fact that people are going to do what they are going to do but disagree with the idea of regulating the illicit drug trade.

non-regulation=black market=criminality=violence=waste of resources directed towards non-violent citizens doing something they enjoy in the privacy of their own home,with their own body.

so i agree with @SquidCap,i am just unclear where your disagreement lies.
please clarify.

#1 I clicked "ignore" after responding to his post. That is what I have no problem with doing.

#2 Bullshit. (sorry but it is) Hundreds if not thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted regularly for drug possession, drug selling, and even drug use. Tell me what's been decriminalized!

#3 The state is doing quite a bit in Oakland, actually, like preventing the private institutions that would solve these problems from arising in the fist place from setting up there (but instead hold failed monopolies over those industries). For example, there are no legalized drug dealers (See bullshit #2). Again, that kind of gang activity happens on a "public" street. It does not happen on private property. And even if it did, it'd be no one's business but the owners'.

#4 If this was even close to true, then it's even more proof of the superiority of private police over "public" law enforcement. Because, like I said, you don't see this kind of thing happening on private property, do you?

#5. Wrong. Businesses will take care of that if given an incentive to move there. Have you not heard of people complaining about (so-called) "gentrification?"

#6. Huh? Really? So, are there no business permits needed to set up a business in Oakland? Do the business owners and residents of Oakland not have to pay taxes? Is there no open carry for law-abiding citizens? (now there will be it seems). Is there no enforced rent control in Oakland? If you don't see any regulations being enforced, then you are willfully ignorant.

#7. There are no gangs at Disney because it is private property and its owners will not put up with something so bad for business as gangs. Disneyland and Google have gentrified the neighborhoods they are in -- they were not always low crime areas as they were before they moved in.

"Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security."

Yeah, those usually go together. The ultimate results of statist interventions are always poverty and crime.

#8 Much of the violent crime happens in the "public" spaces, like the streets. Sure, there are break-ins to private homes, etc. but as you say, the poverty does not let people hire private security, and the "public" police (that have monopolized that industry) are, like you point out, completely useless to the tax-paying residents who live there.


#9 I'd rather I wouldn't have to pay for taxes and pay for my own security than having to give the money to the state in exchange for getting nothing in return. In fact, I'm aware of several security services that are available to people living in the ghetto for as little as $35/month.


#10 So, only gangsters can afford guns now? Maybe it will be cheaper without the gun "permit" costs. Or the restrictions about buying them more cheaply online.

And I highly doubt the peoople in Oakland can't afford guns, given how many guns there are in Oakland. But, for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. If not for the illegality of the drug trade, then gangsters would also not be able to afford guns (the illegality of the drugs is what's driving up the price and, as a result, the profitability of gangsterism). And if it wasn't for the regulations, Walmart would make sure to provide more affordable armaments, just like they do in other states.

I recommend spending just a few minutes inside the Oakland traffic court and you'll see how many "hardworking upstanding people" there are who somehow manage to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and/or do community service for an equivalent minimum wage to pay for these. You could easily get a gun at Walmart for much less.


"Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland..."

Well, if you think Oakland is a libertarian "dream," then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having a brother who lived in Oakland for a year does not make you an expert on (or even vaguely familiar with) what a libertarian "dream" place looks like (or even -- as you apparently reveal -- what actually goes on in Oakland).


Just the fact that, as you say, Oakland is rather poor makes it a non-libertarian city at all. A free market society/economy (cronyism is not a free market, so don't even go there) has much less poverty than a 'regulated' one.

Sure, if you go from a state-dependent "economy" to a free market overnight, without having had time to rebuild the private institutions that the state demolished and/or took over and/or monopolized, then, sure you may have a chaotic transition period. That's why a controlled dismantlement is far more preferable to an anarchy that comes about by sudden collapse. But, you have to take what you can get.

(As we may find out first hand) the problem with a government going bankrupt is that, at first, it may seem like a good thing, but it can also bring about a worse repression from the state. Praxeology cannot answer the unknown. It falls more within the realm of thymological prediction/analysis.

You misunderstand the motivation for the language of stereotype used to describe the general dynamics of alcohol in Great Britain, i.e., a pub at every intersection-Hey man, alcohols' the last legal drug here in the states as well for the same reason: Governments and international criminals (same same, but different, as they say in Thailand) control the drug trade around the world. They limit which drugs may be manufactured or sold. They make incredible amounts of money doing so.

Governments and international criminals also corner the market on guns and artillery and ammunition and do their best to control the distribution and manufacture to insure one thing: Control and centralization of power.

We're not suggesting Brits are more prone to drunkenness and brawling than the same sort of tits in the U.S. I am simply suggesting sane remedies that do not involve baby-out-with-bathwater solutions to some seriously flawed fundamentals: societal and cultural evolution should be determined by sober consensus without emotion instead of this bullshit, "But what about the children?!" line of reasoning promulgated by criminals in power...A line that is trumpeted by so-called representatives and used as a tool (kind of like a gun is a tool) along with the complicit and effective tool of propaganda called market television, or major media, or whatever label for abject disinformation and agenda-pumping that benefits a few that some people who see owning guns as horrifying, have bought into.

