If businesses make drugs and are protected enough from the cartels they'd be able to substantially decrease the cost of drugs through scale and rub the cartels out.
At least that's the argument I've seen, but since there hasn't really been any practice its hard to say.
The cartels that traffic in human beings and other stuff in addition to drugs would likely coalesce together for sheer survival's sake and then I don't know what you do
Saudi Arabia executed 47 people, including a dissident cleric and his nephew who was a minor when arrested. Iran protested the show trial, ironic considering their history of trials, and the entire incident has spread the Sunni-Shiite divide wider.
If businesses make drugs and are protected enough from the cartels they'd be able to substantially decrease the cost of drugs through scale and rub the cartels out.
At least that's the argument I've seen, but since there hasn't really been any practice its hard to say.
I'm pretty happy with how well it worked out after alcohol prohibition ceased.
If businesses make drugs and are protected enough from the cartels they'd be able to substantially decrease the cost of drugs through scale and rub the cartels out.
At least that's the argument I've seen, but since there hasn't really been any practice its hard to say.
I'm pretty happy with how well it worked out after alcohol prohibition ceased.
Yeah
Like, you could technically still buy bathtub gin if you wanted to, but why on earth would you?
Saudi Arabia executed 47 people, including a dissident cleric and his nephew who was a minor when arrested. Iran protested the show trial, ironic considering their history of trials, and the entire incident has spread the Sunni-Shiite divide wider.
my reflex on this is that saudi arabia is just getting ready. they already know it's coming.
Well a new mayor in Mexico was murdered before her first day on the job was through.
We have a lot of problems in America, but I still think we can solve all of them
I don't know how anyone solves Mexico's problems
stopping funding the criminal organizations tearing it apart would probably help a good bit.
but that would require ending the drug war and changing how financially stressful life in america is for most people, so that they can afford to get their social and emotional needs actually met instead of covering that hole up with drugs.
I don't think there is any patchwork to one's social & emotional needs that is going to stop people wanting to get high.
I know loads of people doing just fine who still always want drugs.
Plus I mean, even if we ended the drug war and legalized drugs, the cartels would still exist
They'd just be making money legally instead of illegally, right?
I expect if weed was legalized you'd have plenty of people willing to grow it at home, and people would choose to buy from them rather than from the cartels?
When it was legalized in Washington and Colorado I think they still kept it so you could only home grow for medical use, and had to buy from the small number of shops that got permits for it for recreational use. Which is maybe silly, but a big part of the selling point was state revenue from it, and also keeps more oversight on it so I'm fine with it as I understand things to be.
On a national scale I imagine it would be largely the same, so Cartels wouldn't be given the permits to sell, and the sellers get watched super closely. It starts off kinda pricey as legal farms get set up but pretty quickly (or at least eventually) the price becomes lower than illegal Cartels can compete with since they have a lot more overhead.
I'm not sure whether legalising weed in Mexico would stop the cartels. They already are the government in some areas, providing a variety of goods both legal and illegal. It doesn't make much difference to them.
0
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
I don't see a need to argue over whether the dispatcher or the officer is more at fault.
Rice's death was a failure at every single level of accountability from the entire justice system.
The shooter should never have been employed. The god damn hiring manager who let him on the force is responsible. The caller is responsible. The dispatcher is responsible. The shooter, clearly, is responsible.
But then his superiors were responsible for keeping a damn time bomb on the force, and his partner is responsible for the approach and for letting him do that, the force is responsible for not delivering any kind of even rudimentary first-aid, and fuck those vampire prosecutors and their "discretion" for acting like fucking defense attorneys to cap off the whole deal.
Fuck all of them.
Well, depending on the jurisdiction, then in the civil suit it would matter very much on the % of who is more at fault and you know that, Monroe.
Not really... the Department is the one with the assets that you'll probably go after and all the responsible parties are employees.
I'm not sure whether legalising weed in Mexico would stop the cartels. They already are the government in some areas, providing a variety of goods both legal and illegal. It doesn't make much difference to them.
The primary market for Mexican weed is in the US, so to take care of that you would want to legalize it here, not in Mexico.
If businesses make drugs and are protected enough from the cartels they'd be able to substantially decrease the cost of drugs through scale and rub the cartels out.
At least that's the argument I've seen, but since there hasn't really been any practice its hard to say.
I'm pretty happy with how well it worked out after alcohol prohibition ceased.
Yeah
Like, you could technically still buy bathtub gin if you wanted to, but why on earth would you?
If businesses make drugs and are protected enough from the cartels they'd be able to substantially decrease the cost of drugs through scale and rub the cartels out.
