I May need a lawyer Friday night

[82_VOL_83]

Again this argument assumes a correlation to the drugs interdicted to the total number of drugs entering. Neither of these articles prove their assertion. They both use interdiction values as representative of total flow. I’ll agree that most drugs are interdicted in ports of entry. I’ve seen zero data to extrapolate that to represent the total drugs entering the country. And I don’t think it’s even possible frankly.

It's like only ever fishing in one pond.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Lmao. Can’t make sense of a USA Today article but got the drug war solved when he saw a video of a submarine on YouTube.

Careers

I don’t see a link for acting director but I bet if you applied for forensic scientist (make sure to let them know you can do that better than their hired experts despite not having any formal training.) and submit your posts from this thread, they’ll call and offer it to you without even an interview.

You haven’t proven anything yet. Keep trying

 

[82_VOL_83]

No logic allowed please.

Also how many of these “busts” are just the cartel throwing a bone to CBP to keep them diverted from something much more major? If losing 10 pounds of heroin at an entry point gets 500 across safely via mules I’m doing that all day.

Cost of doing bidness.

 

[volfanhill]

You get that information from "a friend?"

Hey man you got to do what you got to do.

 

[AM64]

It's like only ever fishing in one pond.

And having the proof that the pond by your own data and analysis is 86.778% more likely to produce a fish at the end of your pole than all other ponds. It's astounding what people consider "analysis" these days. But according to Obama, you didn't make the catch anyway; and according to huff, the fish is just anecdotal evidence.

 

[RockyTop85]

You haven’t proven anything yet. Keep trying

You’ve definitely proved you didn’t comprehend what the former head of CBP said in the article. Guess that makes it you 1, me 0.

If you had read it, you’d realize that you’re saying your “logic” is superior to actual CBP investigations and intelligence gathering, not just arrest statistics. I’ve seen enough of your logic to find that amusing, but unpersuasive. I have seen you refuse to admit you’re wrong in the face of actual evidence enough times to know that trying to “prove” anything to you is a fools errand.

Whether or not CBP is actually correct in their assessment of the manner of entry is debatable, and likely unknowable, but they definitely have more information than we do, so after reading that they weren’t just basing their policy on arrest statistics, I’ve decided to take their word for it over yours. So far, haven’t seen anything to make me think that was a bad decision.

But please, feel free to keep on skewering the “numbers are misleading” windmill.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You’ve definitely proved you didn’t comprehend what the former head of CBP said in the article. Guess that makes it you 1, me 0.

If you had read it, you’d realize that you’re saying your “logic” is superior to actual CBP investigations and intelligence gathering, not just arrest statistics. I’ve seen enough of your logic to find that amusing, but unpersuasive. I have seen you refuse to admit you’re wrong in the face of actual evidence enough times to know that trying to “prove” anything to you is a fools errand.

Whether or not CBP is actually correct in their assessment of the manner of entry is debatable, and likely unknowable, but they definitely have more information than we do, so after reading that they weren’t just basing their policy on arrest statistics, I’ve decided to take their word for it over yours. So far, haven’t seen anything to make me think that was a bad decision.

But please, feel free to keep on skewering the “numbers are misleading” windmill.

He said you've proven nothing. You mocked him by admitting you've proven nothing.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You’ve definitely proved you didn’t comprehend what the former head of CBP said in the article. Guess that makes it you 1, me 0.

If you had read it, you’d realize that you’re saying your “logic” is superior to actual CBP investigations and intelligence gathering, not just arrest statistics. I’ve seen enough of your logic to find that amusing, but unpersuasive. I have seen you refuse to admit you’re wrong in the face of actual evidence enough times to know that trying to “prove” anything to you is a fools errand.

Whether or not CBP is actually correct in their assessment of the manner of entry is debatable, and likely unknowable, but they definitely have more information than we do, so after reading that they weren’t just basing their policy on arrest statistics, I’ve decided to take their word for it over yours. So far, haven’t seen anything to make me think that was a bad decision.

But please, feel free to keep on skewering the “numbers are misleading” windmill.

LMAO this is beautiful. They don’t have a damn clue how many drugs are coming. They admitted my point they extrapolated interdiction data.

Watching you chest thump and act like that’s not exactly what they said is hilarious. You believe their assessment if you want but they supported everything I’ve said. I’d say their progress thus far ok the war on drugs warrants skepticism on their assessment.

Don’t stop believein rocky

 

[NorthDallas40]

Hey @RockyTop85 which smarts more? The fact that all you’ve got is ad hominems since I’ve made factual statements that you even admitted in your last post (there is no way of determining what the percentage of drugs interdicted correlates to the total drug quantity), or that to continue to throw shade at me on this you’ve got to defend our abysmal track record in the war on drugs and act like all the previous administrators had a damn clue

 

[volfanhill]

Selfie, then?

I will send you some pics of me and my junk...I mean bunk mate

 

[RockyTop85]

LMAO this is beautiful. They don’t have a damn clue how many drugs are coming. They admitted my point they extrapolated interdiction data.

