Absolutely nothing wrong at all with breasts, boobs, bums, vaginas, dicks... nothing. And there is most definitely something screwed up with the current bizarro world of censorship where violence is fine, but a hint of nudity has them up in arms.

However... my question for this video (obviously based only on vision as I have no idea what they're saying) is why is it that all the women are in revealing outfits and stripper heels or at least stilettos, while the guys are just in casual clothes? There doesn't seem to be any equality there at all.

Why wasn't there a guy having his clothes stripped off except for some budgie smugglers?

Just asking...

And is that really Spanish? Sounds very Italian to me.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^Sarzy:
Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?

What they were supposed to do, is try to get the man out of the house through some non-violent means.

So the fact that the man had an enormous assault rifle and was pointing it at the cops as they came in the door means nothing?
All I'm saying is that I don't think the cops who actually pulled the trigger are at fault here. Should they have even been there in the first place? Probably not. But that's not their call. Someone should be held accountable for this, but it's not those cops.


Sure they are. Why did they lie and say he fired at them first? Why did they seal the search warrant after the case starting getting publicity? Why were they ignorant to the fact of who lived at the house? Why wasn't Guerena's name on the search warrant if he was a suspect of criminal activity? Why is paramilitary police busting down his door and 4 or 5 others that day for marijuana? (Forget the fact they found NOTHING) Why did they have the urgency to bust down his door but then the "SWAT" team decides to clear the house with some sort of robot? Why did they deny paramedics access to Guerena for over an hour? Why did they change their story multiple times and now claim he was a suspect for home invasions?

You seem to be giving the cops a pass and blaming their superiors. I guess we should've applied that to those Third Reich officers that were only following orders too. The cops took an oath to uphold the constitution, so any abridgement of the 4th amendment rests squarely on their shoulders. And any law enforcement agency that makes excuses for it or tries to hide the truth about it is utterly corrupt. Honest and moral people are not going to carry out the orders of tyrants. If the people in charge are violating The Law, then the subordinates by default are going to be lawless thugs "just following orders".

The SWAT team had a ballistic shield, busted the door, and stood on the outside shooting in. Guerena may have a had a gun pointed at them but he never fired and still had the safety on. The SWAT team never clearly identified who they were, and just starting shooting. Even if this wasn't Guerena and it was a drug smuggler with a house full of drugs and money, what the SWAT team did is straight up murder and disregard for human rights.

>> ^bamdrew:

"Hello my friends, we are currently in international waters, and about to detonate one of the largest hydrogen bombs that any smuggler has dared steal from our great mother Russia."


Nice

"Hello my friends, we are currently in international waters, and about to detonate one of the largest hydrogen bombs that any smuggler has dared steal from our great mother Russia."

If they just traffic one side of the highway and only target out of state vehicles......

How's a smart drug smuggler going to handle that? He's going to use an in-state tagged vehicle until he gets through the state. Or buy something he can resell in another state for clean cash.

As for carrying large sums of money, it's common knowledge in my area that farmers do a significant amount of dealings in cash. They'll buy big ticket items or equipment, like 100 grand items entirely or divide it up between a big lump of cash and the rest on credit. They cross state lines to go to auctions, etc and carry sizable cash on them the day of. Admittedly other people do cash dealings, but farmers are guys who consistently do cash deals. Sometimes they even buy new stuff from the manufacturers for big discounts because they pay entirely in cash.

Also other reasons for cash: Semi drivers doing pickups on goods will sometimes deal in cash. This is why you see a lot of them parked on the side of the highway instead of at rest stops when they sleep for the day, because people will bust into their cab and rob em due to there being a good chance of them carrying cash. Let alone emptying their trucks while they sleep. Got an uncle who used to do interstate driving, he said when he woke up in the morning after sleeping at a truck stop...the experienced guys would never get out of the truck to use the restroom or whatever. They'd start their truck and drive a good distance down the highway then get out and inspect their truck for vandalism, tampering, or other issues. Just so they don't get cracked in the head while they are bent over checking tires.

