The Fentanyl Crisis thread

[Markk]

Did you read the article?

Why should I? It's all word salad.

There is a lot here that will be very interesting to "dig" into (pun intended), and probably deserves to be a thread of it's own.

Start with this, and tell me what you see that might be concerning about this?




Read this and tell me what you find here that might be a bit more concerning. It is a copy and paste of the first two paragraphs of the INM website.



The reports that are linked are exhaustive and will take some time to go through, but it will be an interesting read. In one, on page 34, it reads as follows and compliments the points I find concerning.



Let me know what you find here?

Stop giving me assignments. The man is dismantling our government and shutting down essential services, and all you can do is harp on this fentanyl/border BS to the tune of eleventy billion pages of your customary one-man vortex. Miss the forest for the trees much? Give me a break.

FYI: He and Co-President Musk fired NUCLEAR safety and security experts. Tried to rescind it the very next day (when they realized the totally stepped in crap) and didn't have any contact information for those workers. NUCLEAR safety and security Markk...and you're worried about the flipping border.

Well you should, because you are the one that linked it, and I assumed because of that, and asking me to "dig this," you wanted me to also read it.

I asked you the questions I did, because I did read the article and pasts of the links provided in it and right away I saw red flags and reason why, in my opinion, the program should be suspended.

I am a bit confused what you are calling a word salad though....the link you asked me to read, or me asking you what you gathered from the article?

I'll tell you my first red flag, of several and you can tell whether or not you agree. The NIL website reads:

"The Bureau of International Narcotics Matters (INM) was created in 1978 to reduce drug trafficking into the United States from Latin America..."

However since 1978 the drug trafficking into the US has exploded who knows how many folds. More Americans are dying each year because of it that American died in 19 years of our involvement in Vietnam. Who knows how many are dying because of it in those Latin American countries.

To me is seems logical to freeze this program and take a serious look at whether tis department is frankly, working.

Stop giving me assignments. The man is dismantling our government and shutting down essential services, and all you can do is harp on this fentanyl/border BS to the tune of eleventy billion pages of your customary one-man vortex. Miss the forest for the trees much? Give me a break.

Again the synthetic opioid crisis is costing Americans over a hundred thousand lives a year, with a trail of grief to countless families. It is also puts our first responders at great risk and overwhelms or systems while costing upward of 2 trillion dollars a year is total cost to tax payers, each year because of it. I believe this is a very import topic and whether you want to acknowledge it or not we are are in a epidemic that is of epic proportions.

FYI: He and Co-President Musk fired NUCLEAR safety and security experts. Tried to rescind it the very next day (when they realized the totally stepped in crap) and didn't have any contact information for those workers. NUCLEAR safety and security Markk...and you're worried about the flipping border.

That was a mistake and they are cleaning it up, and your criticisms are fair, I'm with you. They need to vet this much better as the cut through the waste. Keep in mind we are close to WW3 because of Bidens blunder in allowing the mess in the Ukraine to happen also, which will need to be cleaned up and things are looking more positive on that front.

[Gadianton]

Mass deportation as a "deterrence" is headed right towards the circular reasoning problems we've seen with multiple Trumpers here: The law exists for the sake of the law, or Man is made for the Sabbath, if that helps. Rather than owning up to the fact the law is completely broken.

Trumpers stumble toward a point they could almost make if they had a basic education. I didn't go to law school, but I'm sure Dr. E at some point in his first year got a lecture about rule utilitarianism. That says if I run a red light at 2:00 AM and the camera goes off, my ticket is justified even if nobody got hurt and nobody was around. Victimless crimes are punishable to keep the integrity of the rule. If the specifics of the situation have to be taken into account every time somebody approaches a red light and weighs whether or not to stop, it will never work. If everybody stops at the light every time, no intersection accidents will ever occur; very simple. No exceptions to stopping.

Upon learning of such a concept, a right-winger can now suggest, finally, with a modicum of validity, that deportation is justified, even if it's an innocent family, in order to keep the integrity the immigration rules, just like in the stop light example. It would be difficult for me to disagree, at least in the abstract. But that's assuming you know what the immigration rules are in the first place, and what they are intended to do. We know what stoplights are for.

Many years ago, my family pushed me to go to LA at night and see Rodeo blvd and Beverly Hills. Please no, but I lost, and so we went. I must have ran 15 red lights and every one of them had a red-light cam; I wasn't seeing any go off, but I had that uneasy feeling in the back of my mind for the next month going to the mailbox. The cameras were turned off because otherwise several thousand people a day are going to get between 5 and 20 tickets every time they choose to drive through LA. They are pointless.

...in walks a sly Dr. E. "Let us turn them on in that case! If you received 15 tickets, that would surely stop you from running reds, now wouldn't it?"

