I May need a lawyer Friday night

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.

The best part for the operators is that they are pretty anonymous. Even if our law enforcement/military can track guidance to an operator in Mexico, they have no jurisdiction there. The people on this end can simply fade away if they see things going bad. Whoever interdicts the UAV has a big toy and some drugs but both are easily replaceable. Now the money going the other way is a very very different story ... grab that and there is real pain with or without the carriers.
 
The best part for the operators is that they are pretty anonymous. Even if our law enforcement/military can track guidance to an operator in Mexico, they have no jurisdiction there. The people on this end can simply fade away if they see things going bad. Whoever interdicts the UAV has a big toy and some drugs but both are easily replaceable. Now the money going the other way is a very very different story ... grab that and there is real pain with or without the carriers.
Yep agreed on everything. UAV’s will allow a return to Barry Seal without needing Barry Seal. The UAV is disposable if need be
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
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.
But the real question is.....How many of the anti Trump/Lawful immigration crowd carried these black Assault Riot shields (AR's) made out of half a 55 gallon drum? I sure wish we could get together as a country and outlaw these scary things.
th
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
But the real question is.....How many of the anti Trump/Lawful immigration crowd carried these black Assault Riot shields (AR's) made out of half a 55 gallon drum? I sure wish we could get together as a country and outlaw these scary things.
th

Those look like rain barrel drums cut up and painted black.
 
But the real question is.....How many of the anti Trump/Lawful immigration crowd carried these black Assault Riot shields (AR's) made out of half a 55 gallon drum? I sure wish we could get together as a country and outlaw these scary things.
th

Those are from plastic drums not 17H drums.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
Those look like rain barrel drums cut up and painted black.
no way Septic. These are state of the art, gov't issue type. They are way to powerful to be in the hands of these civilians. I bet they could shield slam 3 people at a time with them.
Monstrous!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
Things you don’t understand, part 1: The English Language.

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.

Here, I clearly stated that I don’t know for a fact that the former head of CBP is completely correct in his assessment of where most drugs cross the border, but that it was the only relevant information I had to go on. This is contrary to your assertions that I’m gullible and simply believing anyone in a position of authority who says anything.

A competent reader, who disagreed with me, might have felt invited to share the basis for their contrary opinion. Which transitions to...

Things you don’t understand, part 2: Irony.

One brave reader struggled mightily to understand that disproving facts that did not serve as a basis for the underlying opinion was irrelevant to the discussion. Once he thrashed the fire breathing numbers monster, sufficiently, our hero, Don Quixote, (@NorthDallas40) stated that his basis for believing that most drugs do not come through ports of entry was... his opinion that CBP is too incompetent to decide where the drugs are coming in.

Nothing else, apparently. Not one single relevant fact or shred of actual proof. CBP says A so the inverse of A must be true... because apparently he knows better than they do.

Translation: I say it, therefore it is, I win.

Enter you in exhibit B:
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.

This is irony. Your post is ironic because the argument you lampoon is actually the same as the argument you’re agreeing with. The irony was magnified in your second post when you quoted him directly saying he was

Things you don’t understand, part 3: Logic.

Exhibit C:

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.

Your subjective lack of trust in the person saying “most drugs come through ports of entry” is not proof that most drugs come through at other locations. Your saggy balls and receding hairline are equally irrelevant.

However, I’m conceding the point. @AM64 probably was correct, CATO’s numbers are absolutely misleading with respect to who is bringing most drugs into the country.

Based on this experience, I have decided that it is 100% plausible that foreigners get caught bringing drugs in at a much lower rate because they’re smarter than Americans.

You guys win.
 
Things you don’t understand, part 1: The English Language.



Here, I clearly stated that I don’t know for a fact that the former head of CBP is completely correct in his assessment of where most drugs cross the border, but that it was the only relevant information I had to go on. This is contrary to your assertions that I’m gullible and simply believing anyone in a position of authority who says anything.

A competent reader, who disagreed with me, might have felt invited to share the basis for their contrary opinion. Which transitions to...

Things you don’t understand, part 2: Irony.

One brave reader struggled mightily to understand that disproving facts that did not serve as a basis for the underlying opinion was irrelevant to the discussion. Once he thrashed the fire breathing numbers monster, sufficiently, our hero, Don Quixote, (@NorthDallas40) stated that his basis for believing that most drugs do not come through ports of entry was... his opinion that CBP is too incompetent to decide where the drugs are coming in.

Nothing else, apparently. Not one single relevant fact or shred of actual proof. CBP says A so the inverse of A must be true... because apparently he knows better than they do.

Translation: I say it, therefore it is, I win.

Enter you in exhibit B:


This is irony. Your post is ironic because the argument you lampoon is actually the same as the argument you’re agreeing with. The irony was magnified in your second post when you quoted him directly saying he was

Things you don’t understand, part 3: Logic.

Exhibit C:



Your subjective lack of trust in the person saying “most drugs come through ports of entry” is not proof that most drugs come through at other locations. Your saggy balls and receding hairline are equally irrelevant.

However, I’m conceding the point. @AM64 probably was correct, CATO’s numbers are absolutely misleading with respect to who is bringing most drugs into the country.

Based on this experience, I have decided that it is 100% plausible that foreigners get caught bringing drugs in at a much lower rate because they’re smarter than Americans.

You guys win.
Man that’s a whole lotta butt hurt. You ok?
 
Things you don’t understand, part 1: The English Language.



Here, I clearly stated that I don’t know for a fact that the former head of CBP is completely correct in his assessment of where most drugs cross the border, but that it was the only relevant information I had to go on. This is contrary to your assertions that I’m gullible and simply believing anyone in a position of authority who says anything.

A competent reader, who disagreed with me, might have felt invited to share the basis for their contrary opinion. Which transitions to...

Things you don’t understand, part 2: Irony.

One brave reader struggled mightily to understand that disproving facts that did not serve as a basis for the underlying opinion was irrelevant to the discussion. Once he thrashed the fire breathing numbers monster, sufficiently, our hero, Don Quixote, (@NorthDallas40) stated that his basis for believing that most drugs do not come through ports of entry was... his opinion that CBP is too incompetent to decide where the drugs are coming in.

Nothing else, apparently. Not one single relevant fact or shred of actual proof. CBP says A so the inverse of A must be true... because apparently he knows better than they do.

Translation: I say it, therefore it is, I win.

Enter you in exhibit B:


This is irony. Your post is ironic because the argument you lampoon is actually the same as the argument you’re agreeing with. The irony was magnified in your second post when you quoted him directly saying he was

Things you don’t understand, part 3: Logic.

Exhibit C:



Your subjective lack of trust in the person saying “most drugs come through ports of entry” is not proof that most drugs come through at other locations. Your saggy balls and receding hairline are equally irrelevant.

However, I’m conceding the point. @AM64 probably was correct, CATO’s numbers are absolutely misleading with respect to who is bringing most drugs into the country.

Based on this experience, I have decided that it is 100% plausible that foreigners get caught bringing drugs in at a much lower rate because they’re smarter than Americans.

You guys win.
I recommend Recti-Care. Much more powerful that Prep-H.
 
Things you don’t understand, part 1: The English Language.



Here, I clearly stated that I don’t know for a fact that the former head of CBP is completely correct in his assessment of where most drugs cross the border, but that it was the only relevant information I had to go on. This is contrary to your assertions that I’m gullible and simply believing anyone in a position of authority who says anything.

A competent reader, who disagreed with me, might have felt invited to share the basis for their contrary opinion. Which transitions to...

Things you don’t understand, part 2: Irony.

One brave reader struggled mightily to understand that disproving facts that did not serve as a basis for the underlying opinion was irrelevant to the discussion. Once he thrashed the fire breathing numbers monster, sufficiently, our hero, Don Quixote, (@NorthDallas40) stated that his basis for believing that most drugs do not come through ports of entry was... his opinion that CBP is too incompetent to decide where the drugs are coming in.

Nothing else, apparently. Not one single relevant fact or shred of actual proof. CBP says A so the inverse of A must be true... because apparently he knows better than they do.

Translation: I say it, therefore it is, I win.

Enter you in exhibit B:


This is irony. Your post is ironic because the argument you lampoon is actually the same as the argument you’re agreeing with. The irony was magnified in your second post when you quoted him directly saying he was

Things you don’t understand, part 3: Logic.

Exhibit C:



Your subjective lack of trust in the person saying “most drugs come through ports of entry” is not proof that most drugs come through at other locations. Your saggy balls and receding hairline are equally irrelevant.

However, I’m conceding the point. @AM64 probably was correct, CATO’s numbers are absolutely misleading with respect to who is bringing most drugs into the country.

Based on this experience, I have decided that it is 100% plausible that foreigners get caught bringing drugs in at a much lower rate because they’re smarter than Americans.

You guys win.
You're actually the one that is coming across as Don Quixote. There was a claim made that drugs come in through ports and not the border. Having heard this argument before, I asked for proof. The same old tired argument was linked. You entered an appeal to authority, admitted that you've proven nothing, and have written chapters that have done little more than make you look like a small, angry Napoleon complex that forgot what the conversation was about, yet can't let it go.

Reminder: The argument was about proving the tired claim that drugs don't come across our border. You admitted it can't be proven, yet still want to insult your way through an argument that we all agree on.

But alas, go attack those windmills.
 
You're actually the one that is coming across as Don Quixote. There was a claim made that drugs come in through ports and not the border. Having heard this argument before, I asked for proof. The same old tired argument was linked. You entered an appeal to authority, admitted that you've proven nothing, and have written chapters that have done little more than make you look like a small, angry Napoleon complex that forgot what the conversation was about, yet can't let it go.

Reminder: The argument was about proving the tired claim that drugs don't come across our border. You admitted it can't be proven, yet still want to insult your way through an argument that we all agree on.

But alas, go attack those windmills.
HEY DAMMIT! That’s my nick name butt out 🤬
 
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.
Thank you. Now i can stop watching this thread.

Good on yall for a peaceful protest/picnic.
 

VN Store



Back
Top