Ted Cruz wants El Chapo and drug lords to pay for border wall

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Looks like Mexico could end up paying for that wall after all!

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Go for it, use all the El Chapo money you want on it, but don't touch a dime of taxpayer money.

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

Yo,

That's impossible now...Here in Oz last week, we busted an estimated 1.7-Billion-dollars worth of "Ice", that was coming from Mexico...And more busts to come...

There goes the wall money !

(Tucho Salamanca will be really peed)...

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:
Go for it, use all the El Chapo money you want on it, but don't touch a dime of taxpayer money.

Sorry Pal, but your friends have already offered up $23 billion dollars for border security - a nice chunk of it for the wall exclusively!

Which by the way, at this very moment they are building the wall - with taxpayer money! Awww...

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I'll be very interested to see what kind of resistance the left will create on the Ted Cruz efforts...

Should be interesting!

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

PowerStroker wrote:
Go for it, use all the El Chapo money you want on it, but don't touch a dime of taxpayer money.

That's how I feel about Sanctuary cities, bennies for ILLEGALS, and a couple more.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

States have their own income stream and are entitled to do a great many things on their own... At least that's what my good Republican Federalist friends tell me.

If Ted Cruz wants to seize El Chapo's money and use it here I'm cool with that.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 13th of February 2019 08:16:37 PM

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

States arealways begging off the fed, Cuomo just hit POTUS up again and the response was basically "go frack yourself. Moonbeam in CA was always begging. I know there is income on some levels, some states more reliant than others.

Far as Chappos money? GO FOR IT

Did you see the prison he is going to? Florence Co or something. They call it the "alkatraz or the rockies" supermax security lockup. Solitary. Read a few articles, some better than others with good pics. Mentioned his escapes. There was a much better article but here is a few pics. noisyroom.net/blog/2019/02/13/el-chapo-on-his-way-to-florence-colorado-forever/

Here is one of his escapes www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/13/world/americas/mexico-drug-kingpin-prison-escape.html

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

Your Mexico boarder has always really been in a relaxed state of flux, since all the southern states were once upon-a-time Mexican lol ! I'm not sure why there's so much trouble now ?...

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

That video was hilarious.. lol

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
States have their own income stream and are entitled to do a great many things on their own... At least that's what my good Republican Federalist friends tell me.

If Ted Cruz wants to seize El Chapo's money and use it here I'm cool with that.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 13th of February 2019 08:16:37 PM

Federalist believe the Federal Government takes precedent over State Government...

Anti-Federalist were the party of States rights...and that was the Democrats until 1964...

AFTER 1964 FEDERALIST vs ANTI-FEDERALIST quickly faded to Conservative vs Liberal...

AFTER 2008 it has moved to CAPITALIST/REPUBLIC vs SOCIALIST/DEMOCRACY

2020 is probably time for CIVIL WAR...

I am ready sure do hope the LEFTIST are...lol

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

If history is any indication of the result of said war, the red states will just lose again.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

When the red states lost they lost to us, because we were the blue states back then kiddo.

You dont know PowerStroker?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

You're state usually is blue, but it's ok, you can defect to Alabama at any time!

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Democrats lost the civil war...

and if there is a second civil war democrats will lose again...

Democrats were the anti-federalist party...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I'm confused now. I thought the Confederate/slave states like Alabama lost to the Union/Yankee states like Minnesota.

Pretty sure Alabama is a modern day red state, and Minnesota a modern day blue state.

I can drive all across Minnesota and not see a single Confederate flag. Is the same presently true in Alabama?

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Friday 15th of February 2019 05:01:15 PM

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
I'm confused now. I thought the Confederate/slave states like Alabama lost to the Union/Yankee states like Minnesota.

Pretty sure Alabama is a modern day red state, and Minnesota a modern day blue state.
I can drive all across Minnesota and not see a single Confederate flag. Is the same presently true in Alabama?

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Friday 15th of February 2019 05:01:15 PM

You said red states will lose again....

RED STATES won the first time...

You are again showing ignorance...

You want to equate slavery to a southern thing...

You should go back and read the history...

Northern States also had slaves...

SLAVERY was not just a thing in the south, the way DEMOCRATS want to revision it...

and if you think New York and California can take on the rest of the country...GOOD FUCKING LUCK WITH THAT....ROFLMAO

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

We're all slaves right now to the corporations that hire us, & the banks that give us our debt...Our government allows this to happen.

What's the difference ?...

None !

