Skip to main content

Monday Night Drug War Updates

Oh joy, what a great use of resources : U.S. to send more drug agents to Afghanistan

Meanwhile : Mexico's drug gangs drive film crew out of town

Also : With Mexico's army in the war on drugs

Author : U.S. security no match for drug cartels, legalization should be considered


If you want to hear a thoroughly tired non-sequitur re-hash of the pathetic "save the children; all drugs are the same : evil; we need to restore our culture; marijuana is dangerous, even more than alcohol or tobacco, and is killing kids" propaganda, Asa Hutchinson delivers.

Unfortunately for Asa the Arkansan, the other 7 panelists are stuck on facts and reality, seemingly quite unconvinced by Asa's worn-out rhetorical regurgitations from out of the 1980's :

Comments

Anonymous said…
Tyler,

Here is what your former boss Newt Gingrich thinks:

O'Reilly: Now, they have no drug problem in Singapore at all, number one, because they hang drug dealers -- they execute them. And number two, the market is very thin, because when they catch you using, you go away with a mandatory rehab. You go to some rehab center, which they have, which the government has built.

The United States does not have the stomach for that. We don't have the stomach for that, Mr. Speaker.

Gingrich: Well, I think it's time we get the stomach for that, Bill. And I think we need a program -- I would dramatically expand testing. I think we have -- and I agree with you. I would try to use rehabilitation, I'd make it mandatory. And I think we have every right as a country to demand of our citizens that they quit doing illegal things which are funding, both in Afghanistan and in Mexico and in Colombia, people who are destroying civilization.

Aren't you proud to have worked for such a great freedom-loving repub? Good times.

anonone
Here is what your former boss Newt Gingrich thinks:

Ugh...can't you make a damn point without having to use those techniques? Jesus, it's so old.
Tyler Nixon said…
Just as proud as you are in your [uncritical] support for that freedom-loving demo Obama.

Maybe in your world having been an intern for a politician's staff means you endorse every last breath they expel. I, on the other hand, exist in reality.

Matthews is right. What in the f*** does Newt Gingrich have to do with the current horrible drug policies supported by your party, now in charge for at least 2 years?

What's next? Quoting Rush Limbaugh to me?
Anonymous said…
II just thought it might be interesting to you that a potential presidential candidate from your beloved repub party (and your former boss) suggests that we should "get the stomach" to have a totalitarian society in order to combat drugs.

Has Obama proposed anything that even remotely resembles that? No, of course not.

And, by the way, Obama sucks on a lot of things, including drug policy. But he is a hell of a lot better than your party leaders, like Gingrich.

If you had ever worked for Limbaugh aand said that you were proud of it, yeah, I'd quote him to you, too. But I'll try to avoid that, even though he is the leader of your party.

anonone
Tyler Nixon said…
Obama is much much worse than Gingrich, and not just on drug policy.

Obama is a merging of Bush and Clinton, or as I think of Obama : Bullshinton.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...