- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CNN Can Not Understand Why We Can Not Arrest The Drug Runners and Bring Them to Trial.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 10:38 am to Dissident Aggressor
Posted on 12/8/25 at 10:38 am to Dissident Aggressor
quote:
run of the mill drug runners have just as much a right to vaporization as a kingpin…
Not under any law, which i why the Administration is avoiding doing anything meaningful.
It virtue signaling for gullible, low information cultists.
Would you consider alcohol bootleggers and guys who sell cigarettes without tax stamps worthy of extermination?
0
Posted on 12/8/25 at 10:39 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Oh, oh, oh. See that boat about 2 miles away on the horizon? It doesn’t have a flag. I get to blow it up for no reason other than the lack of a flag. Big fun!!!
Looks like Rentless and Roger are afraid their monthly supply of coke is gonna dry up huh! ”
Posted on 12/8/25 at 10:42 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
So it's not about deaths at all, then. Noted. I'll expect to stop seeing 250,000 deaths a year from here on out, then.
It can be about deaths and crime and homelessness at the same time.
quote:
Previously the premise was that unconstitutional acts were justified due to the fact that people selling drugs were causing 250,000 deaths a year.
What’s unconstitutional?
quote:
The hypothetical pointed out that people selling other products were responsible for 4 times as many deaths per year and asked why those things were legal still.
And I answered your question.
quote:
Now you've moved the goal posts, so it's not about deaths anymore, it's about homelessness and crime.
What goalposts have I moved?
quote:
Every person on this thread advocating moronic things like bombing drug smugglers 100 yards on the other side of the border instead of arresting them when they cross with illegal substances.
Perhaps you should address the person who posted we should drop bombs 100 yards from our border then?
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:01 am to Chrome
quote:
Great point about brining up Afghanistan and how no one complained then.
Well that and nobody would give a single care if it were someone (D)ifferent doing it.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:10 am to CapnKangaroo
quote:It's just like Vietnam or the Middle East. If we were actually at "war" it would have been over in less than a month.
If you think this is going to so much as make a dent in a billion dollar a year industry, then I don't what what else to tell you.
Agreed. We need to be bombing a lot more boats. Also we should be seizing all their money.
Obviously, just as in Vietnam and the Middle East, there are ulterior motives at play here.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:11 am to TX Tiger
Same as it ever was.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:12 am to TX Tiger
quote:
It's just like Vietnam or the Middle East. If we were actually at "war" it would have been over in less than a month. Obviously, just as in Vietnam and the Middle East, there are ulterior motives at play here.
Not for me. But even if everyone in the administration agreed with and just wanted to end the cartels and drug trade once and for all they wouldn’t be able to. More traffickers will always pop up so we’ll probably just have to keep killing them in perpetuity. And I’m perfectly fine with that.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:12 am to Kracka
quote:If someone (D)ifferent were doing it, this board would have a collective stroke.
nobody would give a single care if it were someone (D)ifferent doing it.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:14 am to stampman
quote:You are not a serious person.
Looks like Rentless and Roger are afraid their monthly supply of coke is gonna dry up huh! ”
There is little point attempting to discuss policy with one such as yourself.
This post was edited on 12/8/25 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:14 am to CapnKangaroo
quote:Just hope and pray that nobody you love or care about becomes collateral damage.
It's just like Vietnam or the Middle East. If we were actually at "war" it would have been over in less than a month. Obviously, just as in Vietnam and the Middle East, there are ulterior motives at play here.
Not for me. But even if everyone in the administration agreed with and just wanted to end the cartels and drug trade once and for all they wouldn’t be able to. More traffickers will always pop up so we’ll probably just have to keep killing them in perpetuity. And I’m perfectly fine with that.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:16 am to TX Tiger
quote:
Just hope and pray that nobody you love or care about becomes collateral damage.