Our government would sell-us-out without a second thought to save their own skin.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

To be clear, when I speak of blue states I'm speaking of the MODERN Democratic party. I am fully aware that a previous political party which used the same name was a racist bunch of assholes (sound familiar?)... Back in those days I would not have been a Democrat, I would have been a Jeffersonian Republican which was the liberal party of the time.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

The South will rise again!

lol

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Why? So you can drive around in an orange 68 Dodge Charger called General Patton with an American flag on the top as a form of protest and longing for the good old days?

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
To be clear, when I speak of blue states I'm speaking of the MODERN Democratic party. I am fully aware that a previous political party which used the same name was a racist bunch of assholes (sound familiar?)... Back in those days I would not have been a Democrat, I would have been a Jeffersonian Republican which was the liberal party of the time.

Jefferson was a HUGE supporter of STATES RIGHTS...

He would have been a Dixiecrat if they existed in his day....

He would have parted ways with the title REPUBLICAN when the GOP formed in 1854 to oppose slavery.

Jefferson lived in the SOUTH (Virginia) owned many SLAVES and could not keep his dick out of young slave pussy...fathered more than one child with a young female slave...

In Jefferson's day the divide was mostly Federalist vs Anti-Federalist.

Jefferson was definitely ANTI-FEDERALIST...

Jefferson by policy was a lot more conservative than liberal by modern terms...

Federalist vs Anti-Federalist was no longer the debate as the CIVIL WAR ended that divide...

post civil war the democrats held to their anti-federalist roots but went very SECULAR and created Jim Crow ERA (separate but Equal)

by 1948 the old white southern bailed from the secular democratic party they became the religious right wing and slowly moved to the republican party...so slowly only one politician was both a democrat and a republican during this transition, STROM THURMOND...

Thurmond was actually the only sitting senator who switched parties...He ran for president as a States Right Democrat in 1948. in 1964 he switched from Democrat to Republican...

I was a fan of JFK and Sam Nunn a democratic senator from Georgia as both Kennedy and Nunn were VERY conservative Democrats...

Kennedy was a BIG fan of supply side economics AKA trickle down...

After the assassination of Kennedy the democratic party LOST its way...slowly got taken over by SOCIALIST and big government caretakers...

Sam Nunn was one of the last conservative democrats...He was not a supporter of Hillary Clinton's vision of Universal Healthcare.

the divide moved from federalist vs anti-federalist moved to conservative vs liberal after Kennedy...to capitalist vs socialist under Obama.

Republicans are for supply side economics...and CAPITALISM

Democrats are for HIGH TAXES...and SOCIALISM

The Billionaires the DEMOCRATS hate...employ most the country...

GATES, BEZOS, BLANK, WALTON

Taxing them to death will only result in NO JOBS...and a viscous cycle of economic destruction as all incentives are eroded...

The reason people want to come here so badly is due to the economic prosperity this environment sustains...

DEMOCRATS think they can tax it and redistribute the dollars and sustain the Growth...

Obama proved you can't...His movement away from supply side (the first movement away from supply side since the Reagan tax cuts)...was why GDP stalled at 1.5%, He is quoted as stating that 3% and higher was just not possible anymore...and we see it is...

DEMOCRATS used to be good for SOCIAL issues like the right to marry whomever you please without the government having a say....they have moved away from that to a leftist you must agree with us party that wants socialism/communism...

Bernie Sanders is more of a simple SOCIALISM advocate...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a COMMUNISM advocate...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Perhaps I would have started my own party back then. But for now the current platform of the modern Democratic party seems to fit just fine for me.

Thanks for the history lesson! Perhaps you could clarify one thing though...

The modern day Federalist Society is about checking federal power and promoting states rights... Did they perhaps choose the wrong name, perhaps the Anti-Federalist society would have been a more accurate choice?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Saturday 16th of February 2019 04:31:01 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Nuffan wrote:

Jefferson lived in the SOUTH (Virginia) owned many SLAVES and could not keep his dick out of young slave pussy...fathered more than one child with a young female slave...

I'm so jelly! lol

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Perhaps I would have started my own party back then. But for now the current platform of the modern Democratic party seems to fit just fine for me.

Thanks for the history lesson! Perhaps you could clarify one thing though...
The modern day Federalist Society is about checking federal power and promoting states rights... Did they perhaps choose the wrong name, perhaps the Anti-Federalist society would have been a more accurate choice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Saturday 16th of February 2019 04:31:01 PM

You are not seriously going to try and equate today's Federalist Society to the Federalist of George Washington's ERA?

