The Most Sick and Disgusting Thing I've Ever Seen

[Voice of Reason]

There's a new political ad that's been running in Pennsylvania the last couple of days. It shows a woman who informs us that she lost a daughter due to fentanyl. She tells us of her pain and grief, and we see a picture of her happily hugging her beautiful young daughter before this happened. She then goes on to say something like "I want to make sure that no other parent suffers the pain of losing a child to fentanyl like I did. That's why I'm supporting Democrat U.S. Senator Bob Casey." And she goes on to say she's doing this because Casey is working on a bill to stop the influx of fentanyl.

Now I'm going to assume that, no matter how staunch a Democrat this woman may have been, that no parent who lost a child to fentanyl would deliberately make an ad for a Democratic candidate if she actually realized that it was that candidate's and that candidate's party's open-border policies that caused her child's death. I think that this woman is a well-meaning grief-stricken parent who's been duped by liberal propaganda and actually believes that by making this ad she is honoring the memory of her daughter and doing a good thing.

On the other hand, Bob Casey and the people who put this ad together know very well that it is his and the Democrats' open-border policies that have contributed to the influx of fentanyl in this country, and to that woman's daughter's death. If they had even an ounce of integrity or conscience they would be apologizing to this woman for their role in what happened. Instead, not only are they not apologizing to the woman, but they are exploiting her pain and grief, which they caused, for their own political benefit.

I've seen liberals do a lot of despicable things in my life, but this takes the cake. In all my years I have never seen anything this sick and disgusting. If ever anyone deserves to rot in hell, it is Bob Casey and the people behind this travesty.

[Rocky Mtn.]

There's a new political ad that's been running in Pennsylvania the last couple of days. It shows a woman who informs us that she lost a daughter due to fentanyl. She tells us of her pain and grief, and we see a picture of her happily hugging her beautiful young daughter before this happened. She then goes on to say something like "I want to make sure that no other parent suffers the pain of losing a child to fentanyl like I did. That's why I'm supporting Democrat U.S. Senator Bob Casey." And she goes on to say she's doing this because Casey is working on a bill to stop the influx of fentanyl.

Now I'm going to assume that, no matter how staunch a Democrat this woman may have been, that no parent who lost a child to fentanyl would deliberately make an ad for a Democratic candidate if she actually realized that it was that candidate's and that candidate's party's open-border policies that caused her child's death. I think that this woman is a well-meaning grief-stricken parent who's been duped by liberal propaganda and actually believes that by making this ad she is honoring the memory of her daughter and doing a good thing.

On the other hand, Bob Casey and the people who put this ad together know very well that it is his and the Democrats' open-border policies that have contributed to the influx of fentanyl in this country, and to that woman's daughter's death. If they had even an ounce of integrity or conscience they would be apologizing to this woman for their role in what happened. Instead, not only are they not apologizing to the woman, but they are exploiting her pain and grief, which they caused, for their own political benefit.

I've seen liberals do a lot of despicable things in my life, but this takes the cake. In all my years I have never seen anything this sick and disgusting. If ever anyone deserves to rot in hell, it is Bob Casey and the people behind this travesty.

Great post. Sick and despicable is only heating up for what we'll see out of The D.C. club between now and November. Anytime a Republican is a threat to unseat them or is holding office it will continue. They are about power only and the depth of their lows to achieve it will be never ending and relentless without shame or accountability through the state media.They are now plagiarizing Trump policy at their scripted rallys with no mention of policy on Kamala's website. They don't want any record of what she says when things get crazier if she's elected.

[ALLD]

Laws are not going to stop that drug. They need to close the southern border before any of that will get slowed. I had 3 friends OD in the last 5 years. I don't know why people do that stuff. Maybe I need to hang around a better group of people?

[Voice of Reason]

Laws are not going to stop that drug. They need to close the southern border before any of that will get slowed. I had 3 friends OD in the last 5 years. I don't know why people do that stuff. Maybe I need to hang around a better group of people?

Not all the people who died were into drugs. Some were maybe just at a party and one of their friends gave them a pill for a headache or to help them stay up at night to study for an exam, and the pill was tainted and the next thing you know they're dead. It's not just the junkies who die from this stuff, a lot of innocent people die too.

