Mexican truckers in US?
This is a discussion on Mexican truckers in US? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Having been directly & indirectly involved in the trucking industry since the days of "Regulation". Having done cross boarder trade, (Or Attempted). One very important ...
September 2nd, 2007 11:46 PM
Having been directly & indirectly involved in the trucking industry since the days of "Regulation". Having done cross boarder trade, (Or Attempted). One very important factor has been skipped over in this thread.
Not every Mex Trucker is a thief, Not every Mex transportation company is organized crime front. But try to find a company that is not subject to:
C) Cargo Theft
D) Corporate Sabotage
Vehicle safety issue are valid, unscrupulous business practices have not even been considered. JUST WATCH.
S&W M&P .40 Compact
Para Ordnance 18.9 9mm
Wesson Mod 15 .357
Ruger GP100 .357
Remington 870 Express 12ga
September 2nd, 2007 11:46 PM
September 3rd, 2007 12:38 AM
September 3rd, 2007 02:38 AM
You sound like a neo-con spouting the party line with all this drivel.
Missile defense is one very, very small part of the DOD's budget. A foreign invasion is the vast majority.
Originally Posted by SelfDefense
Actually, yes on both counts.
Is there a problem with making money and contributing to society? Would you prefer the miliary becomes weaker?
You sound like someone that approves of the business methods of the Mafia. After all, they're making money and contributing to society, right? Those "protection schemes" don't hurt anyone, and help keep them protected, right?
It's the same way with a bloated military that's not needed for national defense. It's a huge cost, paid by taxes, that saps productivity away from other things.
And yes, we could use a weaker military, though it depends on your definition of "weaker". Right now, we have very little capability of defending our home soil, unless you count all the armed civilians. Our military is too busy in other places in the world to do anything here. We saw that during Katrina.
We don't need troops stationed in 100 countries worldwide. We don't need to pay for that, and those troops could be doing more useful stuff at home. There are no threats requiring that level of manpower.
Oh please. You don't think it's a problem having our economy tied to something that largely comes from countries very unfriendly to us? That's just stupidity.
Yes, our national interest is currently tied to oil. Why do you think that is a problem? Is it preferable to shut our economy down? Personally, I would prefer to move to nuclear energy because it is clean, safe, and will ower our nation for hundreds of years.
No, the answer isn't shutting the economy down, it's gaining "energy independence", and being self-sufficient. I remember there used to be a time when Americans valued self-sufficiency, instead of being dependent on foreigners for your livelihood. I guess you don't subscribe to that.
Independence can come through weaning ourselves from oil, and moving to alternative energy sources. Spending taxpayer dollars to prop up Big Oil companies (which are coincidentally having their most profitable years ever now) does not accomplish this.
Nuclear energy isn't a panacea. We're seeing that now in the South, where reactors are being shut down, amid record demands for electricity, because the rivers are too hot, and drought has reduced their flow, so there simply isn't enough water to put the heat into. Maybe you don't understand the Carnot Cycle very well, but nuclear energy is a thermodynamic process just like most other power generation methods, and requires that the heat produced be expelled somewhere, usually into a river. The environment imposes practical limits on this. Only solar, wind, and hydro power don't have this requirement, but we've completely tapped out all the rivers so hydro's a dead end.
Total bullsh*t. What threats? Mysterious "terrorists"? Do you support suspending all our liberties because of these threats? How about the RKBA? After all, some terrorists might get some guns and shoot people in a mall or something.
There are, however, many threats around the world that have nothing to do with oil. These mus be addressed even though the general publc is unaware of what is going on beyond their blindered view.
It is not a military issue. It is a border security issue that has not been handled properly.
Working class families don't have most of the luxuries you list here. Others have become commonplace because of improved technology and economies of scale that didn't exist decades ago. Lots of people are also underemployed: stuck in part-time jobs, or in jobs below their qualifications, making far less money than they should. Of course, the government doesn't think they're a problem, because in theirs (and your) logic, all jobs are equal, so if a research scientist is working at Wal-Mart, then his problems are over.