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:

Perhaps I would have started my own party back then. But for now the current platform of the modern Democratic party seems to fit just fine for me.

Yes you have made it clear...you support the move to socialism...and you like/support and agree with a jr communist...

I will never again support ANY democrat under any circumstance...

NOR will I ever turn over my weapons...

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

Nuffan wrote:
PowerStroker wrote:
To be clear, when I speak of blue states I'm speaking of the MODERN Democratic party. I am fully aware that a previous political party which used the same name was a racist bunch of assholes (sound familiar?)... Back in those days I would not have been a Democrat, I would have been a Jeffersonian Republican which was the liberal party of the time.

Taxing them to death will only result in NO JOBS...and a viscous cycle of economic destruction as all incentives are eroded...

Nonsense...Just because you're a billionaire does NOT mean you're the right person for a job in politics. And it also shouldn't give you the right to buy-off politicians for further personal gains.

*The US-of-A's biggest problem is that it allows this to happen, & that the politician with the most financing stands a better chance of winning an election. ( In truth however, it's also been revealed that all our elections are rigged ).

The tax-cuts imposed on these billionaires provide incentive to promote local economic growth by providing tax incentives for local expansion, NOT off-shore holdings...

Put simply, they can pay their out-right tax, & it stays as tax, or the gov't will give them the right to recollect the tax paid, after they have proven reinvestment in the US-of-A, by building new factories & infrastructure locally, creating new jobs.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Nuffan wrote:
You are not seriously going to try and equate today's Federalist Society to the Federalist of George Washington's ERA?

I'll make a deal with you... Stop equating todays Democratic party with the Democrats of George Washington's ERA, and I'll return the favor.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

George Washington was a Republican, PowerStroker...

But nice try! wink

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I never said he was a Democrat, I was speaking of his ERA.

Pay attention dude, this isn't Michigan public school here, try to keep up.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Nuffan wrote:
You are not seriously going to try and equate today's Federalist Society to the Federalist of George Washington's ERA?

I'll make a deal with you... Stop equating todays Democratic party with the Democrats of George Washington's ERA, and I'll return the favor.

You obviously do not READ for shit...

I have repeatedly stated the democrats of the past were a conservative anti-federalist party until 1948...

democrats then moved to the liberal/secular party after 1964

NOW they are LEFTIST...drifting further and further left since 2008...

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Back in those days I would not have been a Democrat, I would have been a Jeffersonian Republican which was the liberal party of the time.

That is your statement...

I have simply pointed out that Jefferson actually believed in WHITE PRIVILEGE...WHITE PRIVILEGE actually existed in his ERA and he thought is was how things were supposed to be...

Jefferson was more Libertarian...which has almost nothing in common with today's LIBERAL...but the truth is Jefferson could easily be defined by the simple phrase anti-federalist...

He was a staunch states rights advocate...just like those racist of the middle 1940's...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Yeah, but that was a couple hundred years ago, so you cant honestly expect me to be as advanced in my thinking then as I am now.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Yeah, but that was a couple hundred years ago, so you cant honestly expect me to be as advanced in my thinking then as I am now.

so why would you consider yourself a Jeffersonian Republican?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Because back then, he seemed like the lesser of the evils.

Now he would probably not meet my standards, unless he too evolved over the last 200 years.

Why are we talking about ancient history anyway? I'm fully aware of the dark spots in the history of the Democratic party. I'm living today, and the Demoratic party of TODAY seems to be a good fit for me. The one of 200 years ago does not. About 90 or so percent of the black population feel the same btw.

Hopefully that clears things up.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 17th of February 2019 12:53:18 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Love the lesser of two evils theory... even though it's completely a matter of perception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3hAVT2sDqQ

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker, determining the lesser of two evils would require logic, no?

Then let me ask you this, do you own a weed whacker PowerStroker?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I have a crappy electric one, why?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Well at least you're not a fag.. lol

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

PowerStroker wrote:
I have a crappy electric one, why?