Indeed it would, because I would stop driving. People would stop driving until the intersection cooled; only most desperate people would drive and take the risk, until traffic slowed to the point that it there was a reasonable chance you could drive through LA without getting a ticket. Of course, it would crush downtown. The circus of ideas could continue though, maybe that would spark proper urban planning, vitalize other areas -- we could speculate all day. However, the point of a stoplight is to prevent intersection accidents and maximize the flow through the streets. When there are way, way too many cars on the streets, stoplights no longer fulfill their function, and so enforcing them is pointless; unless you believe man was created to stop at stop lights.

[Gunnar]

That was a mistake and they are cleaning it up, and your criticisms are fair, I'm with you. They need to vet this much better as the cut through the waste. Keep in mind we are close to WW3 because of Bidens blunder in allowing the mess in the Ukraine to happen also, which will need to be cleaned up and things are looking more positive on that front.

That is far from the only mistake Trump and his puppet master, Musk, have made and are still making! How about this doozy of a mistake!

Trump Starts Firing Air Traffic Controllers As Plane Crashes Rise

For the first time in decades, the number of plane crashes in the United States is on the rise. And to make matters far worse, Donald Trump has begun his mass firings of air traffic controllers across the country. We have a real crisis and Trump’s only response to it is to make it even worse by getting rid of the few people who can help the situation. This is the exact opposite of what we need our government to be doing right now, as Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains.

"The impacted workers include personnel hired for FAA radar, landing and navigational aide maintenance," the AP reported after talking to one anonymous air traffic controller.

This is insane, especially considering the recent crashes.

Or how about this mistake: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=159503

And please stop making the idiotic claim that "we are close to WW3 because of Bidens blunder in allowing the mess in the Ukraine to happen." Putin started the mess by unlawfully invading Ukraine. It did not happen because of any blunder made by Biden, unless you consider advocating Ukraine's freedom and sovereignty and opposing Putin's tyranny and war crimes was somehow immoral. There is absolutely no credible evidence that Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine would not have happened if Trump had been President at the time. Putin has never hid his ambition to restore the USSR empire and reacquire all the territories and countries they once ruled, especially Ukraine. Putin is a cruel tyrant and war criminal who favored Trump because he knew that Trump would not stand in the way of Putin's territorial ambitions. Trump admires and envies tyrants like Putin because that is what he aspires to become himself. If this is still not obvious to you, you are hopelessly naïve and willfully blind!

[canpakes]

Markk, I’ve clearly laid out my own ideas for immigration within a system that is clearly based on lawful procedure and conduct. I have no idea why you keep asking this clearly inane question.

Please, go back and reread those older posts before you ask again.

Lol this remind of of Fonzi; when he could say he was wrong. You are dancing around the very clear question. However, nothing you have said is clear in regard of it.

If you’re bringing Fonzi into this, then the quality of our discussion has clearly jumped the shark. ; )

I think that you’re just not tracking with your own conversation very well. If you switch to mass deportations using links, it can help you to do so.

You first wrote, as your supposed clear answer to my question:

I’d guess that most folks will answer according to their local situation. Does the border between Yukon and Canada need a wall? Doubtful. Does some means of control prove useful where there’s significant travel to monitor, like El Paso? Absolutely.

Then you changed it to:

I’ll repeat what you called a word salad, when you asked if we should have ‘open borders’:

“I’d guess that most folks will answer according to their local situation. Does the border between Yukon and Canada need a wall? Doubtful. Does some means of control prove useful where there’s significant travel to monitor, like El Paso? Absolutely.”

I trust that you can figure that statement out. : D

Those are the same statement. Can you point out what changed, in your opinion?

Also, note that this is in response to your question of, “I'll ask again the question no one her seems grounded enough in their positions and politics to answer, do you believe that all borders should be wide open, or in other words no more borders.”

Link for you: viewtopic.php?p=2886848#p2886848

The you changed it to:

Well, damn. Considering my remark in how I believe that a border entry point in a high-traffic zone like El Paso is absolutely (I did use that exact word) preferred, you’ve now struck completely out. But why stop here? Do go on.

How does this statement conflict with the one above?

How that clear to my question, which I have clarified several times, that 'there should be no immigrations laws of a CBP type of department,' and 'what about the non-high traffic check points, should people just be allowed to come and go as they will?'

We both know you understand the question, you are not stupid, and I believe we both understand why you can't commit to a straight forward question.

Answer the question Cakes. I assume you do have a clear and thought out position, that you can articulate, right?

Here you’re combining two different questions. I’ve highlighted your ‘and’ to show this. As well, you’ve changed the second question to include ‘checkpoints’. Aren’t ‘checkpoints’, by virtue of the name, staffed? Otherwise, what would make it a checkpoint?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_checkpoint

As regards the first portion of your combined question, about immigration laws … I’ve also answered this one. Follow the link:

viewtopic.php?p=2885731#p2885731

Next question?