[Mojouw]

So we now are arguing that random headache meds are tainted? Or was it already illegally obtained oxy that was tainted? Because if you are partying and taking oxy....not exactly innocent.

As to the border....America was awash in cocaine and crack in the 1980's and 1990's under GOP administrations. People will ALWAYS get their hands on drugs. There is no border measures that could stop it. You could have armed Robocop style robots patrolling the border behind a wall of space lasers or something and someone would still find a way to get drugs into the country. They literally always have.

The only way to combat drug addiction is to address the fundamental reasons that people turn to drugs.

[Rocky Mtn.]

Aside from the drugs ,Let's just get the border closed. The last 3 1/2 years have just been rediculous. Even though the mules will always find a way to get it here,letting them walk right through with it makes it much easier .

[Steeldude]

So we now are arguing that random headache meds are tainted? Or was it already illegally obtained oxy that was tainted? Because if you are partying and taking oxy....not exactly innocent.

As to the border....America was awash in cocaine and crack in the 1980's and 1990's under GOP administrations. People will ALWAYS get their hands on drugs. There is no border measures that could stop it. You could have armed Robocop style robots patrolling the border behind a wall of space lasers or something and someone would still find a way to get drugs into the country. They literally always have.

The only way to combat drug addiction is to address the fundamental reasons that people turn to drugs.

Nothing will ever be done because Democrats will stop any measure curbing illegal immigration.

[Rocky Mtn.]

Nothing will ever be done because Democrats will stop any measure curbing illegal immigration.

This

[Mojouw]

If it is the Democrats that are stopping everything and the border is causing the flow of drugs....or at least that is what I think I am seeing here....

How do you explain the drugs that flooded into the country when the President and the Senate were GOP majority during the first Reagan Administration?

It would seem that border policy and the flow/amount of narcotics that Americans are addicted to are either separate issues OR neither party has ever formulated a policy that has a positive impact.

[Mach1]

If it is the Democrats that are stopping everything and the border is causing the flow of drugs....or at least that is what I think I am seeing here....

How do you explain the drugs that flooded into the country when the President and the Senate were GOP majority during the first Reagan Administration?

It would seem that border policy and the flow/amount of narcotics that Americans are addicted to are either separate issues OR neither party has ever formulated a policy that has a positive impact.

Close the border and the supply slows down. It doesn't cure the problem but makes it a little more difficult to get the drugs. Also handing out needles with "safe spaces" to do your drugs by certain liberal states, doesn't help matters at all.

[Mojouw]

Close the border and the supply slows down. It doesn't cure the problem but makes it a little more difficult to get the drugs. Also handing out needles with "safe spaces" to do your drugs by certain liberal states, doesn't help matters at all.

What does that even mean - close the border? It isn't like you can just walk across with a wheelbarrow full of narcotics while humming a jaunty tune.

Last info I saw said 90% of the fentanyl entering the country was taken through legal entry points by documented citizens acting as paid drug couriers. The other major inflow point is through simply mailing it.

So...are we talking about just walling off the border points and no one gets in or out? Because it is US citizens being paid to take the drugs across. Or are we really talking about two separate issues here? One being immigration and one being narcotics trafficking?

[Mach1]

Actually they use backpacks and casually cross the wide open border.

Are you saying the only way in is through the legal ports of entry and the border is locked down?

[Mojouw]

Actually they use backpacks and casually cross the wide open border.

Are you saying the only way in is through the legal ports of entry and the border is locked down?

Not at all.

I’m trying to understand what close the border means to folks.

my understanding is that legal us citizens are being paid to carry stuff across legal ports of entry. Border patrol and DEA believe this accounts for 90% of the fentanyl crossing the southern border.

Does that mean we close legal entry ports? Fortify and wall off everything between entry points and pay a crap ton of folks to patrol it?

Im just trying to understand what is being proposed? Because the numbers seem to indicate that if the goal is to eliminate the flow of drugs, no one should be allowed to cross. Anywhere. And that seems unrealistic?

[Mach1]

Like you said narcs get in one way or another, but why make it easy?
Yes wall off the entire border and pay American citizens to build and, gasp, patrol the shit out of it. It's a hella lot cheaper than paying billions upon billions of dollars taking care of illegal aliens.

[Steeldude]

If it is the Democrats that are stopping everything and the border is causing the flow of drugs....or at least that is what I think I am seeing here....

