Clinton Blames US for Mexican Drug Trade

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29875572

Well gee. Do ya think maybe all of us screaming for the government to plug the holes in the border to keep people from entering illegally might have helped curb the drug trade some had the Dems listened to us and fixed it instead of foot dragging to pander to the illegals?

I take exception to her, perhaps off offhandedly the administration itself, trying to put the blame on us for Mexican drug wars. By this line of thinking perhaps we should legalize many of the drugs to get rid of the gangsters just like we did when repealing Prohibition.

Mirage wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29875572

Well gee. Do ya think maybe all of us screaming for the government to plug the holes in the border to keep people from entering illegally might have helped curb the drug trade some had the Dems listened to us and fixed it instead of foot dragging to pander to the illegals?

Another mess Bush handed off to Obama.

Oh lord.

I saw this animation a couple of days ago, and didn't want to start a new thread just to post it, but it seems appropriate here...

It's called "Gringo Guns" at http://www.markfiore.com/

Artie60438 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29875572

Well gee. Do ya think maybe all of us screaming for the government to plug the holes in the border to keep people from entering illegally might have helped curb the drug trade some had the Dems listened to us and fixed it instead of foot dragging to pander to the illegals?

Another mess Bush handed off to Obama.

It's been going on since Regan but remember that Bush did have a plan. It wasn't perfect but Congress dropped the ball on this one.

Mirage wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29875572

Well gee. Do ya think maybe all of us screaming for the government to plug the holes in the border to keep people from entering illegally might have helped curb the drug trade some had the Dems listened to us and fixed it instead of foot dragging to pander to the illegals?

Another mess Bush handed off to Obama.

It's been going on since Regan but remember that Bush did have a plan. It wasn't perfect but Congress dropped the ball on this one.

Are you talking about the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act? If so, do you remember why that failed?

Actually off hand I don't recall. I remember that in it's revised form the last effort before it dropped off the radar I supported as it was better than doing nothing. And now we have done nothing and I feel we are the worse for it. Now we're talking about needing more money to fight the Mexican drug lords.

I'm thinking the reason it didn't pass was GOP resistance to the path to citizenship approach. And I would contend that they were wrong, not because I necessarily favored the path to citizenship approach, because as a whole the legislation would have been an improvement over accomplishing virtually nothing on the matter. Of course afterwords it did lead to getting tough on workplaces hiring illegals, so that was good.

Mirage wrote:

Actually off hand I don't recall. I remember that in it's revised form the last effort before it dropped off the radar I supported as it was better than doing nothing. And now we have done nothing and I feel we are the worse for it. Now we're talking about needing more money to fight the Mexican drug lords.

I'm thinking the reason it didn't pass was GOP resistance to the path to citizenship approach. And I would contend that they were wrong, not because I necessarily favored the path to citizenship approach, because as a whole the legislation would have been an improvement over accomplishing virtually nothing on the matter. Of course afterwords it did lead to getting tough on workplaces hiring illegals, so that was good.

Yeah, well just a couple things. I got into some really spirited debates defending the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act on the Times Forum. Where were you? I had no idea that you supported the legislation until now. I agree that it wasn't a perfect solution, but we missed a golden opportunity when that legislation was defeated.

For the record, the bill was defeated by the GOP, mainly because of a populist movement that was fueled by right wing radio. It was an excellent opportunity to get some meaningful reform passed. IMHO, if you supported the legislation, then you should have weighed in on the issue at the time. Why didn't you?

I did weigh in on that board and others. Because of the well known board problems I can't really prove it, but I know I did. Just not every single thread that arose on the subject. Might have been when I was focusing more on local issues .

Mirage wrote:

I take exception to her, perhaps off offhandedly the administration itself, trying to put the blame on us for Mexican drug wars.

Our market creates the demand for the drug so like it or not we are partially responsible.

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I take exception to her, perhaps off offhandedly the administration itself, trying to put the blame on us for Mexican drug wars.

Our market creates the demand for the drug so like it or not we are partially responsible.

We are also the source of most of the guns they are using in this war.

sparks wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I take exception to her, perhaps off offhandedly the administration itself, trying to put the blame on us for Mexican drug wars.

Our market creates the demand for the drug so like it or not we are partially responsible.

We are also the source of most of the guns they are using in this war.

Shhhhh! You might upset the NRA. We know that our society couldn't possibly function without citizens being able to buy assault weapons

We know that our society couldn't possibly function without citizens being able to buy assault weapons.