[Marcus]

I'm enjoying reading this thread, but good grief, markk, could you stop giving assignments and saying "we both know" followed by YOUR opinion about others' motives and beliefs? That's exactly what mentalgymnast does at his most desperate and it's not moving the conversation along. Just comment on the topic, please.

[Jersey Girl]

I asked you the questions I did, because I did read the article and pasts of the links provided in it and right away I saw red flags and reason why, in my opinion, the program should be suspended.

Sure Jan.

[Markk]

Lol this remind of of Fonzi; when he could say he was wrong. You are dancing around the very clear question. However, nothing you have said is clear in regard of it.

If you’re bringing Fonzi into this, then the quality of our discussion has clearly jumped the shark. ; )

I think that you’re just not tracking with your own conversation very well. If you switch to mass deportations using links, it can help you to do so.

You first wrote, as your supposed clear answer to my question:


Then you changed it to:

Those are the same statement. Can you point out what changed, in your opinion?

Also, note that this is in response to your question of, “I'll ask again the question no one her seems grounded enough in their positions and politics to answer, do you believe that all borders should be wide open, or in other words no more borders.”

Link for you: viewtopic.php?p=2886848#p2886848

The you changed it to:

How does this statement conflict with the one above?

How that clear to my question, which I have clarified several times, that 'there should be no immigrations laws of a CBP type of department,' and 'what about the non-high traffic check points, should people just be allowed to come and go as they will?'

We both know you understand the question, you are not stupid, and I believe we both understand why you can't commit to a straight forward question.

Answer the question Cakes. I assume you do have a clear and thought out position, that you can articulate, right?

Here you’re combining two different questions. I’ve highlighted your ‘and’ to show this. As well, you’ve changed the second question to include ‘checkpoints’. Aren’t ‘checkpoints’, by virtue of the name, staffed? Otherwise, what would make it a checkpoint?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_checkpoint

As regards the first portion of your combined question, about immigration laws ... I’ve also answered this one. Follow the link:

viewtopic.php?p=2885731#p2885731

Next question?

The second one should've read, "you doubled down," that was sloppy on my part, I apologize.

The point is the first two times you said "most folks" as to your answering my question about what "you" believe. The last one you stated "I believe ...absolutely," when you did not in the other two posts.

Your statement/s are that only high traffic ports of entry's should be monitored, which implies that Non-high areas should not. So it is not clear whether you believe in a open border policy, or a partly open boarder policy as I defined the term. So as to not go around in, lol, more circles....do you believe we should have immigration laws? Lets start there.

[Markk]

I asked you the questions I did, because I did read the article and pasts of the links provided in it and right away I saw red flags and reason why, in my opinion, the program should be suspended.

Sure Jan.

Jersey Girl, hope you are doing okay. By the way I recently spent some time in New Jersey for the first time this past summer. In Hammonton. It is really a beautiful area, I never envisioned Jersey this way. I was by myself and I rented a Mustang and drove up to the coast to NY, and had a blast.

Take care.

[canpakes]

The second one should've read, "you doubled down," that was sloppy on my part, I apologize.

No need to apologize. But repeating prior text on the assumption that someone else missed it isn’t ’doubling down’.

The point is the first two times you said "most folks" as to your answering my question about what "you" believe. The last one you stated "I believe ...absolutely," when you did not in the other two posts.

In the first sentence I stated that most folks will answer according to their local situation. This does not imply that anyone is thinking the same as whatever I might. The second and third sentences riff off of that concept and reflect what seems like a sensible example to me, as stated:

“I’d guess that most folks will answer according to their local situation. Does the border between Yukon and Canada need a wall? Doubtful. Does some means of control prove useful where there’s significant travel to monitor, like El Paso? Absolutely.”

Your statement/s are that only high traffic ports of entry's should be monitored,

No. As you were very non-specific as to what you were referring to with your question (which was, “do you believe that all borders should be wide open, or in other words no more borders.”), I specifically suggested ‘wall’ as an example of a border control. No, I do not believe that the border between Yukon and Canada needs a wall. Can CBP have a patrol car cruise along its length on a regular basis? That sounds practical, right?

which implies that Non-high areas should not.

Not correct, per previous comment.

So it is not clear whether you believe in an open border policy, or a partly open boarder policy as I defined the term.

You never actually ‘defined the term’. That’s the problem; you keep using squishy language without clear definitions amidst arbitrarily changing the wording in your questions to focus randomly on different aspects of a major subject. When other people answer you, you lose track of what’s said and then blame the other person.

As example:

So as to not go around in, lol, more circles....do you believe we should have immigration laws? Let’s start there.

Go back and read the last part of my previous post.

[Markk]

Markk...So as to not go around in, lol, more circles....do you believe we should have immigration laws? Let’s start there.

Cakes...Go back and read the last part of my previous post.

Lol...can I assume yes, or can I assume no to my question? Do you believe we should have immigration laws?