Watching you chest thump and act like that’s not exactly what they said is hilarious. You believe their assessment if you want but they supported everything I’ve said. I’d say their progress thus far ok the war on drugs warrants skepticism on their assessment.

Don’t stop believein rocky

Stating that neither theory can be empirically proven, therefore your opinion is fact, sort of totally proves what I said about you. I guess that makes it ND 2, RT 0.

Literally nothing I’ve said was based in any way upon these location of arrest numbers, but they give you a conveniently rebuttable argument, so you just keep skewering them and ignoring what the former head of CBP actually said. It’s your modus operandi. It’s why you’ll always be Don Quixote, to me.

Maybe you finally did read it, because it seems you’re now saying you know more than he does. Again, that’s humorous, but not particularly convincing.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Stating that neither theory can be empirically proven, therefore your opinion is fact, sort of totally proves what I said about you. I guess that makes it ND 2, RT 0.

Literally nothing I’ve said was based in any way upon these location of arrest numbers, but they give you a conveniently rebuttable argument, so you just keep skewering them and ignoring what the former head of CBP actually said. It’s your modus operandi. Which is why you’ll always be Don Quixote, to me.

Really....

I doubt the Cato Institute is cooking the books to support liberal talking points.

Most drugs come through ports of entry because there are geographic barriers to bringing them through in other places.

Better question might be how they’re defining drug trafficking.

That sure reads like a statement of fact instead of an opinion. If it’s a fact can you support what percentage “most” is? If instead you’re leaning on the admin opinion they’ve already stated it’s extrapolated for interdiction. That’s not really quixotic I don’t think.

Now... our little spat fest aside. What point are you making on drug trafficking definition? I don’t follow the implication.

Also with regards to trafficking methods as I said earlier I believe we are going to see huge increases in UAV usage which is going to render everything I think were doing moot. Their lift capacity is growing at ridiculous rate. Their range is also growing rapidly. The guidance and navigation technology is mature and mainstream. It will be a nightmare to stop them. And even if you do stop them it’s just the cost of doing business.

 

[volinsd]

Starting to think Hoosier_vol is in the hoosegow

 

[McDad]

Starting to think Hoosier_vol is in the hoosegow

The protest was lit.
They had the after party at the jail

 

[RockyTop85]

Really....



That sure reads like a statement of fact instead of an opinion. If it’s a fact can you support what percentage “most” is? If instead you’re leaning on the admin opinion they’ve already stated it’s extrapolated for interdiction. That’s not really quixotic I don’t think.

Now... our little spat fest aside. What point are you making on drug trafficking definition? I don’t follow the implication.

Also with regards to trafficking methods as I said earlier I believe we are going to see huge increases in UAV usage which is going to render everything I think were doing moot. Their lift capacity is growing at ridiculous rate. Their range is also growing rapidly. The guidance and navigation technology is mature and mainstream. It will be a nightmare to stop them. And even if you do stop them it’s just the cost of doing business.

From the post after the one you quoted:

DEA, CBP, and some of their former officials have stated that most drugs come through ports of entry and that that assessment is based on investigations and intelligence gathering, not just location of seizures, makes the point, too.

Also, there’s the statement saying almost exactly what I stated, which I’ve attached for the second time, now highlighted. He goes on at some length about how and why that’s not as stupid as you guys are saying.

It’s like I sought out opinions from people with more information than myself, before saying anything. I didn’t need the numbers, which is why I posted the guy’s comment as soon as you said something.

I’ve seen at least one DEA opinion and several references to a consensus of unnamed experts stating the same thing, although I didn’t see the need to dig into them since I’ve apparently decided to torture myself by posting on a message board where nobody bothers to read anything...

The conversation was about whether Cato Institute’s assertion that it was mostly being transported by American citizens was accurate. If most drugs come through ports of entry, then those numbers would tend to extrapolate across the drug trade as a whole. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that they don’t come in that way, so my question was how do they define “trafficking.”

As far as UAV’s, walls, etc. it seems like type of expenditure ought to be supported by more than the indigestion Trump gets from slathering ketchup all over his cheap ass steaks, but if they can support it, then go for it.

Or just legalize drugs and let Darwin sort it all out.

 

[NorthDallas40]

From the post after the one you quoted:


Also, there’s the statement saying almost exactly what I stated, which I’ve attached for the second time, now highlighted. He goes on at some length about how and why that’s not as stupid as you guys are saying.

It’s like I sought out opinions from people with more information than myself, before saying anything. I didn’t need the numbers, which is why I posted the guy’s comment as soon as you said something.

I’ve seen at least one DEA opinion and several references to a consensus of unnamed experts stating the same thing, although I didn’t see the need to dig into them since I’ve apparently decided to torture myself by posting on a message board where nobody bothers to read anything...

The conversation was about whether Cato Institute’s assertion that it was mostly being transported by American citizens was accurate. If most drugs come through ports of entry, then those numbers would tend to extrapolate across the drug trade as a whole. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that they don’t come in that way, so my question was how do they define “trafficking.”

