Jump to content

tazhorn

banned
  • Posts

    37
  • Joined

Posts posted by tazhorn

  1. 1 minute ago, Lagunamadre said:

    That is an editorial, not a news article and it is based on a Daily Caller article (Tucker Carlson's website) and the Daily Caller article is based on "unnamed sources". The FBI commented on the article saying it had "found no evidence" that the server was hacked. 

    Do you have any evidence not based on a Tucker Carlson article quoting unnamed sources?  

    Under this level of scrutiny you should also think it has been proven that tap water makes you gay and Pizzagate is real and point me to an Alex Jones podcast as "proof". 

    Try harder. 

    Ok, lets say in both cases they both mishandled classified information and both destroyed it.  We dont know the intent they had with the information...No way to know that.  The soldier goes to Jail, but the Politician did not go to jail...Is that fair to you?

    • Fuck You 6
  2. 8 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Great, I'm not saying you are wrong, just asking for you to provide me a link to an article or investigation conclusion showing evidence and/or a conclusion that her server was hacked. 

    Thanks. 

    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/china-reportedly-hacked-clintons-state-department-emails-did-the-fbi-cover-that-up-too/

    That is one article of many on google...

     

    You are still avoiding the question...we cant prove the soldier had any intent to distribute those photos right?  He destroyed the evidence.  He went to jail.  Hillary destroyed the evidence as well...seems like same scenario to me.  Hillary did not go to jail.  So if you say you are all for politicians not being above the law...What is your answer?

    • Fuck You 7
  3. Just now, Lagunamadre said:

    Ohh really. Can you provide me evidence her server was hacked? You should forward that evidence to the FBI as well, they currently say that it was never hacked. 

    Way to avoid the question...LOL!  The fucking server was hacked and it was proven that it was foreign entitities that did it, and the hack at the FBI that was laying the pipe to Lisa Page was told that information and he chose to ignore it...

  4. 1 minute ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Every case is different. Can you give me an example of a person we've thrown in jail for mishandling classified information? We can compare and contrast each case to the Hillary case, difficult to discuss in the abstract. 

    I'm always of the opinion that nobody should be above the law, including Hillary. In her case, you have to establish intent, which is difficult, unlike other cases like General Petraus, where the intent was evident. 

    They put a soldier in jail in the middle of all that Hillary shit that took pictures of the submarine he was on to show to his family...They said it was mishandling of classified info....That's hardly as bad as being a politician and  having a server with classified info that they proved got hacked by foreign entities due to lax security...

    • Fuck You 5
  5. 17 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Trump should have his Justice Department appoint a bad ass Harvard Lawyer to investigate the Hillary investigation. Like an Inspector General or somebody like that, I hear that Michael Horwowitz guy is pretty good. They should really have somebody look into everything to make sure the right conclusions were made after years of investigation. 

    If something like that happened, would you accept the results? 

    Inspector Generals have no authority to charge someone with a crime.  He can and has reviewed the case and could not conclude 100% there was not mistakes made...And he could not conclude the people involved in the FBI investiigating the Trump Russian allegations were not 100% unbiased.  

    You don't  see it as strange or unfair that they put people in the military in jail for mishandling classified information no matter how minor the offense, but we won't put a politician in jail for it?

    • Fuck You 3
  6. 16 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

    thats exactly what im saying. so lets apply the same standard to Trump that the Repubs applied to Hillary and see how he comes out.

    The other part to that is get real results out of it when someone does break the law and not leniency because of who said Politician is....Hillary got away with stuff in regards to her email server and classified documents that lesser people in our military went to jail for...That's more shit that divides us....If they did find in some way Trump broke the law then he should pay the price too, im in agreement...What I can't agree with is just ongoing shit that just continues to divide the country....They did a huge disservice when they didn't properly punish her for her email server, just as if they ever found anything on Trump and did not punish him for it, I would expect all the DEMs to lose their mind and it would just increase the divide even further.

    • Fuck You 18
  7. 39 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    Former President's get rich by speaking and writing. Many in Congress are not rich and the ones that are were successful in the private sector. And some of them get rich in office by being shady (see: Chris Collins). For the latter group, they should be investigated and prosecuted and if they didn't break any laws while being shady, new laws should be written. 

    I know they get paid for speeches, books and crap like that.  Im talking about the one's where mysteriously their husbands or wife's real estate business or whatever business all of the sudden became highly successful overnight as soon as they got into office.  Or, I'm sure there is a lot of insider trading going on in the stock market with politicians...

     

    44 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

    fuck that both sides shit too. if someone in congress or the WH has a skeleton in their closet, expose that shit and lets get them out. wtf is wrong with you? the answer to corruption isnt everyone's doing it Dad so its ok! - its fuck that son, everyone that's doing it is going to jail so lets find ones that arent corrupt.

