LaxPower Back-Up Stick

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:12 am The funds to build the wall have already been allocated to the DoD.

That stands for the Department of Defense. Billions from the "construction" allocation.

Guess that new SIGNET "station" in Tuvalu will have to wait until next year to be built. Built by "whom"

hmmm........the TAATS are calling for investigations into the DoD "construction" billions.

Guess the SeaBees don't exist anymore, nor the Corps of Engineers.....gotta hire a company that COngress own stock in.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:45 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:12 am The funds to build the wall have already been allocated to the DoD.

That stands for the Department of Defense. Billions from the "construction" allocation.

Guess that new SIGNET "station" in Tuvalu will have to wait until next year to be built. Built by "whom"

hmmm........the TAATS are calling for investigations into the DoD "construction" billions.

Guess the SeaBees don't exist anymore, nor the Corps of Engineers.....gotta hire a company that COngress own stock in.

You do have a quite cynical perspective, fatty, but I generally agree with you on: follow the $.

But the more relevant matter is that military housing, commissaries, hospitals etc won't get repaired or built.
That's the trade-off for Trump's "Wall".

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:45 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:12 am The funds to build the wall have already been allocated to the DoD.

That stands for the Department of Defense. Billions from the "construction" allocation.

Guess that new SIGNET "station" in Tuvalu will have to wait until next year to be built. Built by "whom"

hmmm........the TAATS are calling for investigations into the DoD "construction" billions.

Guess the SeaBees don't exist anymore, nor the Corps of Engineers.....gotta hire a company that COngress own stock in.

You do have a quite cynical perspective, fatty, but I generally agree with you on: follow the $.

But the more relevant matter is that military housing, commissaries, hospitals etc won't get repaired or built.
That's the trade-off for Trump's "Wall".

But the more relevant matter is that military housing, commissaries, hospitals etc won't get repaired or built.

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:04 pmAny ideas?

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:27 pm The extra military hospital in Germany.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:02 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:45 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:12 am The funds to build the wall have already been allocated to the DoD.

That stands for the Department of Defense. Billions from the "construction" allocation.

Guess that new SIGNET "station" in Tuvalu will have to wait until next year to be built. Built by "whom"

hmmm........the TAATS are calling for investigations into the DoD "construction" billions.

Guess the SeaBees don't exist anymore, nor the Corps of Engineers.....gotta hire a company that COngress own stock in.

You do have a quite cynical perspective, fatty, but I generally agree with you on: follow the $.

But the more relevant matter is that military housing, commissaries, hospitals etc won't get repaired or built.
That's the trade-off for Trump's "Wall".

please stop using that term, its a personna that served NO useful purpose other than pestering. RRR comments are cogent and fertile

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:04 pmAny ideas?

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:13 pm I’m with you. We’re broke.

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:06 pm Said the troll from under the bridge.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:27 pm Great friggen idea. https://roy.house.gov/media/press-relea ... error-list

Reps. Chip Roy and Mark Green Request Drug Cartels Be Added To Terror List

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:33 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:45 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:11 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:43 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:38 pm

Additionally, do your homework, and tell us how much fentanyl will fit in a few backpacks vs the amount of people that quantity can kill and put a price on it. Hint: 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered deadly.

Yup. Shipment sizes for fentanyl are quite small, so many come through the mail. Often from China.

A physical wall around every Post Office and Fed Ex office is gonna take a lot of time and money to build.

Look for the forest ggait. I get it, you guys do not want or believe a wall will work, fine. But to argue your case about the simplicity of "shipping" drugs via mail is shortsighted.

For instance, as TLD likes to add, treat the demand. Sure, we can educate and rehabilitate till we are blue in the face, but these drugs are for more addictive and deadly....attend any rehab place that treats the big drugs like Heroin, Meth, Opiods, etc....they give those recovering a bit over a 50% chance of staying clean, not to mention the price has dropped significantly. Now, the drugs are simply deadly....first use, or if you are lucky you get another chance.

If more and more drugs are seized at ports of entry after more barriers are installed, that clearly means new ways of drug flow has to take place with higher volumes of product, which makes it harder to disguise in small packages, which makes scanning packages much simpler. The barriers, coupled with funneling traffic flow....treats the demand, because the supply is not there. The only fear is robberies and thefts will likely go up as addicts will be searching for the their next fix. I bet we would see a rise in drug issues in Canada and across the pond if the barriers go up along the border.

I think you have this backward, cradle. me and craddle are different people.

Step up technology and manpower for detection of drugs through the mail, shipped in bulk via truck or shipping container at ports, or on rail cars through tunnels. Make it really, really difficult to come in through the current low cost means, and sure, the drug traffickers will eventually turn to trying to cross the desert with it. Use technology to detect them and nail'em. If you need some more fencing to make that easier, that's when you spend $ for that. But not until you've addressed where most of the drugs are coming in.

In other words, let's spend our tax dollars as efficiently as possible, get the most bang for the buck.

On the other hand, I think this will always be a losing battle until we decriminalize drug use and put our efforts into prevention and rehabilitation instead of policing and incarceration of users and their non-drug trafficking crimes done to feed their costly addiction.

Take the profit out of it for the drug traffickers.