The way to keep your children safe form psychopaths is to reinvent society and gradually change culture in a direction that heals the planet instead of raping it. Less fucking insane parents mean less fucking insane kids. Fuck licensing firearms, how about licensing parents before they plop out another?

How do you cure a country like North Korea, whose people for a few generations have been systematically trained in totalitarian shit-think?? It's a job no one wants to think about. As long as planetary ass-rape is the direction we are headed, guns guns guns my easily-insulted brother, and less shit-think. I'm not a fucking idiot, but my government is being run into the ground by cunts and assholes and douchebags who have most of the control over most of the guns and drugs! See how simple it is??

Guns violence by a FEW + International media coverage with a view to convincing people that guns (OF ANY KIND OR CAPACITY) are the problem = what should be an insult to your intelligence at the very least, and a goddamn warning shot across the bow that World Police State is what the cunts really want for humanity.

Gun control happens shortly after a gun is manufactured, unless you want to accidentally hurt yourself or another utilizing another kind of control. Self-Control maybe??

Well, you're on the internet right now, you should try googling the things he's talking about, here's merely one article of.. thousands:

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13457-feds-let-mexican-cartel-hit-men-kill-in-us-senior-lawman-told-stratfor

The CIA has had a direct hand in the drug trade for decades now. That's another topic you can google.

Edit: Also looked up this link for you:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm Very enlightening.

Weed won't become legal until the benefits to the government and organized crime are such that it's a better business proposition for its legality.
Until then, the illegal drug trade is just too damn profitable.

I'd read that some bitcoin proponents were concerned that the drug trade would hurt bitcoin's reputation as a serious anonymous currency.

Thoughts?>> ^blankfist:

http://gawker.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where
-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable
The Underground Website Where You Can Buy Any Drug Imaginable
"Mark, a software developer, had ordered the 100 micrograms of acid through a listing on the online marketplace Silk Road. He found a seller with lots of good feedback who seemed to know what they were talking about, added the acid to his digital shopping cart and hit "check out." He entered his address and paid the seller 50 Bitcoins—untraceable digital currency—worth around $150. Four days later the drugs, sent from Canada, arrived at his house."

Its not a lack of police to fight drug cartels which is the cause of the violence. That analysis is hollow. You are leaving out the devastating consequences of NAFTA and imperialism on these countries.

Poverty and unemployment have only worsened as a result of subsidies going towards big agrobussiness instead of local farmers. This is what leads to crime. Its a reaction by the working class getting even more fucked. When you can't get any $ by growing corn and instead have the chance to make $ selling drugs, yeah, you do it.

It isn't a coincidence that the majority of immigrants come from countries that have had dictators and death squads with the support of the US. Guatamala, El Salvador, Mexico. Destroyed economies create migrants which are CHEAP LABOR. Add to this the criminalization of immigrants with AZ's SB1070 and GA's copycat HB87. The AZ bill was pretty much written by Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison corporation which gets $200 per bed a night.

Its all part of the imperative of profit, the inherent violence of capitalism, duh
----
Additional reading:

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/10/28/prison-and-profits-the-politics-of-az%E2%80%99s-sb1070-bill-revealed/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/25/harvest_of_empire_new_book_exposes
"And then there's this from independent journalist Zafar Bangash:

"The CIA, as Cockburn and (Jeffrey) St Clair reveal, had been in this business right from the beginning. In fact, even before it came into existence, its predecessors, the OSS and the Office of Naval Intelligence, were involved with criminals. One such criminal was Lucky Luciano, the most notorious gangster and drug trafficker in America in the forties."

The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking closely dovetails America's adventures overseas - from Indo-China in the sixties to Afghanistan in the eighties....As Alfred McCoy states in his book: Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade, beginning with CIA raids from Burma into China in the early fifties, the agency found that 'ruthless drug lords made effective anti-communists." ("CIA peddles drugs while US Media act as cheerleaders", Zafar Bangash, Muslimedia, January 16-31, 1999)

And, this from author William Blum:

"ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels ... engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government," writes historian William Blum. "The Agency's principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe....""


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18877

Is this much worse than pretending to be a drug trading pimp.

Well, maybe they don't murder dogs.

I don't know. Teenagers are weird.

This guy is a very good speaker. His gestures are.. He strikes me as a lie. A living lie.

I'm going to Godwin this now, there are other good speakers, and one that he reminds me of is Hitler.

US, plutocratic actions on Haiti, if true are deplorable.