At least that's the argument I've seen, but since there hasn't really been any practice its hard to say.
I'm pretty happy with how well it worked out after alcohol prohibition ceased.
Yeah
Like, you could technically still buy bathtub gin if you wanted to, but why on earth would you?
If businesses make drugs and are protected enough from the cartels they'd be able to substantially decrease the cost of drugs through scale and rub the cartels out.
At least that's the argument I've seen, but since there hasn't really been any practice its hard to say.
I'm pretty happy with how well it worked out after alcohol prohibition ceased.
Yeah
Like, you could technically still buy bathtub gin if you wanted to, but why on earth would you?
Because it was artisanal and hand crafted
Heirloom bathtub gin
From guys with thick beards, mutton chops, a twirled mustouche, and big old glasses.
So it's a developing story, but word is coming through that Bundys sons as well as over 100 others have occupied a federal building in Oregon, saying they won't hesitate to fire on federal agents, urging others to join them and to bring weapons. Literal terrorists are invading right at this moment.
0
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
So yeah, right wing terrorists in Oregon have occupied a federal building.
Bring it down around them. They can rebuild the building.
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
+1
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2016
Calls for indiscriminate taking of life aside, presumably a lot of evidence against bundy and others of his brand of criminal is in there, so razing the place would not be in the government's best interest.
Never mind that it would have a chance to elevate those inside to martyrdom for their cause.
Edit: That said, they should still be labelled as what they are: domestic terrorists
They're white, male, and republican, right? There's no way they're gonna be called terrorists. They're just mentally ill and/or sticking it to the man. Everyone knows terrorists are various shades of tan.
Calls for indiscriminate taking of life aside, presumably a lot of evidence against bundy and others of his brand of criminal is in there, so razing the place would not be in the government's best interest.
Never mind that it would have a chance to elevate those inside to martyrdom for their cause.
Edit: That said, they should still be labelled as what they are: domestic terrorists
Once you're occupying buildings that aren't your own and say "hey if you try to remove us, we're gonna fight back!"
Pretty much a declaration of war in my mind. Drop the hammer.
Or tear gas them liberally.
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
0
OrthancDeath Lite, Only 1 CalorieOff the end of the internet, just turn left.Registered User, ClubPAregular
They're white, male, and republican, right? There's no way they're gonna be called terrorists. They're just mentally ill and/or sticking it to the man. Everyone knows terrorists are various shades of tan.
I'm pretty sure Timothy McVeigh is considered a terrorist. But yes, the bar does seem to be higher if your white.
So it's a developing story, but word is coming through that Bundys sons as well as over 100 others have occupied a federal building in Oregon, saying they won't hesitate to fire on federal agents, urging others to join them and to bring weapons. Literal terrorists are invading right at this moment.
Occupation of property is not terrorism
I find their politics abhorrent, but the taking of property is not inherently terrorism. If they fire upon people first, yes. If forces fire upon them and they return fire, it's murkier.
Again: I loathe these people and their politics. But they haven't (from what I've read) taken hostages or hurt anybody. They're assholes, but not (yet) terrorists.
Poorochondriac on
+3
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Either way this ends, it'll embolden their little "movement."
Scenario one: feds come in guns blazing, it turns into an awful mess, the guys become martyrs.
Scenario two: the feds come in, play it like a siege, starve them out and arrest them all on sedition and domestic terrorism charges, they become figureheads for the movement.
Scenario three: let them get away with it like they did in 2014 and it will make them shining examples of how all it takes is a few righteous, god fearing Americans to stare down the government.
This sure is a fuckin shit sandwich.
+11
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
So it's a developing story, but word is coming through that Bundys sons as well as over 100 others have occupied a federal building in Oregon, saying they won't hesitate to fire on federal agents, urging others to join them and to bring weapons. Literal terrorists are invading right at this moment.
Occupation of property is not terrorism
I find their politics abhorrent, but the taking of property is not inherently terrorism. If they fire upon people first, yes. If forces fire upon them and they return fire, it's murkier.
Again: I loathe these people and their politics. But they haven't (from what I've read) taken hostages or hurt anybody. They're assholes, but not (yet) terrorists.
Yeah, but how damn quickly would they be called terrorists if they were doing the exact same thing but not white?
So it's a developing story, but word is coming through that Bundys sons as well as over 100 others have occupied a federal building in Oregon, saying they won't hesitate to fire on federal agents, urging others to join them and to bring weapons. Literal terrorists are invading right at this moment.