Focus the policing on any remaining black market. Be very, very tough on black marketers, especially any who use weapons in any way.

Personally, I've managed to avoid all criminal drug use all my life except a bit of underage drinking as a teenager. But I have lots of family who have been badly addicted to alcohol, and one to both alcohol and illegal substances (sober now for more than a decade) and one who remains in desperate shape with opioids and heroin. Addiction needs to be seen as a serious disease, not a criminal activity.

We are saying darned near the same thing mdlax. The only rub is the barrier aspect. The wall is much more than drugs, and I would think you would be for barriers, primarily for the human trafficking element that would decline, set aside the drug aspect if that is the roadblock you are stuck on. There can be no more (or very little) paid coyote caravans that lead to wall with no impasse, this also funnels legit traffic towards legal ports of entry.

sorry, didn't mean to confuse you guys! my bad

Yes, I was speaking primarily about drugs. More fences should be very low on the priority list of how to spend money efficiently in that regard.

By human trafficking, do you mean sex trafficking ? or do you just mean economic migrants and actual asylum seekers?
I'm all for nailing those who exploit others.

If it's a question of wanting to control the numbers of people here in the US without proper documentation, let's focus first on those who over stay their visas. I want to make it a lot easier to be here with up to date documentation, but I also want to make it tougher to exploit them. Implement e-verify.

But I really don't see spending enormous sums for fences to be a wise investment. There are too many other investments that should be done first.
Now, using technology to detect illegal crossings could well be an efficient spend.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:03 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:33 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:45 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:11 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:43 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:38 pm

Additionally, do your homework, and tell us how much fentanyl will fit in a few backpacks vs the amount of people that quantity can kill and put a price on it. Hint: 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered deadly.

Yup. Shipment sizes for fentanyl are quite small, so many come through the mail. Often from China.

A physical wall around every Post Office and Fed Ex office is gonna take a lot of time and money to build.

Look for the forest ggait. I get it, you guys do not want or believe a wall will work, fine. But to argue your case about the simplicity of "shipping" drugs via mail is shortsighted.

For instance, as TLD likes to add, treat the demand. Sure, we can educate and rehabilitate till we are blue in the face, but these drugs are for more addictive and deadly....attend any rehab place that treats the big drugs like Heroin, Meth, Opiods, etc....they give those recovering a bit over a 50% chance of staying clean, not to mention the price has dropped significantly. Now, the drugs are simply deadly....first use, or if you are lucky you get another chance.

If more and more drugs are seized at ports of entry after more barriers are installed, that clearly means new ways of drug flow has to take place with higher volumes of product, which makes it harder to disguise in small packages, which makes scanning packages much simpler. The barriers, coupled with funneling traffic flow....treats the demand, because the supply is not there. The only fear is robberies and thefts will likely go up as addicts will be searching for the their next fix. I bet we would see a rise in drug issues in Canada and across the pond if the barriers go up along the border.

I think you have this backward, cradle. me and craddle are different people.

Step up technology and manpower for detection of drugs through the mail, shipped in bulk via truck or shipping container at ports, or on rail cars through tunnels. Make it really, really difficult to come in through the current low cost means, and sure, the drug traffickers will eventually turn to trying to cross the desert with it. Use technology to detect them and nail'em. If you need some more fencing to make that easier, that's when you spend $ for that. But not until you've addressed where most of the drugs are coming in.

In other words, let's spend our tax dollars as efficiently as possible, get the most bang for the buck.

On the other hand, I think this will always be a losing battle until we decriminalize drug use and put our efforts into prevention and rehabilitation instead of policing and incarceration of users and their non-drug trafficking crimes done to feed their costly addiction.

Take the profit out of it for the drug traffickers.

Focus the policing on any remaining black market. Be very, very tough on black marketers, especially any who use weapons in any way.

Personally, I've managed to avoid all criminal drug use all my life except a bit of underage drinking as a teenager. But I have lots of family who have been badly addicted to alcohol, and one to both alcohol and illegal substances (sober now for more than a decade) and one who remains in desperate shape with opioids and heroin. Addiction needs to be seen as a serious disease, not a criminal activity.

We are saying darned near the same thing mdlax. The only rub is the barrier aspect. The wall is much more than drugs, and I would think you would be for barriers, primarily for the human trafficking element that would decline, set aside the drug aspect if that is the roadblock you are stuck on. There can be no more (or very little) paid coyote caravans that lead to wall with no impasse, this also funnels legit traffic towards legal ports of entry.

sorry, didn't mean to confuse you guys! my bad

Yes, I was speaking primarily about drugs. More fences should be very low on the priority list of how to spend money efficiently in that regard.

By human trafficking, do you mean sex trafficking ? or do you just mean economic migrants and actual asylum seekers?
I'm all for nailing those who exploit others.

If it's a question of wanting to control the numbers of people here in the US without proper documentation, let's focus first on those who over stay their visas. I want to make it a lot easier to be here with up to date documentation, but I also want to make it tougher to exploit them. Implement e-verify.

But I really don't see spending enormous sums for fences to be a wise investment. There are too many other investments that should be done first.
Now, using technology to detect illegal crossings could well be an efficient spend.

Article on drug trafficking outside of ports of entry. https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... migration/