Accusations of widespread human rights abuses

Human Rights Watch accused the Haitian police force under President Aristide, and his political supporters, of attacks on opposition rallies. They also said that the emergence of armed rebel groups seeking to overthrow Aristide reflected "the failure of the country’s democratic institutions and procedures."[27]

The OAS/UN International Civilian Mission in Haiti, known as MICIVIH (its French acronym) found that the human-rights situation in Haiti improved dramatically following Aristide's return to power in 1994. [28] Amnesty International reported that Haiti was "descending into a severe humanitarian and human rights crisis" after Aristide's departure in 2004.[29]
[edit] Accusations of drug trafficking

Drug trafficking was allegedly a major source of money. Canadian police arrested Oriel Jean, Aristide's security chief and one of the most trusted friends, for money laundering.[30] Beaudoin Ketant, a notorious international drug trafficker, Aristide's close partner, and his daughter's godfather, confessed that Aristide "turned the country into a narco-country. It's a one-man show. You either pay (Aristide) or you die." Aristide denied the allegation, and the U.S. has not charged him directly with involvment in the drug trade.[31]
[edit] Accusations of corruption

Haitian investigators claimed to have discovered extensive embezzlement and money laundering by Aristide's administration, in which millions of dollars of public funds were allegedly lost to sophisticated financial transactions.[32] Aristide has forcefully denied these accusations. [33] The Haitian government filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit in the U.S. in Miami, Florida, in November of 2005, alleging that Aristide and his associates took hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks from the long distance company IDT, and that IDT diverted into a secret offshore bank account controlled by Aristide payments that should have gone to the Haitian company Teleco. The lawsuit was suspended by the Haitian government on June 30, 2006. [34][35]
[edit] Accusations of embezzlement of telecom revenues

According to a report by Christopher Caldwell in the July 1994 American Spectator, Aristide stole Haiti's telecom revenues while in the United States. Caldwell claims that, between 1991 and 1994, Aristide ordered that the proceeds from Haiti's international phone traffic, handled by the Latin American division of AT&T, be moved to a numbered offshore bank account in Panama.[36]

Some officials have been indicted by an US court.[37] The companies which made deals with Aristide included IDT, Fusion Telecommunications, and Skytel; critics claim the two first companies had political links. AT&T reportedly declined to wire money to "Mont Salem".[38][39][40][41]

Yes, please end this puritanical nightmare we are in. Even though I don't think I would ever use a prostitute's services, it's horrid to think of the conditions these poor women suffer simply because their trade is illegal.

I think it's quite simple. When making something illegal does more harm than good, put it back the way it was and try something else!

Prostitution and the drug trade would not be entangled with serious crime if they weren't illegal.

This is quite similar to my exposé of the drug trade in Colombia, posted about a year ago.

Yet more evidence of why this part of the world serves as the central hub for the world's dark economy.

I gotta say that I found Amsterdam sketchy and uninviting when I first got there (edit: based on an admittedly small sample of the city). I was staying in the Centrum district, near the train station, at the legendary Flying Pig hostel. Dudes trying to sell me drugs kept following me like tenacious mosquitoes and at night in the middle distance I heard women's screams which were not of the happy variety. (I was also reminded that two friends of mine had been attacked right outside my hostel.) It was by far the place in Europe that I most felt I needed to watch my back -- about the only place I felt that, actually. The marks of the sex and drug trade were seamy and dissolute without being hot or exciting (perhaps I would've seen that differently if I'd been there to indulge in either one, or both, but I wasn't). The sex museum was lame. I have to castigate the Flying Pig Downtown hostel too; its reputation was supposed to be tremendous -- "best place I've ever stayed" and so on -- but it was the worst; even with two weeks' advance booking I was in a moldy, windowless basement dorm; the place was not remotely clean and the showers backed up immediately. It bears mentioning too that this was the only time I've met hostel-goers who were uniformly furtive and unfriendly rather than social and outgoing (or at least making an effort at same) which has been my experience at virtually all other hostels before and since. A great many of them must have been stoned to the gills, and maybe that accounts for the weirdy unfriendliness -- I don't know.

I cut short my stay and was about to head back out into the warm welcome of the smaller cities and towns, but before I did I ended up spending a couple days 4 km away at the Flying Pig Uptown, which was clean, bright, filled with friendly people and right near the Leidseplein, a beautiful public square filled with shade trees and ringed with bars and bistros (it was near the Heineken Brewery too). Purely by chance I ran into an Aussie buddy that I had met in Arnhem earlier in the week, too. So that was good. YMMV.

Let's just imagine what would happen to Texas if they were to secede.

I'm guessing that the US Pentagon wouldn't exactly entertain the notion of their military hardware and soldiers on Texas soil, and that they would try to get it back. Assuming that's successful, it would leave Texas unarmed and naked to the world. Sure, the populace may be packing heat, but the drug cartels wreaking havoc south of the border have bigger, more explosive heat. Once they move in, the "Nation" of Texas would deteriorate like so many South American nations ruined by drug trade. No doubt, some leftist Hugo Chavez-esque dictator would fill the power vacuum, and provide free health care and birth control, and subsidized education to the masses. Teen pregnancy drops, average household incomes rise.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario. Cut 'em loose!