Occupation of property is not terrorism
I find their politics abhorrent, but the taking of property is not inherently terrorism. If they fire upon people first, yes. If forces fire upon them and they return fire, it's murkier.
Again: I loathe these people and their politics. But they haven't (from what I've read) taken hostages or hurt anybody. They're assholes, but not (yet) terrorists.
Yeah, but how damn quickly would they be called terrorists if they were doing the exact same thing but not white?
It would also be an incorrect classification in that case
Either way this ends, it'll embolden their little "movement."
Scenario one: feds come in guns blazing, it turns into an awful mess, the guys become martyrs.
Scenario two: the feds come in, play it like a siege, starve them out and arrest them all on sedition and domestic terrorism charges, they become figureheads for the movement.
Scenario three: let them get away with it like they did in 2014 and it will make them shining examples of how all it takes is a few righteous, god fearing Americans to stare down the government.
This sure is a fuckin shit sandwich.
Yep. What makes it worse is that their father showed that it could work back in 2014.
So it's a developing story, but word is coming through that Bundys sons as well as over 100 others have occupied a federal building in Oregon, saying they won't hesitate to fire on federal agents, urging others to join them and to bring weapons. Literal terrorists are invading right at this moment.
Occupation of property is not terrorism
I find their politics abhorrent, but the taking of property is not inherently terrorism. If they fire upon people first, yes. If forces fire upon them and they return fire, it's murkier.
Again: I loathe these people and their politics. But they haven't (from what I've read) taken hostages or hurt anybody. They're assholes, but not (yet) terrorists.
Yeah, but how damn quickly would they be called terrorists if they were doing the exact same thing but not white?
It would also be an incorrect classification in that case
What would you classify occupying a federal government building, while armed and threatening to shoot at lawful federal agents?
Genuinely asking, not meaning it as a rhetorical question. Especially since I know nothing at all about this so far beyond these few posts, like who these people even are.
Bring it down around them. They can rebuild the building.
Just pointing out here, I know how this thread usually leans. And if someone had said this about a building full of Muslim Americans, they'd be jumped on by about fifty yelling voices screaming, "that's not how we do things."
Let's just keep the standards the same when we're talking about sending in SWAT to wipe out a building of its population shall we? That's always an extreme measure of last resort.
manwiththemachinegun on
0
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
So it's a developing story, but word is coming through that Bundys sons as well as over 100 others have occupied a federal building in Oregon, saying they won't hesitate to fire on federal agents, urging others to join them and to bring weapons. Literal terrorists are invading right at this moment.
Occupation of property is not terrorism
I find their politics abhorrent, but the taking of property is not inherently terrorism. If they fire upon people first, yes. If forces fire upon them and they return fire, it's murkier.
Again: I loathe these people and their politics. But they haven't (from what I've read) taken hostages or hurt anybody. They're assholes, but not (yet) terrorists.
Yeah, but how damn quickly would they be called terrorists if they were doing the exact same thing but not white?
It would also be an incorrect classification in that case
What would you classify occupying a federal government building, while armed and threatening to shoot at lawful federal agents?
Genuinely asking, not meaning it as a rhetorical question. Especially since I know nothing at all about this so far beyond these few posts, like who these people even are.
They're related to the incident from 2014, involving Cliven Bundy, the rancher who was unlawfully doing his business on government land without permit until they handed him a bill for it. He surrounded himself with armed "patriots" (sovereign citizens) and they did various things like have a standoff with federal agents, set up roadblocks in the county that kind of thing.
0
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
So it's a developing story, but word is coming through that Bundys sons as well as over 100 others have occupied a federal building in Oregon, saying they won't hesitate to fire on federal agents, urging others to join them and to bring weapons. Literal terrorists are invading right at this moment.
Occupation of property is not terrorism
I find their politics abhorrent, but the taking of property is not inherently terrorism. If they fire upon people first, yes. If forces fire upon them and they return fire, it's murkier.
Again: I loathe these people and their politics. But they haven't (from what I've read) taken hostages or hurt anybody. They're assholes, but not (yet) terrorists.
Yeah, but how damn quickly would they be called terrorists if they were doing the exact same thing but not white?
It would also be an incorrect classification in that case
What would you classify occupying a federal government building, while armed and threatening to shoot at lawful federal agents?
Genuinely asking, not meaning it as a rhetorical question. Especially since I know nothing at all about this so far beyond these few posts, like who these people even are.
I file it into the same category as rioting, or destruction of property.
Illegal, yes. But a means to try and overcome a perceived lack of communication with/trust in the powers that be.
Whether I think their views are JUSTIFIED is another matter. But it is not terrorism. It's an attempt to be heard in a system that you view as unwilling to hear you. Terrorism seeks to hurt - stuff like like this serves to make one's self heard.
Once again: I think these guys are over-entitled douches. But the mentality is wildly different from terrorists.
Poorochondriac on
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
The mentality is sedition. They ought to be tried in accordance with what they are: treasonous cowards.
Posts
At least that's the argument I've seen, but since there hasn't really been any practice its hard to say.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I'm pretty happy with how well it worked out after alcohol prohibition ceased.
Yeah
Like, you could technically still buy bathtub gin if you wanted to, but why on earth would you?
my reflex on this is that saudi arabia is just getting ready. they already know it's coming.
Someone start polling the GOP candidates.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
When it was legalized in Washington and Colorado I think they still kept it so you could only home grow for medical use, and had to buy from the small number of shops that got permits for it for recreational use. Which is maybe silly, but a big part of the selling point was state revenue from it, and also keeps more oversight on it so I'm fine with it as I understand things to be.
On a national scale I imagine it would be largely the same, so Cartels wouldn't be given the permits to sell, and the sellers get watched super closely. It starts off kinda pricey as legal farms get set up but pretty quickly (or at least eventually) the price becomes lower than illegal Cartels can compete with since they have a lot more overhead.
Not really... the Department is the one with the assets that you'll probably go after and all the responsible parties are employees.
The primary market for Mexican weed is in the US, so to take care of that you would want to legalize it here, not in Mexico.
Because it was artisanal and hand crafted
Heirloom bathtub gin
The Mexican Army is not very regulated at all!
From guys with thick beards, mutton chops, a twirled mustouche, and big old glasses.
They bathe in it
Never mind that it would have a chance to elevate those inside to martyrdom for their cause.
Edit: That said, they should still be labelled as what they are: domestic terrorists
I hate how often I have to remind myself that just killing right wing shit heads will not solve problems.
Once you're occupying buildings that aren't your own and say "hey if you try to remove us, we're gonna fight back!"
Pretty much a declaration of war in my mind. Drop the hammer.
Or tear gas them liberally.
I'm pretty sure Timothy McVeigh is considered a terrorist. But yes, the bar does seem to be higher if your white.
Occupation of property is not terrorism
I find their politics abhorrent, but the taking of property is not inherently terrorism. If they fire upon people first, yes. If forces fire upon them and they return fire, it's murkier.
Again: I loathe these people and their politics. But they haven't (from what I've read) taken hostages or hurt anybody. They're assholes, but not (yet) terrorists.
Scenario one: feds come in guns blazing, it turns into an awful mess, the guys become martyrs.
Scenario two: the feds come in, play it like a siege, starve them out and arrest them all on sedition and domestic terrorism charges, they become figureheads for the movement.
Scenario three: let them get away with it like they did in 2014 and it will make them shining examples of how all it takes is a few righteous, god fearing Americans to stare down the government.
This sure is a fuckin shit sandwich.
Yeah, but how damn quickly would they be called terrorists if they were doing the exact same thing but not white?
It would also be an incorrect classification in that case
Yep. What makes it worse is that their father showed that it could work back in 2014.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
What would you classify occupying a federal government building, while armed and threatening to shoot at lawful federal agents?
Genuinely asking, not meaning it as a rhetorical question. Especially since I know nothing at all about this so far beyond these few posts, like who these people even are.
Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters
apparently the whole thing's been "masterminded" by one of Cliven Bundy's sons
Just pointing out here, I know how this thread usually leans. And if someone had said this about a building full of Muslim Americans, they'd be jumped on by about fifty yelling voices screaming, "that's not how we do things."
Let's just keep the standards the same when we're talking about sending in SWAT to wipe out a building of its population shall we? That's always an extreme measure of last resort.
They're related to the incident from 2014, involving Cliven Bundy, the rancher who was unlawfully doing his business on government land without permit until they handed him a bill for it. He surrounded himself with armed "patriots" (sovereign citizens) and they did various things like have a standoff with federal agents, set up roadblocks in the county that kind of thing.
I file it into the same category as rioting, or destruction of property.
Illegal, yes. But a means to try and overcome a perceived lack of communication with/trust in the powers that be.
Whether I think their views are JUSTIFIED is another matter. But it is not terrorism. It's an attempt to be heard in a system that you view as unwilling to hear you. Terrorism seeks to hurt - stuff like like this serves to make one's self heard.
Once again: I think these guys are over-entitled douches. But the mentality is wildly different from terrorists.