Especially now that the socialists are trying to take over the country. And as I read it the right to bare arms was in part to keep the government honest. But try telling that to the liberals today.

Mirage wrote:

We know that our society couldn't possibly function without citizens being able to buy assault weapons.

Especially now that the socialists are trying to take over the country. And as I read it the right to bare arms was in part to keep the government honest. But try telling that to the liberals today.

Oh no,the dreaded "socialists" again. Much of Europe already has implemented some "socialist" policies. Countries that view health care as a "right", not something that is only available to the rich. Countries that have one tenth of the murder rate we do. Countries where workers receive 5 weeks vacation and free daycare.
Countries that realize an educated population is the cornerstone of a healthy,informed population and provide good schools for all their students. Give it a rest,pal. The neocons have been discredited and voted out of power.

Oh no,the dreaded "socialists" again. Much of Europe already has implemented some "socialist" policies.

Then move to Europe. Why ruin this country on a half baked idea that the people here never voted for?

This is just further evidence that serious consideration of splitting up this country needs to occur if this Big Brother socialism trend continues on forward.

I, for one, do not appreciate the unAmerican directions this country is being forced to go. The Congress and the administration are making earth shaking changes that not only did the people not approve or even fully understand but these are theoretical concepts being forced into practice without due testing and evaluation. Seem to be about as well thought out as these unnecessary bailouts.

They are doing perhaps irreparable harm to this country and it's currency and it's people's prosperity and survival simply to facilitate totalitarian socialism on a grand scale. And while many of they who are responsible would doubt there is such a thing as an Antichrist it is funny that they rule as if they were in agreement with that beast.

Mirage wrote:

Sparks wrote:

Oh no,the dreaded "socialists" again. Much of Europe already has implemented some "socialist" policies.

Then move to Europe. Why ruin this country on a half baked idea that the people here never voted for?

This is just further evidence that serious consideration of splitting up this country needs to occur if this Big Brother socialism trend continues on forward.

I, for one, do not appreciate the unAmerican directions this country is being forced to go. The Congress and the administration are making earth shaking changes that not only did the people not approve or even fully understand but these are theoretical concepts being forced into practice without due testing and evaluation. Seem to be about as well thought out as these unnecessary bailouts.

They are doing perhaps irreparable harm to this country and it's currency and it's people's prosperity and survival simply to facilitate totalitarian socialism on a grand scale. And while many of they who are responsible would doubt there is such a thing as an Antichrist it is funny that they rule as if they were in agreement with that beast.

Obama won the election by over 10 million votes.In addition to his election, the voters increased the number of Democrats in both the Senate and the House.When you make statements like this-
Why ruin this country on a half baked idea that the people here never voted for it tells me that you are only in favor of democracy if the voters elect politicians with platforms that you support. From the very first campaign speech Obama made, his platform included reforming healthcare,improving public education,
clean energy and tax cuts for the middle class and tax increases for the rich. I really don't understand what the moderate Democratic Senators,especially Evan Bayh are doing. They need to get behind the change the American people voted for.

So he won an election. Big whoop. And a lot of people wish they could have that vote back. That didn't mean every voter was giving a mandate to push this country further into socialism and ruin of the US dollar.

They believed his myth of tax cuts. They believed the myth he would get them good permanent jobs. IMO most just believed a lie. Well most except the part of corporate American that contributed greatly to Dem campaigns and in turn benefited from a big payback with taxpayer money that we have to print up and borrow to pay back.

Why if anything you could argue that corporate America bought the election for Obama and many of the Dems by giving him enough money to buy campaign spots a plenty so as to brainwash the American electorate. So how is that the same as voting a mandate for socialism and more government restrictions? I ask you!

Mirage wrote:

So he won an election. Big whoop. And a lot of people wish they could have that vote back.

There is no evidence of that. In fact, all the polls show that the number of people who approve of what the President is doing far exceeds the number who voted for him.

Mirage wrote:

That didn't mean every voter was giving a mandate to push this country further into socialism and ruin of the US dollar.

Socialism! Socialism! Give it a break, Mirage. I can tell you this much. If you're representative of the GOP in this country, the Republican Party is in bigger trouble than I ever imagined. The GOP isn't going to get anywhere crying "Socialist" at every opportunity.

