Baltimore Is Begging Feds To Step In To Restore Law And Order

[Smokin Joe]

LMAO wrote:
"I predict Martial Law in many of these city's futures. I predict Federal troops will occupy these cities someday. You'll get the cries of "they need jobs, education, healthcare" and/or other leftwing nonsense but all that's been tried and theses cities are still war zones"

Demographics, sir.
Demographics.

And lawlessness and chaos becomes these cities' destiny as a result.

The only solution is to try to keep the violence (and those who propagate it) as confined as possible, and keep ourselves elsewhere.

True, that.

[truth_seeker]

Demographics, sir.
Demographics.

And lawlessness and chaos becomes these cities' destiny as a result.

The only solution is to try to keep the violence (and those who propagate it) as confined as possible, and keep ourselves elsewhere.

I remember the 1965 Watts Riots. I was working on a construction site in Orange County. A young black carpenter said on Monday: "I was going to go up to Watts to see my mother over the weekend, but them N!99er5 is shooting N!99er5.

Will never forget. Then came 1992 Rodney King Riots. And Jesse Jackson's remark how he feels more safe, knowing there is a white person across the street.

Like Jesse, I know to try to keep away from such dangerous places, and dangerous people.

[Bigun]

LMAO wrote:
"I predict Martial Law in many of these city's futures. I predict Federal troops will occupy these cities someday. You'll get the cries of "they need jobs, education, healthcare" and/or other leftwing nonsense but all that's been tried and theses cities are still war zones"

Demographics, sir.
Demographics.

And lawlessness and chaos becomes these cities' destiny as a result.

The only solution is to try to keep the violence (and those who propagate it) as confined as possible, and keep ourselves elsewhere.

@LMAO @Fishrrman

It never ceases to amaze me how precedent this man was!

“The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”
 
Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIX, 1782. ME 2:230

"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442

“I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts; but the useful ones can thrive elsewhere; and less perfection in the others, with more health, virtue and freedom, would be my choice.”

Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

[Chosen Daughter]

Is this the sort of cruelty that passes for "conservative" comment these days?   What of the victims of such violence?   

Who would want to live there in a city with ten mosques and call to prayer.

[LMAO]

And lawlessness and chaos becomes these cities' destiny as a result.

The only solution is to try to keep the violence (and those who propagate it) as confined as possible, and keep ourselves elsewhere.

@Fishrrman

And the citizens of these cities will have to make their own individual choices to move out and make a life for themselves outside of these cities.

The black family, at one time one of the strongest family units, is dead and gone. It isn't coming back

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Another good reason for legalizing and monitoring drugs.  It would change society totally.  Some of the most dangerous and addictive drugs are already legal and available by prescription, as Oxycodone, etc.

I'm With you on legalizing/decriminalizing them, but not on monitoring.

Not one cent for monitoring or rehab.

Let them use and die on the street.

Most rehab is based on the AA 12 step pantload.

AA's actual success rate has been put at between 5% to 8%.

http://psychroaches.blogspot.com/2015/03/alcoholics-anonymous-another-colossal.html

That's a 92% to 95% probability that the AA sucker Will dive back into the jug even deeper than they were Before they got 12 Stepped on.

Let users lose it, on the street, where people can See what using actually Is.

No lesson like an object lesson, especially for those who think they can 'Handle the stuff'.

Talk your young kids for a walk.

They will ask, 'What's wrong with that person?

Just tell them the truth, and there goes junior's desire to try the stuff when it's offered to them in school.

Anyone who really wants to clean up will do it themselves.

No amount of monitoring and/or counseling is going to do it for them.

As for Prescription drugs, the FDA is nothing more than Pharma's Marketing Dept.

And Pharma, if we had legislators who weren't pimping for them, would be in a World of DOJ hurt for Federal Racketeering Violations in a heart beat.

[Emjay]

@Fishrrman

And the citizens of these cities will have to make their own individual choices to move out and make a life for themselves outside of these cities.

The black family, at one time one of the strongest family units, is dead and gone. It isn't coming back

It's sad about the Black family and almost certainly attributable to the Great Society.

But expecting those citizens living in near poverty to move is unrealistic.  They can't even move out of their neighborhoods, much less the city.

[Bigun]

It's sad about the Black family and almost certainly attributable to the Great Society.

But expecting those citizens living in near poverty to move is unrealistic.  They can't even move out of their neighborhoods, much less the city.

The road to recovery, if there in fact is one, will be steep and very painful to navigate.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those were real gains, real dreams, and a few did it before 'acting white' became a community crime, fighting in 'the white man's war' became derided, and the best they could look forward to was becoming a rapper or a dealer (gangsta).