    Hey, I could not agree more, as long as all these investigations aren"t  happening just because said politician is a Republican or Democrat and I hate his/ her ideals so im going to open all these investigations until I finally dig something in his/ her past up...That shit divides the country....if you are saying all of them be under the same scrutiny and there is no political agenda/ bias behind it then Im all for it...

    • Fuck You 4
  8. 4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

    Probably not, but maybe we should. I would say the higher the office, the more they should be investigated. I would say every president gets investigated, as soon as they become the party nominee. Sort of a Devil's Advocate thing.

    Im sure they could find some shady shit in all of their pasts if they wanted too...All of them, the President, and probably the majority of Congress got skeletons in the closet,  or will have them before they leave D.C...How do you think they are getting so rich?

    • Fuck You 12
  9. 30 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

    Me:  There was this thing that Obama did that sort of kept him immune from scrutiny...

    My friend:  Not grab women by the pussy?

    Me: No, that's not it ...

    My friend: Not praise Putin?

    Me: No, that's not it ...

    My friend: Not have negotiations to build a massive tower in Moscow while lying about it the whole time?

    Me: No, that's not it ...

    My friend: Release his income tax statements on a yearly basis?

    Me: Bingo!

    The precedent all these investigations of Trump is setting is freaking crazy.  Especially considering they arent yielding much.  What's next?  Are we going to start investigations on every politician in the country?  Is the next DEM President going to take it lieing down when he is constantly under investigation?  Shit needs to end somewhere: unless, there is clear evidence a crime was committed what's the point of all of it?  And, yes I know the Republicans have investigated the DEM presidents.  Just saying the shit is getting out of hand...

    • Fuck You 33
  10. 32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Now you're getting it.

    Policy will change when very, very rich people conclude that they can get richer off of the new policy than they can off of the old one.

    Our only play is to work on ways of manipulating them into choosing paths of insane enrichment that harm the rest of us the least.  Everything else (including the "crisis" of "BORDER SECURITY") is a purposeful distraction.  Don't go for the sleight-of-hand.  Just keep your eye on the ball.

    Except we become the laughingstock of the world.  Admit we couldn't stop another much poorer country from destroying our society because of an insatiable  appetite for drugs...Couldnt  control our own damn border, etc...

    Plus we really piss on Mexicos drug fueled economy our neighbors to the South..Seems smart..

  11. 12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Then you understand very little about a market economy, and manufacturing.

    That's why 2/3rds of the shit we buy is made in China right or somewhere else? Because these awesome American companies figured out a way to do it cheaper?  That's alright, instead of making the dangerous drugs here or getting them from Mexican cartels, we can just have the slave labor in China make them and get them to export them to us....Then when Trumps trade deals go through, we can tax them...

  12. 56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Oceans do a good bit to stop "everyone."  People fleeing North Africa can hardly make it across a calm Med.  As for more local sources, that's another piece of my plan -- help stabilize the failing nation states in Central America (many of which we have helped create, both due to outright interference, and/or supporting the illegal drug trade).  30 years ago, there weren't caravans of Hondurans fleeing for their lives.  Because, while Honduras wasn't a paradise, it was livable.  People want to stay in their home country, if they can survive it.

    When there is profit to be made, ALWAYS bet on corporate America.  Seriously, legal cultivation and trade is tailor-made for American corporate operations.

    Dude.  We have massive manufacturing processes with incredibly dangerous and volatile chemicals all up and down the Texas coast (benzene and chlorine ring a bell?). And, by and large, they are pretty damned safe.  Manufacturing drugs safely....shit, that's what we do 'round here.  We work with all kinds of nasty shit.  No need for slave labor at all.  Seriously, take a trip down to Freeport one day....

    freeport_523_with_plant_view_21-july_200

    One of the side roads into the Dow plant (although I'm not positive -- it may be the BASF plant) is called "Chlorine Road."  

    A big part of so many of our problems is that we do a shitty job of defining our problems in the first place.  Which is largely on purpose.  Because we aren't actually interested in solving those problems.  We're only interested in useful demagoguery.

    I think i didn't  expand enough on the slave labor part.  My meaning was cartels are basically using close to slave labor to make that dangerous crap and distribute it......  How would we compete with that?  I realize a lot of Americans deal with dangerous jobs everyday, but they get paid damn well to do it and usually have dang good health insurance that is not cheap.  You think the cartels are paying someone as much as an American company would have to pay to make and disfribute this stuff given all the regulations on dangerous chemicals?  Plus you are going to slap a tax on top of that.  I still don't see how they could ever compete...

  13. 39 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    OR.....we could....and follow me on this, it's SUPER-complicated....effectively eliminate the need/desire for people to cross illegally.

    Want to keep drug smugglers from penetrating the border?  Legalize drugs.  Legalizing booze destroyed the bootlegging industry, practically overnight.

    Want to keep folks from sneaking over here to hang sheetrock?  Let them come in to hang sheetrock.  Legally.  Let them submit paperwork, pay a $500 permit fee, and obtain a short-term work permit.  They then cross over a bridge, legally, scan their permit, and come on in.  They then show up at their job, have their permit entered into the system, pay taxes, etc.  They go home for Christmas to see the family.  Maybe after they've made enough money to build a house in San Luis Potosi, they stay there and don't come back for more work.

    Pretty much nobody crossing illegally to smuggle drugs.  Pretty much nobody crossing illegally to work.  Oh, and we get the added benefit of collecting permit revenue and taxes from the people who would otherwise be here illegally and off the grid.  And now, we're taxing recreational drugs, and instead of funding a massive incarceration complex, we're funding a treatment system for half the cost.

    Is that solution PERFECT?  Of course not.  There is no clean and perfect in the real world.  It's just a shitload more effective, cheaper, and humane for both Americans and the foreigners who would come here.

    I agree with some of what you are saying; except, I think you underestimate the sheer number of people that could want to come here that want to escape whatever bad shit is going on in their own country at any given time..What would stop them?  The drug part, im torn their, do you think our country would ever get the price point to a low enough level on the really dangerous hard drugs to compete with the cartels?  Especially, given the chemicals used to make that stuff, and you want to tax it too?  What slave labor are you going to use to make that dangerous crap?... Alcohol is made from natural stuff and fire, no real comparison their...Like comparing apples and oranges...If you wanted to legalize something like pot that's grown, then sure I could see it...

  14. 38 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Those check points already exist. 

    Not everywhere.  There are vast areas of open desert in the southwest with networks of dirt roads/ jeep trails to get around the checkpoints on the highways coming up from the south.   Besides that, the smugglers use lookouts on the mountains in the desert southwest to watch the movements of the border patrol.  Once they get cargo past the border patrol, there is not much to stop them once they hit I10.  There are checkpoints on I10 itself, but mostly just at the state lines.  They could easily hop off I10 and head north before even going through those checkpoints.   If there were checkpoints closer to I10 on both the south and north side of it on all the highways and interstates they would catch a lot more people...

  15. 9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    So... how does having the checkpoint somewhat nearer to i-10 than now accomplish anything? And, when you say outside the city, do you mean the city limits? The greater metro-area? Is NASA a part of Houston? Is Pearland? League City? Sugar Land? Pasadena? Again, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of citizens live technically south of and outside of Houston, but for all practical purposes are part of the city.  Your solution is dumb. It aims to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It solves it by either invoking a solution that already exists or by screwing up a major metropolitan area. Oh, and again, not constitutional. 

    Maybe it wouldn't work in more populous areas now until the technology the border patrol uses improved to the point where a checkpoint would be just a minor slowdown for traffic.  It would definitely work in less populous areas though now because a lot of drug traffickers and human smugglers dont come through the checkpoints down near the border...They come across the border in remote areas that have no checkpoint.  Use dirtroads, or just hike across desert to get to a place to be picked up by people on this side of the border... But, at some point, to get to the interior US, no matter how they get into the country, they would have to cross I10 with the drugs or people they smuggle...So, if checkpoints were closer to I10 they would catch more people like that...

    • Like 1
  16. 5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

    Uh, millions? You realize i10 is right in the fucking center of Houston, right? I mean, all of fucking downtown is south of i10. Your idea is illegal and beyond stupid. 

    Yes, putting a checkpoint in the center of Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc on I10 would be crazy and retarded, that is why I said it would be OUTSIDE  the cities and towns on the interstates and state highways thst feed into I10.  So basically if you lived in Houston now nothing would change for you.  You could hop on I10, exit I10, etc all day long while in Houston without hitting a checkpoint at all.  You could hop on I10 and drive to San Antonio without hitting a checkpoint, no problem.  You could exit I10, get back on I10 in San Antonio all day long without hitting any checkpoint... The only time you would hit a checkpoint is if you exited I10 to get on one of the Interstates or highways headed south or north, and that would be only if you went far enough outside the city to hit the checkpoint....

  17. 1 hour ago, F250 said:

    He is referring to the 4th Amendment. Making American citizens go through checkpoints to travel between cities and towns is unconstitutional.

    Do you have any idea how many people traverse I-10 on a daily basis? The commute between San Antonio and Houston is bad as it is, I can't imagine the shit show it would be if everyone had to funnel through checkpoints?

    This idea is ass.

    San Antonio and Houston are on I10.  Why do you need a checkpoint between them?  The checkpoints would be at state lines on I10 if you had them at all.  Those checkpoints are already on I10 now in the Southwest states..The check points on the state highways/  Interstates that feed into or out of  I10 outside the cities and towns would be the ones with slow downs depending on which highway or Interstate...How many people come into San Antonio or Houston from the South to hit I10? That's where slowdowns would be..

  18. 5 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

     

     

    So basically create a Constitution-free zone south of I-10, instead of the Constitution-free zone we now have south of I-10 in some places, south of HW 90 in others. Brilliant!

     

    fixy.

    No.  All people south of I10 to the Mexico border that are in the country legally would still be US citizens subject to our protection and law...Ive said that like a hundred times now.  They could freely come and go into the interiror US North of I10 through a lawful port of entry/ exit....What would change for them?  They have to go through one checkpoint to get to I10?  If you live in any of the cities or towns on I10 already, you wouldn't go through a checkpoint at all to get on or off I10, only if you exited I10 to go north or south outside the city or town...

  19. 5 hours ago, thrillhammer said:

    can i still go 80 on it?  it sounds like it's going to take me longer to get to santa fe now, so i vote no on this.  

    Sure, why not?  The hardcore check points would be strategically placed outside cities/ towns on any Highway/ Interstate coming into I10 from the South.  Once people are on I10 you dont need a bunch of checkpoints. To get North they have to exit somewhere to get on one of the Highways or Interstates going North so you strategically place 1 checkpoint on each of those Highways and Interstates also outside the Cities/ towns on the North side of I10..On I10 itself,  you only need them maybe just near state lines like they are now.  As technology improves, the whole process of going through the checkpoints would get faster and better.

  20. 49 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

    It depends on how steeply it’s taxed. People who use drugs know that lifestyle is fucking dangerous as hell and they’d much rather get their junk from some sort of legal dispensary than from some shady black market people, and that’s especially true of the crack/heroin/PCP crowd. Why else do you think the black market for alcohol is a relative non-entity here?

    If you really want to hurt the cartels, then legalize marijuana everywhere.  They make a boatload of money off of that...That is a drug we could easily get to the right price point to really hurt them and could be sold like tobacco in every corner store.

  21. 4 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

    It depends on how steeply it’s taxed. People who use drugs know that lifestyle is fucking dangerous as hell and they’d much rather get their junk from some sort of legal dispensary than from some shady black market people, and that’s especially true of the crack/heroin/PCP crowd. Why else do you think the black market for alcohol is a relative non-entity here?

    I can see that...I never understood how people could put something that harmful in their body made by some very evil people that are not regulated in any way....I just don't think our country could make the drugs near as cheap as these other countries, and we would still have a drug smuggling problem, maybe not as bad as what we currently have..

  22. 23 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

    El Chapo and his ilk couldn’t exist if drugs were legal. I don’t think you understand what horrible effects that hideous drug war has had over the years, but it’s not inconsiderable. To assume that criminalizing them has had any positive effect whatsoever is an exercise in Make Believe. As has been said many times before, drugs are a health concern and not a legal one. 

    You think legalizing very addictive hard drugs and selling them here at higher prices than the average junky could afford  over time so we could tax them is going to stop Cartels in Mexico and elsewhere from growing and selling them cheaper here? 

    Their could be better ways to handle the legal concerns...Our jails are probably overloaded with people that didnt really  harm anyone but themselves and people close to them with their own personal drug use...

  23. 7 minutes ago, The People’s Elbow said:

    You’re discussing a problem with the solution. That wasn’t the ask. I want you to make a case beyond a shadow of a doubt using historical and empirical data there’s a problem at the border.

    People like El Chapo smuggling enough illegal drugs  to sink an aircraft carrier into our country over many years wasn't a big enough problem for you to say their is a problem at our border?  That's not historical evidence?  

    I guess I don't understand what you are asking...

    • Fuck You 3
  24. 11 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

    Do you think heroin and cocaine being illegal is a deterrent for those that want to use it? 

    Not really...It's  just like guns.  You could make them illegal, but the crimjnals would still get them I suppose...I guess I just dont see the positives in legalizing hard drugs.  If the fact that they are illegal and their are legal consequences for using them is enough to scare some people from using them and ruining their lives, isn't that a positive?

    • Fuck You 2
  25. 13 minutes ago, scottsins said:

    Also, fuck the entire idea of me being in East Texas and being forced to show my citizenship papers to pass through to get on the highway.

    Seriously. That’s not even remotely acceptable.

    Have you ever lived near a toll road?  They have an express pass type device you keep in your vehicle that gets scanned each time you get on the road.  Why would you have to carry citizenship papers around?  If Xray technology keeps improving for scanning vehicles, you will barely even have to slow down at a port of entry or checkpoint...It would be impossible to stop and question everyone...

×
×
  • Create New...