Mirage wrote:

They believed his myth of tax cuts. They believed the myth he would get them good permanent jobs. IMO most just believed a lie. Well most except the part of corporate American that contributed greatly to Dem campaigns and in turn benefited from a big payback with taxpayer money that we have to print up and borrow to pay back.

The middle class tax cut "myth" is already a reality. And it's just laughable that you blame a President whose been in office a little more than 60 days for everything that's gone wrong with the economy in this country. It's especially ludicrous since the current economic crisis began well before the election.

Mirage wrote:

Why if anything you could argue that corporate America bought the election for Obama and many of the Dems by giving him enough money to buy campaign spots a plenty so as to brainwash the American electorate. So how is that the same as voting a mandate for socialism and more government restrictions? I ask you!

So corporations conspired to put Obama into office? Man, you sure do like conspiracies, don't you? The fact is that Obama raised more money through direct donations from the general public than any other Presidential candidate in history.

The proposed restrictions are required to ensure the continued viability of our economic system. You act as if there is no economic crisis. Guess what? There is a crisis. And we need to take steps to get it under control and make certain that it never happens again. It's time for pragmatic solutions to the problem. Knee jerk ideology doesn't "feed the bulldog."

Mirage wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29875572

Well gee. Do ya think maybe all of us screaming for the government to plug the holes in the border to keep people from entering illegally might have helped curb the drug trade some had the Dems listened to us and fixed it instead of foot dragging to pander to the illegals?

Yeah, less weed, more hard drugs in smaller packages.

Mirage wrote:

I take exception to her, perhaps off offhandedly the administration itself, trying to put the blame on us for Mexican drug wars. By this line of thinking perhaps we should legalize many of the drugs to get rid of the gangsters just like we did when repealing Prohibition.

Well. duh. Which ones should we leave for the gangsters to sell?

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I take exception to her, perhaps off offhandedly the administration itself, trying to put the blame on us for Mexican drug wars.

Our market creates the demand for the drug so like it or not we are partially responsible.

Put the blame where it really belongs, US drug policy. There's a place where we could really make some huge cuts and save tax dollars.

wrong button

Scorpion wrote:

So corporations conspired to put Obama into office? Man, you sure do like conspiracies, don't you? The fact is that Obama raised more money through direct donations from the general public than any other Presidential candidate in history.

It doesn't matter who they backed for election they should have absolutely no say in the process whatsoever.

Scorpion wrote:

The proposed restrictions are required to ensure the continued viability of our economic system. You act as if there is no economic crisis. Guess what? There is a crisis. And we need to take steps to get it under control and make certain that it never happens again. It's time for pragmatic solutions to the problem. Knee jerk ideology doesn't "feed the bulldog."

Hunt down the families behind the NWO, put them on trial and take all their stuff.

Pragmatic solution for immigration reform
New immigration law for Mexican and Canadians:
If a) you can prove who you are and b) you are not a criminal and c) you are healty; then you may enter this country for 90 days to look for a job. During your stay you are not eligible for social welfare benefits of any type. You are responsible for your medical bills, we know who you are.
If you cannot find work in 90 days chances are it isn't happening, go home and try again in one year.
See how easy that is?

Madd Maxx wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

So corporations conspired to put Obama into office? Man, you sure do like conspiracies, don't you? The fact is that Obama raised more money through direct donations from the general public than any other Presidential candidate in history.

It doesn't matter who they backed for election they should have absolutely no say in the process whatsoever.

Scorpion wrote:

The proposed restrictions are required to ensure the continued viability of our economic system. You act as if there is no economic crisis. Guess what? There is a crisis. And we need to take steps to get it under control and make certain that it never happens again. It's time for pragmatic solutions to the problem. Knee jerk ideology doesn't "feed the bulldog."

Hunt down the families behind the NWO, put them on trial and take all their stuff.

You know the wingnuts keep saying how they won the election. Granted. But that is not license to circumvent the Constitution. And I wonder if they would have said the same thing if they lived in Nazi Germany when Hitler got voted in. Well hey, he won the election!

Wait, you say, this isn't Nazi Germany. Neither was Germany until after the election.

Mirage wrote:

You know the wingnuts keep saying how they won the election. Granted. But that is not license to circumvent the Constitution. And I wonder if they would have said the same thing if they lived in Nazi Germany when Hitler got voted in. Well hey, he won the election!

Wait, you say, this isn't Nazi Germany. Neither was Germany until after the election.

Godwins Law. Game Over! :dyno: