Maybe if we would end the failed war on drugs the Cartels wouldn't be an issue.
Interesting article in Esquire about how the cartels have pumped significantly more heroin and more recently fentynal into the US ever since their profits sunk due to the legalization of pot.
I agree that the war on drugs is a massive problem, but I don't think the heroin business is going anywhere regardless.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Maybe we should stop guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan.
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
it's not blind. most people have openly admitted she is not ideal and she creates trust issues are asking questions. but what trump will do is potentially FAR WORSE than what she will do. it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils here.
I'm talking about those who have not "openly admitted she is not ideal and she creates trust issues". Those who have been only acted as apologists.
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
it's not blind. most people have openly admitted she is not ideal and she creates trust issues are asking questions. but what trump will do is potentially FAR WORSE than what she will do. it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils here.
I'm talking about those who have not "openly admitted she is not ideal and she creates trust issues". Those who have been only acted as apologists.
There are not only two candidates Here, there are third-party candidates. You're the one who won't even question her and ensure she's going to be the right kind of leader of our country, a decent, fair an upstanding world leader. It's not American. It's friggin weird. The loyalty and blind faith is Orwellian. We are all citizens and we all demand the best a leader can be... But There's so many people voting only with their fear. Great.
You guys can take it as it ever you want to. But I am not the enemy, I am the messenger. By not questioning the other candidate and making sure that she's got the right ideas for this country you are blindly following. Wake up.
There are not only two candidates Here, there are third-party candidates. You're the one who won't even question her and ensure she's going to be the right kind of leader of our country, a decent, fair an upstanding world leader. It's not American. It's friggin weird. The loyalty and blind faith is Orwellian. We are all citizens and we all demand the best a leader can be... But There's so many people voting only with their fear. Great.
vote splitting gives trump the win. you think the left is that stupid?
You guys can take it as it ever you want to. But I am not the enemy, I am the messenger. By not questioning the other candidate and making sure that she's got the right ideas for this country you are blindly following. Wake up.
Who sent you?
Ha! Funny.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
You guys can take it as it ever you want to. But I am not the enemy, I am the messenger. By not questioning the other candidate and making sure that she's got the right ideas for this country you are blindly following. Wake up.
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,441
Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.
"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.
We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Haha. Well where is all the profit from those seized assets going to now? The wall will cost $35+ billion (I think even that is a low ball estimate, which is about $20 Billion more than Trump claims it will be). So the money being redirected to this great, amazing, beautiful, yuge wall is being taken away from what? You think that funding a mega-project with money coming out of the miserable failure that is the "war on drugs" is a good idea? Doesn't seem like too stable a funding plan to me, lol. I thought Mexico was going to pay for it. What happened??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.
"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.
We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."
He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,441
Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.
"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.
We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."
He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.
"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.
We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."
He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
That's interesting. That's a very articulate statement and not one that Trump would ever normally say. I think it is too nuanced for his fans to be honest.
Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.
"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.
We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."
He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
I took it when he said "within historical norms" to reference numbers of immigrants and not where they came from. The sentences immediately before he references immigration as a share of national population breaking records.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,441
Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.
"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.
We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."
He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
I took it when he said "within historical norms" to reference numbers of immigrants and not where they came from. The sentences immediately before he references immigration as a share of national population breaking records.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Section of his immigration speech. Giving a larger section than the one I wanted to focus on to give better context. There is one passge that I find a little dog whistle-ish. See if you can spot it. But I am open to the broader conversattion of what can work.
"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.
We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."
He is clearly contrasting assimilation with multi-culturalism.
OK, Fair enough. My concern =centered on the next to last lines. Specificaly " within historical norms" . Initially my gut reaction was keep america white. But slowly I am learning to really look at the words chosen without running through my emotional filter first. Becasue I really think he plays off peoples emotions about topics rather than rational thought and critical thinking about a subject.
I took it when he said "within historical norms" to reference numbers of immigrants and not where they came from. The sentences immediately before he references immigration as a share of national population breaking records.
My read as well. I doubt it was a% of the population as that number would be higher.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
I agree that the war on drugs is a massive problem, but I don't think the heroin business is going anywhere regardless.
I get it now. Apologists exist to be on the "winning" team. That's all that matters to you guys isnt it.
I don't care who you vote for. Get a hold of yourself.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
unhealthyimpressions"We've admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.
We've had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened. Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I thought Mexico was going to pay for it. What happened??
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
www.headstonesband.com