Mexican Gunmen Fire on US Border Patrol

[mr surveyor]

Mexican gunmean firing on U.S. officials is not new. My grandfather was a member of the Iowa cavalry in 1916 when his unit was sent to Fort Brown down in Brownsville to chase Sr. Villa around Mexico so that he would stop shooting Americans.

now THAT is some interesting family history.

[Liberty]

Include tobacco and I agree. If a smoker gets lung cancer, why should non smokers have to pay?

I think they pay more than their fair share.
Smokers pay more taxes, more for insurance and die earlier therefor are less drain on social security and Medicare.

I think we should tax Tufu beansprouts, and leafy vegtables to subsidise those of us who prefer beefsteaks and fried chicken.

Just Sayin'

[45 4 life]

Back to the original post, I say mount 50's on all border patrol trucks. That way returning fire would leave a lasting impression.

Seriously, it is time to take the gloves off and put up a defense. We are being invaded from the south, if the mexican goverment was involved, it would be an act of war.

[chartreuse]

Back to the original post, I say mount 50's on all border patrol trucks. That way returning fire would leave a lasting impression.

Seriously, it is time to take the gloves off and put up a defense. We are being invaded from the south, if the mexican goverment was involved, it would be an act of war.

Are you certain that it's not?

[maxlib]

I would be all for decriminilzation, not making them totally legal. This would allow employers to continue their current drug testing programs. Provided that there is drug testing required for anyone receiving ANY government aid, including medicaid. People want to abuse drugs, fine.........just don't make me pay for the consequences of it, or finance it through welfare.

Yes. Anyone besides me find it backwards that those of us who work or are looking for work are subject to drug testing but those living on welfare and food stamps are not?

[chartreuse]

I would be all for decriminilzation, not making them totally legal. This would allow employers to continue their current drug testing programs. Provided that there is drug testing required for anyone receiving ANY government aid, including medicaid. People want to abuse drugs, fine.........just don't make me pay for the consequences of it, or finance it through welfare.

Yes. Anyone besides me find it backwards that those of us who work or are looking for work are subject to drug testing but those living on welfare and food stamps are not?

Just to be clear, I've got no time for folks who trade their children's food stamps, or whatever, for drugs. That said, there's a big difference between an employer and employee agreeing to drug or alcohol testing, as part of a contract, and the government using the threat of force to impose it upon the people.

It's a bit like freedom of speech. The first amendment protects us from the government interfering with it, but it doesn't give us carte blanch us to transgress the rules on a privately operated board such as this.

[quidni]

I would be all for decriminilzation, not making them totally legal. This would allow employers to continue their current drug testing programs. Provided that there is drug testing required for anyone receiving ANY government aid, including medicaid. People want to abuse drugs, fine.........just don't make me pay for the consequences of it, or finance it through welfare.

This. If this was a provision, I'd be all for legalizing drugs. Haven't we learned yet that govt can NEVER be as effective as a free market? Make something illegal, and all you do is make someone a profit selling it. Normally very bad people.

Basic principal of economics: If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it. Maybe not "legalizing" these drugs per se, but "decriminalizing" them; regulating and criminalizing "operating under the influence" as with alcohol and other substances and setting hefty taxes on their use.

[maxlib]

I would be all for decriminilzation, not making them totally legal. This would allow employers to continue their current drug testing programs. Provided that there is drug testing required for anyone receiving ANY government aid, including medicaid. People want to abuse drugs, fine.........just don't make me pay for the consequences of it, or finance it through welfare.

Yes. Anyone besides me find it backwards that those of us who work or are looking for work are subject to drug testing but those living on welfare and food stamps are not?

Just to be clear, I've got no time for folks who trade their children's food stamps, or whatever, for drugs. That said, there's a big difference between an employer and employee agreeing to drug or alcohol testing, as part of a contract, and the government using the threat of force to impose it upon the people.

It's a bit like freedom of speech. The first amendment protects us from the government interfering with it, but it doesn't give us carte blanch us to transgress the rules on a privately operated board such as this.

I see you're point, but I believe that recieving any continuing government financial assistance should come with that same agreement attached.

That being said, I would not want to work anywhere that didn't screen the employees, and if they did screen welfare recipients, they would just take things to defeat the tests anyway.

So I guess it's a moot point.

[canvasbck]

I would be all for decriminilzation, not making them totally legal. This would allow employers to continue their current drug testing programs. Provided that there is drug testing required for anyone receiving ANY government aid, including medicaid. People want to abuse drugs, fine.........just don't make me pay for the consequences of it, or finance it through welfare.

Yes. Anyone besides me find it backwards that those of us who work or are looking for work are subject to drug testing but those living on welfare and food stamps are not?

Just to be clear, I've got no time for folks who trade their children's food stamps, or whatever, for drugs. That said, there's a big difference between an employer and employee agreeing to drug or alcohol testing, as part of a contract, and the government using the threat of force to impose it upon the people.

It's a bit like freedom of speech. The first amendment protects us from the government interfering with it, but it doesn't give us carte blanch us to transgress the rules on a privately operated board such as this.

What threat of force? The drug testing requirement would only apply to those requesting government aid, a stipulation for receiving aid, just like the stipulation for employees earning pay.

It can't be compared to the first amendment. There is no constitutional guarantee that the govt will provide you with medicare, food stamps, welfare, ect.

Trust me, I'm as Libertarian as most on this board. I want the government out of my daily life, but if I am being supported by them for my needs, then I can see some rules tied to it. Welfare programs should be a ladder out of poverty, not a means to avoid individual accountability.

[maxlib]

Well said canvasbck.

[Fangs]

...if I am being supported by them for my needs, then I can see some rules tied to it. Welfare programs should be a ladder out of poverty, not a means to avoid individual accountability.

Back on topic, there have been several documented cases I've read about where Mexican drug runners were escorted by Mexican military across the border. That should be considered an act of war.