How do you explain the drugs that flooded into the country when the President and the Senate were GOP majority during the first Reagan Administration?

It would seem that border policy and the flow/amount of narcotics that Americans are addicted to are either separate issues OR neither party has ever formulated a policy that has a positive impact.

Stop all travel other than commercial for x-amount of years. Extremely harsh penalties for smuggling. For example, lose your citizenship and placed in a prison overseas. Drugs users and dealers are sent to prisons overseas also. If they don't want jail time then don't do/deal the drugs. I realize not every case will be the same. Bring back chain gangs.

Make Mexico patrol their border to end smuggling or they lose all disbursements from the US.

Deny all asylum seekers. They can stay in Mexico or head to Central or South America. Base immigration on meritocracy.

Build a wall.

Stop all remittance to and from Mexico etc... for a period of time or tax it at an absurdly high rate(90% or more).


Too many politicians are greedy wimps.

[Voice of Reason]

Last info I saw said 90% of the fentanyl entering the country was taken through legal entry points by documented citizens acting as paid drug couriers.

How could anyone possibly determine this?

[steelcityboyz]

How could anyone possibly determine this?

He likes to throw out BS stats whether right or wrong Here's an idea, how about a link to backup those stats???

[Dwinsgames]

to address the ignored Elephant in the room here .... if the border is walled off forcing people to enter through check points we wouldnt need as many border patrol agents and many more could be then moved to legal entry points thus better checkpoints and less sneaking through because they would be able to then check more people out (instead of the random checks) because they would have more agents able to do the work ... aka not being spread thin ...

that wont stop drones but it will slow down and minimize the issues to some degree .... but the greater issue is IMO the invasion of this nation by millions of people every year ... we simply can not sustain

[Rocky Mtn.]

to address the ignored Elephant in the room here .... if the border is walled off forcing people to enter through check points we wouldnt need as many border patrol agents and many more could be then moved to legal entry points thus better checkpoints and less sneaking through because they would be able to then check more people out (instead of the random checks) because they would have more agents able to do the work ... aka not being spread thin ...

that wont stop drones but it will slow down and minimize the issues to some degree .... but the greater issue is IMO the invasion of this nation by millions of people every year ... we simply can not sustain

I agree

[Mojouw]

How could anyone possibly determine this?

Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/12/22/...uding-fentanyl

Pictures and graphs: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/11916...o-border-drugs

More charts and graphs: https://immigrationforum.org/article...r-an-overview/

Reading and research is better than just repeating what the algorithm force feeds you.

[Mojouw]

to address the ignored Elephant in the room here .... if the border is walled off forcing people to enter through check points we wouldnt need as many border patrol agents and many more could be then moved to legal entry points thus better checkpoints and less sneaking through because they would be able to then check more people out (instead of the random checks) because they would have more agents able to do the work ... aka not being spread thin ...

that wont stop drones but it will slow down and minimize the issues to some degree .... but the greater issue is IMO the invasion of this nation by millions of people every year ... we simply can not sustain

Again...now we are on to another issue -- migration and movement of people. Not the movement of illegal narcotics.

Seems that the close the border movement can not determine if people or drugs are the bigger threat. It takes highly different strategies to stop each.

Not saying that either or both is not an excellent idea. Just point out that you need to be more targeted in your strategies to achieve specific goals.

In the history of the world, a wall has never stopped the movement of people from one place to another. Usually, the people who put up the wall go broke trying to make it work and the problem just gets worse. The Chinese put up a really big one to keep the the feared northerners out. Didn't work. The came through and ruled China. Hadrian's wall was ultimately a failure as well.

There are likely significantly different things than the current status quo that could and should be done, but a physical wall is about the most useless response on the table.

[Mach1]

- - - Updated - - -

Again...now we are on to another issue -- migration and movement of people. Not the movement of illegal narcotics.

Seems that the close the border movement can not determine if people or drugs are the bigger threat. It takes highly different strategies to stop each.

Not saying that either or both is not an excellent idea. Just point out that you need to be more targeted in your strategies to achieve specific goals.

In the history of the world, a wall has never stopped the movement of people from one place to another. Usually, the people who put up the wall go broke trying to make it work and the problem just gets worse. The Chinese put up a really big one to keep the the feared northerners out. Didn't work. The came through and ruled China. Hadrian's wall was ultimately a failure as well.