So, basically these cops are straight up robbing people who have entirely non-drug related reasons to carry a lot of cash on them. It'll just end up that people will start routing around Tennessee if they are out of state and going to another state to avoid the hassle. Which means they won't get their fuel taxes (basically trucks are required to buy as much fuel as they use in each state and they check them periodically for receipts and proof), won't get the business of people stopping in the state, and might end up with people entirely avoiding delivering to TN at all...only dropping off near it and letting a local guy in TN come out of state to pick it up and bring it in. Which is another thing...in CA and other Southwestern states, if they need to ship something into Canada they use to take it down into Mexico and drop it off. Then let the Mexican trucks hook up to the load and take it back through the US and up into Canada...it ended up being cheaper and faster. Don't know if they've revised laws and what not to stop that, but a lot of truckers were pissed when their 100-200+ mile round trip ended up being a half day into mexico and back.

Once you understand that the war on drugs not only doesn't work, but it only exists because of lobbyists, these kinds of shows seem kind of pointless

Was still kind of interesting, if I was a drug smuggler I would definitely consider investing in subs, it seems like a logical move that would convey with it less of a risk than normal methods.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Sagemind.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Drug-smugglers-catapult-pot-over-border-fence

Seems the ass-crack has been attempted, just not on a plane.

Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

she would be an awesome banana smuggler

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That does sound good - if maybe a bit too "pre-digested" if you know what I mean?
>> ^Shepppard:

I still say that Melts are the best breakfast ever.
Roasted potatoes, cut up into homefries size and fried up until they're nice and crispy, with cooked maple sausages, fried mushrooms, onions and shredded cheese, all mixed into a pan. Then layer the top with more cheese and broil it.
Top with two fried eggs, and nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, will ever compare.
Like this. sorta.

We Get some hot peppers, but they are mostly the asian variety- which are pretty good, but I wish we had more habaneros and jalapenos.
>> ^chicchorea:

Remember, you are what you eat.
What do you use for hot peppers down in Oz?
Our leader, a smuggler?!

And please, our condolences for your and your families loss.

Remember, you are what you eat.

What do you use for hot peppers down in Oz?

Our leader, a smuggler?!


And please, our condolences for your and your families loss.

To each their own, I guess.. I really enjoy Bioware's RPG's so there's that. The combat vids I've seen look fun. The smuggler class has moves I've never seen pulled off in an MMO. And then with the dialogue choices, companions, etc there's stuff in this game I've only seen done in a single player game.

The two game companies that have not let me down so far are Valve and Bioware.

No. This video is misinformed at best and deceitful at worst. Now the Young Turks are trying to interpret history how they want to. History should not be read in light of current political feelings, by either side. It needs to be read as it happened.

When tea became popular in the colonies in the early 18th century, British Parliament passed a law in 1721 saying that the colonies had to import their tea only from Great Britain. The East India company never sold to the colonies; it sold wholesale auction in Britain which was then later imported by various merchant middlemen.

Since the British were taxing the East India company about 25% for their tea, plus additional taxes on tea for consumption, and the Dutch weren't taxing their companies any, a huge pastime in both England and the colonies was buying smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices. The East India company was losing big money.

In 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act to help the East India company compete with smugglers. This lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain and gave the company a refund of the 25% duty of tea that was re-exported to the colonies. Of course, this meant a loss of revenue for Parliament, so they also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, on the colonies.

Don't forget that the British Empire was in massive debt following the Seven Year's War (1756-1763). You have the 1765 Stamp Act, which was a tax just on the colonies requiring most things on printed paper to use taxed or "stamped" paper purchased at a premium from Britian. You also have the Sugar Act of 1764, which was, again, a tax imposed only on the colonies. Then the Revenue Act of 1766. Add all of this on top of the fact that the colonies were in a big economic turmoil following the war, and that each of these added fuel to the fire of the "no taxation without representation" debate and you get a bunch of pissed off colonists, probably for a whole host of reasons.

The colonies were viewed as nothing more than a source of revenue for the 'grand' ideas of the British Empire.