LBJ's funding of urban blacks moved many to the cities (rural blacks weren't having any of that, for the longest time), and now their progeny live in places festering with crime, where the man of the house was kicked out because the State wrote a better paycheck for not having him around, and the family was destroyed as a basic governmental unit. That destruction was what the Liberals wanted, and they created a monster.

The destruction is the incidental consequence of what they wanted.  What they wanted was more political power.  The Democrats had been successfully suppressing the black vote with all sorts of tactics.  North Eastern Liberal Republicans believed that if they could eliminate Democrat interference with blacks voting,  they would get about a 10 million vote windfall out of it.   


So they pushed the 24th amendment.   This amendment allowed non-taxpayers to vote.  It was sold on eliminating the "Poll Tax",  but at the tail end of it it says "or other tax." 


Lyndon Johnson was a racist southern Democrat who had no love for blacks,  but he was also a canny politician and realized immediately what this recently passed amendment signified in terms of elections. 


It is no accident that he timed his "Great Society"  and his "War on Poverty"  right after the passage of the 24th amendment.   Within 10 years,  black voters who had previously been reliably Republican,  were now voting Democrat,  and this has continued t up to current times. 


The "War on Poverty"   is nothing but an expensive vote buying scheme made possible by Liberal Republicans eliminating the requirement to pay taxes in order to vote.   We have spent 21 trillion dollars on the "War on Poverty"  since 1964,   and it has cost us far more than that in the murders,  rapes,  robberies,  drug usage,  and other dysfunctions caused by paying for more destitute children and raising them without a father. 


As a fiscal matter,  it is *INSANE*  to have a system where non-taxpayers can vote.   That is just brain dead stupid and eventually fatal for any system that embraces this ridiculous idea. 


Just remember it was the pursuit of increased political power that was behind this thing in the first place. 

[DiogenesLamp]

And all in the name of holding on to political power! 

Do not mistake it.  Liberal Republicans were the ones trying to gain political power.  Lyndon Johnson just outsmarted them.   

[Bigun]

The destruction is the incidental consequence of what they wanted.  What they wanted was more political power.  The Democrats had been successfully suppressing the black vote with all sorts of tactics.  North Eastern Liberal Republicans believed that if they could eliminate Democrat interference with blacks voting,  they would get about a 10 million vote windfall out of it.   


So they pushed the 24th amendment.   This amendment allowed non-taxpayers to vote.  It was sold on eliminating the "Poll Tax",  but at the tail end of it it says "or other tax." 


Lyndon Johnson was a racist southern Democrat who had no love for blacks,  but he was also a canny politician and realized immediately what this recently passed amendment signified in terms of elections. 


It is no accident that he timed his "Great Society"  and his "War on Poverty"  right after the passage of the 24th amendment.   Within 10 years,  black voters who had previously been reliably Republican,  were now voting Democrat,  and this has continued t up to current times. 


The "War on Poverty"   is nothing but an expensive vote buying scheme made possible by Liberal Republicans eliminating the requirement to pay taxes in order to vote.   We have spent 21 trillion dollars on the "War on Poverty"  since 1964,   and it has cost us far more than that in the murders,  rapes,  robberies,  drug usage,  and other dysfunctions caused by paying for more destitute children and raising them without a father. 


As a fiscal matter,  it is *INSANE*  to have a system where non-taxpayers can vote.   That is just brain dead stupid and eventually fatal for any system that embraces this ridiculous idea. 


Just remember it was the pursuit of increased political power that was behind this thing in the first place.

Historically correct and I couldn't agree more with your analysis. 

[DiogenesLamp]

The drug industry and its satellites are responsible for much of the crime in America.


I would say it was the FedGov that is responsible for creating and maintaining the individuals who grow up to be criminals.   Crime is fed by the welfare system. 

 The war on drugs is a joke.

We are not having a war on drugs.  We call it that,  but it is far from being a war. 

There is no evidence to suggest that legalizing drugs would result in more drug use. 

That is errant nonsense.   Of course there is evidence that legalizing drugs would result in more drug use.  History is full of such evidence.   Drug usage infects people,  and the more people indulging in it,  the more people will be infected with the idea that it is acceptable.   


China went from a small minority of people using Opium to having nearly half their population as drug addicts.   This is why the several thousand year old Empire of China collapsed within 70 years after drugs were legalized in China.   This is why China became so weak that the much smaller Japan could conquer it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Historically correct and I couldn't agreemore with your analysis. 

It took me years to realize what happened.  Nobody explained this stuff to me,  I just started noticing patterns that didn't make any sense if you followed the official narrative. 


Once I started looking at things in terms of power and wealth,  I saw what happened. 

[Bigun]

It took me years to realize what happened.  Nobody explained this stuff to me,  I just started noticing patterns that didn't make any sense if you followed the official narrative. 


Once I started looking at things in terms of power and wealth,  I saw what happened.