As far as UAV’s, walls, etc. it seems like type of expenditure ought to be supported by more than the indigestion Trump gets from slathering ketchup all over his cheap ass steaks, but if they can support it, then go for it.

Or just legalize drugs and let Darwin sort it all out.

I just reject your appeal to authority on their “expertise” I don’t think they have a damn clue on how many drugs are coming in or where they are coming in. Thus when you lean on their authority I’m obviously going to reject that also. If you want to get pissy on that fine that’s up to you. I don’t have a conspiracy theory on it. I just think they are clueless is all. That goes on the intel also. And the only “data” they have is interdiction data. I don’t offer this as fact it’s just my opinion. But I will submit as fact that they don’t know how much drugs or coming in. And before you offer it... estimates are not facts. It gets back to whether you believe the estimate. Again I think they’re clueless.

On the Trump TDS laced UAV comment, over the next decade expect more penetration into our every day lives on this kind of technology. It isn’t dirt cheap yet but it will be within our lifetimes. But it’s already a small fraction of cost compared to the drugs it’s carrying. It’s just like the disposable manned small planes they used to use. Only drones are way more versatile.

 

[82_VOL_83]

LMAO this is beautiful. They don’t have a damn clue how many drugs are coming. They admitted my point they extrapolated interdiction data.

Watching you chest thump and act like that’s not exactly what they said is hilarious. You believe their assessment if you want but they supported everything I’ve said. I’d say their progress thus far ok the war on drugs warrants skepticism on their assessment.

Don’t stop believein rocky

Hey, like I have said before.....the liberal stance is to make a point based on a single fact, extrapolate that to the entire freaking world, declare victory, and never fight any kind of proof battle.

I say it, therefore it is, I win.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I just reject your appeal to authority on their “expertise” I don’t think they have a damn clue on how many drugs are coming in or where they are coming in. Thus when you lean on their authority I’m obviously going to reject that also. If you want to get pissy on that fine that’s up to you. I don’t have a conspiracy theory on it. I just think they are clueless is all. That goes on the intel also. And the only “data” they have is interdiction data. I don’t offer this as fact it’s just my opinion. But I will submit as fact that they don’t know how much drugs or coming in. And before you offer it... estimates are not facts. It gets back to whether you believe the estimate. Again I think they’re clueless.

On the Trump TDS laced UAV comment, over the next decade expect more penetration into our every day lives on this kind of technology. It isn’t dirt cheap yet but it will be within our lifetimes. But it’s already a small fraction of cost compared to the drugs it’s carrying. It’s just like the disposable manned small planes they used to use. Only drones are way more versatile.

Any other admission would lead down the road to more secure borders and we can't let that happen now can we.

 

[C-south]

How does anyone know what comes in anywhere but where they check for it?

It’s like the number of sexual assaults that go unreported. They just make it up.

 

[RockyTop85]

Any other admission would lead down the road to more secure borders and we can't let that happen now can we.

Lol. I can’t tell if you guys are too dumb to see the inconsistencies in stuff like this, or if your dignity is too atrophied to keep caring.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Lol. I can’t tell if you guys are too dumb to see the inconsistencies in stuff like this, or if your dignity is too atrophied to keep caring.

I can't understand how we have lawyers so ****ing gullible.

 

[RockyTop85]

I can't understand how we have lawyers so ****ing gullible.

Option A, then.

I’m sure it’ll be in good company with all the other things you struggle to understand.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Option A, then.

I’m sure it’ll be in good company with all the other things you struggle to understand.

Would that life were so simple as to be "well, someone in authority said it so it much be true!" But alas, when you grow old and wizened, you will understand that life isn't as easy as someone simply telling you the truth all the time.

 

[happy-go_vol]

The local sheriff's department here in Clay County, Indiana is the only ICE Dentition Center in Indiana....This is a small rural community and most people don't even know it's part of the Sheriff's Dept jail. Friday night there is suppose to be a large protest demonstration at the SD to protest ICE, law enforcement, Trump and support open borders. Me, my oldest son and several others I know are going to show support for Trump, ICE and closed borders across the street from the protest. I have several friends on the CCSD and they said they are expecting 50-100 (large for this rural area) at the protest but has heard there maybe bigger national groups showing up. Gotta stand and support for what you believe in right?

Ignore the board's marxists. You have the right to protest. There must come a time when we have to take a stand against these anti-American.

 

[Hoosier_Vol]

I wonder if Hoosier Vol got his butt kicked but good Friday night from all the loony freaks.
Haven't seen him posting in here since he was going down to check out the protests that was going on.

No butt kicking lol We went, there was about 100-120 Trump/Immigration supporters and probably about 40 immigration protesters. Everything was peaceful and respectful on both sides. Our group brought local LEO's and Feds water and several local businesses donated pizza and food for the groups. They showed their support and we showed ours, end of story.