The economy is strong. Unemployment is at historically low levels. Everyone who wants a job has a job. Yes, many families require two incomes to support large houses, heated in winter and cooled in summer. They have multiple cars, cable TV, cell phones, ipods, designer clothes, computers, internet access, video games, and so much leisure time that vacations, cruises, and travel are now considered commonplace. Decades ago, these luxuries were not considered necessities. Real wages are actually improved and opportunities abound for anyone with the slightest bit of initiative.
Now here's where you really go off the deep end. The argument was not proven false. It doesn't matter if it's not personal finances, it's not that different. A country can't just keep digging itself deeper and deeper into debt. That's like an endless supply of money; it's a fairy tale. At some point, the lenders are going to want their money back.
It is another myth that deficit spending os detrimental. These are not personal finances. As our economy grows so does our nation's assets. This argument proved false a generation ago and it is still false.
There's a difference between "wisely invested debt" and "spending like a drunken sailor". We're currently doing the latter.
Debt, in and of itself is not a bad thing. In fact, if it is invested wisely debt is absolutely a good thing. It creates economic activity and it creates money.
That's fine and well, but if millions of homeowners go bankrupt or default on their loans, it'll have a serious effect on the entire economy, not just the morons who signed up for ARMs.
"Now we're looking at some serious problems with the mortgage lending industry, in a country where homeownership is an important piece of the economy's stability."
If you bought more than you can afford you absolutely deserve the consequencies. The free market is self correcting. We are a land of equal opportunities not equal outcomes.
So we should just keep signing up for more credit cards, and buying as much crap as we want, because the party will never end? Must be nice to be living in delusion.
"In the meantime, consumer debt is at an all-time high and growing. This is NOT what I call a strong economy. I call it a house of cards."
I have heard that for decades. All the while, our economy grows stronger...
While he's still on drugs? That's real smart. I've never heard of that working out in real life; usually they end up stealing from your company, not showing up for work regularly, not doing their job, and generally being more trouble than they're worth. If you think sending a drug addict to school or giving him a job is going to help him out, that really says a lot about the rest of your views on everything.
No, I would not give him money. I would give him a job if his skills were sufficient or an education that would give him an opportunity.
September 3rd, 2007 03:14 AM
Originally Posted by DasBoot
Encouraged by not only a few people, but by our so called leaders in Washington. How many of the Democratic contenders for Pres want the southern border secured? And the invaders are being assisted by liberal activists, lawyers, etc. How many liberal metropolises (Sanctuary cities) are there now? Their mayors and city councils violating federal law by harboring and protecting the illegal aliens by not even allowing the police to ask their status. And even when they catch them for crive the activist 'judges' release them back into society. Free welfare, free schooling, free or low cost college, social benefits, rise in crime rate, felons abound. The list goes on and on and on.
I agree, it's got to stop. Either it will stop or we are a country are doomed or there will be a revolution of some sort in the not too distant future. Unless they are able to sheepify us first as the English have been by their government.
Oh my, gotta go. Have a nice day!
September 3rd, 2007 03:21 AM
September 3rd, 2007 09:48 AM
In before the thread gets locked / deleted to wish it a safe journey on the road to the bit bucket.....
Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.
September 3rd, 2007 10:48 AM
I agree. Bye Bye thread. Though I do find the views of libertarians utterly baffling. While this thread is most certainly off topic, I appreciate the relative level of politeness, which would never occur in a political forum.
Originally Posted by MattLarson
To the bit bucket...
September 3rd, 2007 11:00 AM
It would appear that this thread has WAY outlived it's usefulness, if it ever really had any!
EOD - Initial success or total failure
By cbp210 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: October 30th, 2009, 10:22 PM
By jhh3rd in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: June 25th, 2009, 10:05 PM
By QKShooter in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: April 7th, 2009, 10:47 PM
By Betty in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: October 7th, 2005, 11:05 PM