Not the first time republicans have been rolled by a democrat!  That's how we got the income tax in fact!

https://mises.org/library/origin-income-tax

[Emjay]

We are not having a war on drugs.  We call it that,  but it is far from being a war. 






That is errant nonsense.   Of course there is evidence that legalizing drugs would result in more drug use.  History is full of such evidence.   Drug usage infects people,  and the more people indulging in it,  the more people will be infected with the idea that it is acceptable.   


China went from a small minority of people using Opium to having nearly half their population as drug addicts.   This is why the several thousand year old Empire of China collapsed within 70 years after drugs were legalized in China.   This is why China became so weak that the much smaller Japan could conquer it.

The same argument was used for prohibition.

[DiogenesLamp]

The same argument was used for prohibition.

Are you going to put forth a real argument or not?   Don't waste my time with that "Prohibition proves we should legalize Drugs! " crap.   


I gave you a real historical example of how drugs destroyed a powerful nation.   I haven't even gotten into how drugs were killing people in the late 19th century,  and which is the reason they decided to outlaw them in the first place.   


If you are going to argue that unencumbered drug usage is not a horrible disaster,  you are going to have to do better than putting forth meaningless assertions that "Prohibition is bad." 

[Emjay]

Are you going to put forth a real argument or not?   Don't waste my time with that "Prohibition proves we should legalize Drugs! " crap.   


I gave you a real historical example of how drugs destroyed a powerful nation.   I haven't even gotten into how drugs were killing people in the late 19th century,  and which is the reason they decided to outlaw them in the first place.   


If you are going to argue that unencumbered drug usage is not a horrible disaster,  you are going to have to do better than putting forth meaningless assertions that "Prohibition is bad."

I wouldn't think of wasting your time.  You do that very well yourself.

To compare American society to ancient China is ridiculous.

Do you realize that tobacco use (i.e. smoking) was almost eliminated in the U.S. in the last 30 or 40 years by negative publicity and health care concerns.

Most people are lucky enough not to have addictive personalities and would not get hooked on drugs.

Even the opium use you cite was driven by money and profits.  The same is true of the drug trade today.

Just as prohibition created mob bosses, illegal drugs create far more thugs and almost an industry.

All that would be eliminated if it were legalized.  Open your mind just a wee little crack.

[Bigun]

I wouldn't think of wasting your time.  You do that very well yourself.

To compare American society to ancient China is ridiculous.

Do you realize that tobacco use (i.e. smoking) was almost eliminated in the U.S. in the last 30 or 40 years by negative publicity and health care concerns.

Most people are lucky enough not to have addictive personalities and would not get hooked on drugs.

Even the opium use you cite was driven by money and profits.  The same is true of the drug trade today.

Just as prohibition created mob bosses, illegal drugs create far more thugs and almost an industry.

All that would be eliminated if it were legalized.  Open your mind just a wee little crack.

I also favor legalization IF properly done.  No bail outs for bad behaviors (using).  You are responsible for your own actions and must suffer the consequences of them including suffering the penalty for any crimes committed to support your habit and any health effects brought on by it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I wouldn't think of wasting your time.  You do that very well yourself.

To compare American society to ancient China is ridiculous.

Yes,  because physiological chemical addictions do not work on us.   We have different kinds of human bodies than do the Chinese.   

Do you realize that tobacco use (i.e. smoking) was almost eliminated in the U.S. in the last 30 or 40 years by negative publicity and health care concerns.

Irrelevant. 

Most people are lucky enough not to have addictive personalities and would not get hooked on drugs.

That's just nuts,  or incredibly ignorant.   Yes,  chemical addictions will work on huge numbers of people.

Even the opium use you cite was driven by money and profits. 

And you think there would be no money or profits in drug usage in modern America?   

Just as prohibition created mob bosses, illegal drugs create far more thugs and almost an industry.

Legal drugs created a far bigger industry with a lot more thugs.   Hell,  England's empire is virtually built on legalized drugs.   They raped China.   Most of that English Wealth came from pushing drugs onto the Chinese. 

All that would be eliminated if it were legalized. 

A theory which is completely contradicted by every real world example in history of which I am aware.   It is just a bunch of crap that kookbat libertarians constantly repeat to anyone who will listen,  but which when tested has proven itself to be false every single time.   

Open your mind just a wee little crack.

How about you "wake up"  yours? 

[Emjay]

I also favor legalization IF properly done.  No bail outs for bad behaviors (using).  You are responsible for your own actions and must suffer the consequences of them including suffering the penalty for any crimes committed to support your habit and any health effects brought on by it.

Well, yeah.  Smokers are sometimes denied health insurance or have to pay more in premiums.  The same should apply to drug users.

[DiogenesLamp]

I also favor legalization IF properly done.  No bail outs for bad behaviors (using).  You are responsible for your own actions and must suffer the consequences of them including suffering the penalty for any crimes committed to support your habit and any health effects brought on by it.