I will. But it’s far more likely that someone I love and care about will become addicted to drugs than being collateral damage from the US military killing drug traffickers.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:17 am to Bunk Moreland
I don't know how many times Lucy has to pull the ball away from Charlie Brown before he figures out that she's not going to hold it for him. 
This post was edited on 12/8/25 at 11:23 am
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:22 am to CapnKangaroo
quote:The odds would even up if Trump goes though with his plans for land invasion.
Just hope and pray that nobody you love or care about becomes collateral damage.
I will. But it’s far more likely that someone I love and care about will become addicted to drugs
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:24 am to TX Tiger
quote:
The odds would even up if Trump goes though with his plans for land invasion.
I don’t think you’ll see a full on invasion and occupation. I don’t think that’s necessary and wouldn’t support it. But SOF raids and targeted killings of drug traffickers would be perfectly acceptable.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:27 am to CapnKangaroo
quote:And you trust that would happen, given the 20-plus years we just spend in the Middle East - not to mention the wasted time we spent in Vietnam?
The odds would even up if Trump goes though with his plans for land invasion.
I don’t think you’ll see a full on invasion and occupation. I don’t think that’s necessary and wouldn’t support it. But SOF raids and targeted killings of drug traffickers would be perfectly acceptable.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:31 am to TX Tiger
quote:
And you trust that would happen, given the 20-plus years we just spend in the Middle East - not to mention the wasted time we spent in Vietnam?
I guess you could say I’m extremely hopeful that won’t happen. It’s a risk for sure though. The thing is we can’t just say we’ll never use our military again because mistakes were made in the past. That’s not realistic. Hopefully we’ve learned our lesson.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:34 am to CapnKangaroo
quote:
Hopefully we’ve learned our lesson.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 3:03 pm to CapnKangaroo
quote:
It can be about deaths and crime and homelessness at the same time.
It can, but that's not what you said. You said first one, then pivoted to the other, and the other was supposed to be the differentiating factor and explain why one activity was o.k. even though it caused 4 times as many deaths and one was so bad that it justifies violating constitutional powers.
quote:
What’s unconstitutional?
I suppose we'll have to wait until the SCOTUS weighs in to settle it for good, but the lower courts already ruled that Trump's "narcoterrorism" justifications are not covered under the Alien Enemies Act.
quote:
And I answered your question.
Yeah, I know. That was the goalpost moving pivot. But if you answered the question, it should be obvious to you that the two things ARE related. Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to answer it.
quote:
Perhaps you should address the person who posted we should drop bombs 100 yards from our border then?
Why? You asked who is advocating for those things and I told you. Why would me answering your question require that I talk to anyone else?
Posted on 12/8/25 at 3:11 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
given the 20-plus years we just spend in the Middle East - not to mention the wasted time we spent in Vietnam?
The problem for your viewpoint is that there is no way to know what would have happened had we not engaged in those operations. All we can know is what happened since we did.
Particularly with Vietnam. We were never at war with Vietnam. We were at war with the USSR. The former Soviet Union was the greatest threat not only to the US, but the entire world back then. The Nazis weren't even close. Had we allowed the USSR to colonize and spread their ideology around the world without pushing back and demonstrating that we wouldn't take it lying down and draining their resources, who knows what might have happened?
You apparently view it in terms of, "We spent all that time over there and have nothing to show for it." But you don't know that (and to be fair, neither do I). We might have the absence of a nuclear holocaust to show for it. Or we might not. We'll never know.
As far as the Middle East, the last attack on thousands of Americans on our own soil was from those weirdbeards. And since we shoved some rockets up their asses, we haven't had another one of those attacks.
Again, could that be the case even if we hadn't gotten as involved over there? Sure. But again, we'll never know. All we can know is what did happen. That's what did happen.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 3:18 pm to Bunk Moreland
Did you play too much football without a helmet. You think a boat going 80 miles an hour on open sea at night with $20 million in drugs, weapons and other illegal contraband is going to pull over for a check you are a special kind of stupid. Why are you on an LSU site?
Page 10 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News