There are likely significantly different things than the current status quo that could and should be done, but a physical wall is about the most useless response on the table.

Obviously you don't need doors on your house, you should take them off. After all all when did a door stop anyone who wants to get in?

[Mojouw]

- - - Updated - - -



Obviously you don't need doors on your house, you should take them off. After all all when did a door stop anyone who wants to get in?

Oh - we are doing false equivalencies now? Those are so fun!

I have rock outside my house. My house has never been invaded and no crimes have ever happened within 3 houses of my rock. Would you like to purchase my crime fighting rock? I will give you or anyone else here a great deal.

[Mach1]

Oh - we are doing false equivalencies now? Those are so fun!

I have rock outside my house. My house has never been invaded and no crimes have ever happened within 3 houses of my rock. Would you like to purchase my crime fighting rock? I will give you or anyone else here a great deal.

So in the history of man kind when did a door stop anyone that really wanted to get in? So why have one right?
Not much difference with your excuse to not have a border wall.

You can keep your rock, I have a little better means of defending my house from invaders.

[Mojouw]

So in the history of man kind when did a door stop anyone that really wanted to get in? So why have one right?
Not much difference with your excuse to not have a border wall.

You can keep your rock, I have a little better means of defending my house from invaders.

We don't have walls or doors at my open air liberal butt sniffing communist collective. It is great! You should visit!

Can you find an example from history of a wall or series of border fortifications that actually worked? Or at least worked as you imagine they would? I heard the Maginot Line was pretty neat.

Maybe the Germanic Limes? Those worked for a good chunk of time...but for what it is worth....even the Limes were not a solid wall but a set of loosely connected control points and outposts along the border. Somewhat similar to what exists along the southern border today....

[Rocky Mtn.]

One thing for sure is that whatever they have been doing the last 3 1/2 years in letting 10 million + in is certainly not the answer.

[Mach1]

We don't have walls or doors at my open air liberal butt sniffing communist collective. It is great! You should visit!

Can you find an example from history of a wall or series of border fortifications that actually worked? Or at least worked as you imagine they would? I heard the Maginot Line was pretty neat.

Maybe the Germanic Limes? Those worked for a good chunk of time...but for what it is worth....even the Limes were not a solid wall but a set of loosely connected control points and outposts along the border. Somewhat similar to what exists along the southern border today....

Accept at our border we're not allowed to kill the invaders on sight.

[Mojouw]

Fellas, thanks for making my day. Y’all are just too funny. Truly a bright point in my day.

[Rocky Mtn.]

In kind.

[Voice of Reason]

Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/12/22/...uding-fentanyl

Pictures and graphs: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/11916...o-border-drugs

More charts and graphs: https://immigrationforum.org/article...r-an-overview/

Reading and research is better than just repeating what the algorithm force feeds you.

Are you really this dumb?

First of all, your original post talks about 90% of the fentanyl "entering the country". But the data in the links you supplied refers to 90% of the fentanyl that was "seized". Those are two completely different things. The fentanyl "entering the country" includes both the fentanyl that was seized and the fentanyl that was NOT seized and got through.

Wouldn't you know it, it turns out that a lot more fentanyl was seized at legal entry points where there are barriers and law enforcement officials conducting searches than in places where there aren't. Well gee, who'd a thunk it? Yes, this data accurately portrays where most of the seized fentanyl occurred, but tells us absolutely nothing about where all the fentanyl that WASN'T seized got through. It doesn't tell us how much fentanyl somehow got through the legal entry points anyway, and it doesn't tell us how much fentanyl got through the illegal entry points. There's no way anyone can know or determine this, so there's no way that anyone can know or determine what percentage of the total fentanyl "entering the country" came through legal entry points or came through illegal entry points, just like I said.

Having said this, I will put forth the theory that a lot more of the fentanyl that wasn't seized and actually got into the country got though illegal entry points rather than legal entry points. I say this because (a) illegal entry points don't have the barriers and law enforcement presence that legal entry points do, and (b) in terms of area, the illegal entry points massively dwarf the legal entry points, since by definition any location that isn't part of a legal entry point is an illegal entry point. As a matter of fact, the small amount of fentanyl actually seized at illegal entry points is probably an indication that the seizure efforts in these areas aren't too effective.

It's just common sense. You should try it sometime.