The problem with this idea is that the infection won't stay put.   Those addicted will constantly try to recruit among the non addicted to support their habit.   


I have quite a lot of experience with people involved in illegal drugs,  and I know very well how they operate.   They deliberately chat up young girls in a friendly manner until they can get them to try some weed.   After days,  or weeks of getting them using weed,  they start lacing the weed with crack or meth.   Pretty soon they have the girls smoking straight crack or meth,  all of which was supplied for free or for very cheap.   

Then they start having the girls turn "tricks"  to pay for their drugs.   I have personally known several drug dealers and pimps,  and this is how they work that business.   


Now this is how it works under current conditions in which it is illegal.    If people could get as much crack or meth as they wanted for relatively low costs,  they would very likely kill themselves from overdoses.   


They would also recruit people to do drugs with them,  because druggies like to have likeminded company.   


The infection would spread and keep spreading just the way it happened in China from 1840 to 1910. 


Beta > 1.   

[Bigun]

The problem with this idea is that the infection won't stay put.   Those addicted will constantly try to recruit among the non addicted to support their habit.   


I have quite a lot of experience with people involved in illegal drugs,  and I know very well how they operate.   They deliberately chat up young girls in a friendly manner until they can get them to try some weed.   After days,  or weeks of getting them using weed,  they start lacing the weed with crack or meth.   Pretty soon they have the girls smoking straight crack or meth,  all of which was supplied for free or for very cheap.   

Then they start having the girls turn "tricks"  to pay for their drugs.   I have personally known several drug dealers and pimps,  and this is how they work that business.   


Now this is how it works under current conditions in which it is illegal.    If people could get as much crack or meth as they wanted for relatively low costs,  they would very likely kill themselves from overdoses.   


They would also recruit people to do drugs with them,  because druggies like to have likeminded company.   


The infection would spread and keep spreading just the way it happened in China from 1840 to 1910. 


Beta > 1.

So how do you explain the fact that in the early 20th century anyone could walk in to any apothecary shop in the country and walk out with all the cocaine he had the $ to buy?  I see no indication that there were any significant problems with that back then.

BTW: Alcohol is a drug and there are currently a significant number of addicts. That's legal.

[Oceander]

The destruction is the incidental consequence of what they wanted.  What they wanted was more political power.  The Democrats had been successfully suppressing the black vote with all sorts of tactics.  North Eastern Liberal Republicans believed that if they could eliminate Democrat interference with blacks voting,  they would get about a 10 million vote windfall out of it.   


So they pushed the 24th amendment.   This amendment allowed non-taxpayers to vote.  It was sold on eliminating the "Poll Tax",  but at the tail end of it it says "or other tax." 


Lyndon Johnson was a racist southern Democrat who had no love for blacks,  but he was also a canny politician and realized immediately what this recently passed amendment signified in terms of elections. 


It is no accident that he timed his "Great Society"  and his "War on Poverty"  right after the passage of the 24th amendment.   Within 10 years,  black voters who had previously been reliably Republican,  were now voting Democrat,  and this has continued t up to current times. 


The "War on Poverty"   is nothing but an expensive vote buying scheme made possible by Liberal Republicans eliminating the requirement to pay taxes in order to vote.   We have spent 21 trillion dollars on the "War on Poverty"  since 1964,   and it has cost us far more than that in the murders,  rapes,  robberies,  drug usage,  and other dysfunctions caused by paying for more destitute children and raising them without a father. 


As a fiscal matter,  it is *INSANE*  to have a system where non-taxpayers can vote.   That is just brain dead stupid and eventually fatal for any system that embraces this ridiculous idea. 


Just remember it was the pursuit of increased political power that was behind this thing in the first place. 

Brain dead is any system where you have to own property or pay taxes before you can vote.  A poor man who pays no tax is just as entitled to have a say in whether he'll be drafted to go fight in a foreign war as is a rich man's trust-fund coddled child.

[Bigun]

Brain dead is any system where you have to own property or pay taxes before you can vote.  A poor man who pays no tax is just as entitled to have a say in whether he'll be drafted to go fight in a foreign war as is a rich man's trust-fund coddled child.

I couldn't agree more.  That is exactly why everyone who votes should have some skin in the game.

Or stated another way, there shouldn't be a voter anywhere in the country who doesn't pay taxes.

[Oceander]

I couldn't agree more.  That is exactly why everyone who votes should have some skin in the game.

Or stated another way, there shouldn't be a voter anywhere in the country who doesn't pay taxes.

Couldn't agree more?  Mayhap you want to reread my post.  All that matters is that you be a moral agent, capable of making moral decisions, to deserve the vote.  Any system that requires taxes or property before you can vote has put material possessions over souls in determining the relative worth of individuals.