Not all electric are bad. I have a huge Stihl with handle bars cuts anything, also takes a saw blade and cuts trees to 2". However I have a Worx, battery powered one. Maybe 20-25 min on a charge but strong, light works awesome! I have 13 acres and most I use the big one on but when weeds are just creeping up around my 6 buildings I grab that worx and it works awesome.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/23/roughly-80-of-all-voters-say-us-needs-secure-borde/?fbclid=IwAR2oYF37yAken-m8Vn_mVWVCsHfT5UP3-H9e2vGu_ocDM8FnmgYtOhuXDMU

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Rastus wrote:
Nuffan wrote:
PowerStroker wrote:
To be clear, when I speak of blue states I'm speaking of the MODERN Democratic party. I am fully aware that a previous political party which used the same name was a racist bunch of assholes (sound familiar?)... Back in those days I would not have been a Democrat, I would have been a Jeffersonian Republican which was the liberal party of the time.

Taxing them to death will only result in NO JOBS...and a viscous cycle of economic destruction as all incentives are eroded...

Nonsense...Just because you're a billionaire does NOT mean you're the right person for a job in politics. And it also shouldn't give you the right to buy-off politicians for further personal gains.
*The US-of-A's biggest problem is that it allows this to happen, & that the politician with the most financing stands a better chance of winning an election. ( In truth however, it's also been revealed that all our elections are rigged ).
The tax-cuts imposed on these billionaires provide incentive to promote local economic growth by providing tax incentives for local expansion, NOT off-shore holdings...
Put simply, they can pay their out-right tax, & it stays as tax, or the gov't will give them the right to recollect the tax paid, after they have proven reinvestment in the US-of-A, by building new factories & infrastructure locally, creating new jobs.

You might should understand that there is only 542 billionaires in the United States...and if you pooled ALL their money you could not run the government for ONE YEAR...

BILLIONAIRES are not the problem...

That said...we actually agree on something...

The money in politics has to go...

Citizens United needs to be repealed and Union money should be disallowed...

Elections should be about who has the best ideas not who can accumulate the most cash in an election cycle...

But people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos have pulled people OUT of poverty...

Socialism takes from those people and gives just enough to those in poverty, that they stay in poverty...

Socialism does not rid the country of poverty...it will however rid the country of billionaires very quickly...

After the billionaires it will be the millionaires...when they run out of money and they will even faster than the billionaires...then it will be the middle class...

only there will not be a middle class...as all those in the middle class lost their job when the billionaires ran out of money...

YOU WILL NEVER RAISE THOSE AT THE BOTTOM BY LOWERING THOSE AT THE TOP....

DEMOCRATS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPLE POINT...

-- Edited by Nuffan on Wednesday 20th of February 2019 08:12:37 AM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

The definition of socialism is that the people, through the government own the means of production.

I don't recall ever advocating that with the exception of healthcare coverage. I'm a capitalist personally, just a more liberal one than you apparently prefer.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
The definition of socialism is that the people, through the government own the means of production.

I don't recall ever advocating that with the exception of healthcare coverage. I'm a capitalist personally, just a more liberal one than you apparently prefer.

You probably are a capitalist...no doubt...

The party you support is anti-capitalism...

True socialism is the opposite of capitalism...

LABOR is one part of the equation...

RESOURCES is another part of the equation...

RESOURCES require capital...

or the workers have nothing to do...

Trying to make LABOR the driving factor is what will destroy the economy...

Who should make the most?

The person who has the next big idea?

The person who puts up the money to create the next big idea?

The person who assembles the next big idea?

IF you honestly think the person that does the assembly is the correct response you are dumb as a post...

You absolve yourself by claiming you are a capitalist...but you support a party that wants to do away with capitalism...

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

This is a good read....

www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/20/the-psychology-of-the-wall/

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Interesting. have tp read it all later

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

SELLC wrote:
George Washington was a Republican, PowerStroker...
But nice try!

Actually the republican party was not actually formed until 1854

George Washington considered himself an independent and did not like the idea of political parties...

Washington sided with FEDERALIST however...

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Washington's "independence" was from the socialisim and dictatorship of "the crown"....

Don't you or anyone else forget that! He was VERY MUCH a Republican!

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

SELLC wrote:
Washington's "independence" was from the socialisim and dictatorship of "the crown"....
Don't you or anyone else forget that! He was VERY MUCH a Republican!

No he was not...

He is QUOTED as stating that political parties had NO PLACE IN OUR GOVERNMENT...

THAT IS WHY HE WAS AN INDEPENDENT....

PS you do not have to be a republican to be anti-socialism....

Washington like all of our founding fathers were Capitalist...

-- Edited by Nuffan on Thursday 21st of February 2019 02:29:30 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Washington had very Republican views, in fact most of America did at that time. I think the architects were clear about the Republic they were designing and the importance of natural born citizens leading this country, not some socialist movement.