Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-strikes-another-boat-accused-of-carrying-drugs-near-venezuela-killing-6-trump-says

---

Luv em.

Hope Trump eventually bombs the living **** out of all the major drug labs throughout central and south America.

Would save the lives of tens of thousnds of Americans.

---

You comfortable that they are "drug dealers?" What if they aren't?

---

drahthaar said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-strikes-another-boat-accused-of-carrying-drugs-near-venezuela-killing-6-trump-says

---

Luv em.

Hope Trump eventually bombs the living **** out of all the major drug labs throughout central and south America.

Would save the lives of tens of thousnds of Americans.

---

You comfortable that they are "drug dealers?" What if they aren't?

---

My gut tells me there was hard intel coming from within the country regarding these boats.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Some folks simply hate Trump so much…..they would rather continue to see 100,000 Americans overdose than have him succeed in reducing the carnage.

Of course there are also the folks who quietly use some of these dangerous narcotics…….and don't want their supplies to dry up.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Some folks simply hate Trump so much…..they would rather continue to see 100,000 Americans overdose than have him succeed in reducing the carnage.

Of course there are also the folks who quietly use some of these dangerous narcotics…….and don't want their supplies to dry up.

---

Really, those are the choices?

Don't care that people are dying

or

They are users?


You don't see any down sides of the US Military blowing boats up in international or other Nations waters? What is the next compromise that is made for the greater good?

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bombing the drug boats makes perfect sense.

Regime change in process regarding Venezuela.

Long overdue.

Get rid of a dictator while sending a 'message' to other narcos.

Columbia is next up if that murderous 'president' of theirs doesn't get smart.

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bombing the drug boats makes perfect sense.

Regime change in process regarding Venezuela.

Long overdue.

Get rid of a dictator while sending a 'message' to other narcos.

Columbia is next up if that murderous 'president' of theirs doesn't get smart.

---

Is destabilizing Central America going to replace destabilizing the Middle East?

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

You are by far the dumbest individual on this board.

Replacing even Waco.

Grow up or drop out.


Don't care which you do.

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

You are by far the dumbest individual on this board.

Replacing even Waco.

Grow up or drop out.


Don't care which you do.

---

I say you dumb so you say I dumb. What a conversation.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

You are by far the dumbest individual on this board.

Replacing even Waco.

Grow up or drop out.


Don't care which you do.

---

I say you dumb so you say I dumb. What a conversation.

---

Reminds me of MSNBC

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

You are by far the dumbest individual on this board.

Replacing even Waco.

Grow up or drop out.


Don't care which you do.

---

I say you dumb so you say I dumb. What a conversation.

---

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

You are by far the dumbest individual on this board.

Replacing even Waco.

Grow up or drop out.


Don't care which you do.

---

I say you dumb so you say I dumb. What a conversation.

---

Reminds me of MSNBC

---

I have not really watched it in a decade or more, wouldn't know.

Just bizarre that the guy joins the forum long after Obama exited office yet knows what we all said during his 8 years. Does he think we'd believe any sane person would read back through decades of those forum?

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

You are by far the dumbest individual on this board.

Replacing even Waco.

Grow up or drop out.


Don't care which you do.

---

I say you dumb so you say I dumb. What a conversation.

---

Reminds me of MSNBC

---

I have not really watched it in a decade or more, wouldn't know.

Just bizarre that the guy joins the forum long after Obama exited office yet knows what we all said during his 8 years. Does he think we'd believe any sane person would read back through decades of those forum?

---

Think this fella may be ol' Canada Bear or something to that effect ... I could be wrong.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

You are by far the dumbest individual on this board.

Replacing even Waco.

Grow up or drop out.


Don't care which you do.

---

I say you dumb so you say I dumb. What a conversation.

---

Reminds me of MSNBC

---

I have not really watched it in a decade or more, wouldn't know.

Just bizarre that the guy joins the forum long after Obama exited office yet knows what we all said during his 8 years. Does he think we'd believe any sane person would read back through decades of those forum?

---

Think this fella may be ol' Canada Bear or something to that effect ... I could be wrong.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So no one can layout a case to oppose it?

---

No, but we better damn sure use all resources to determine who is on those boats. If we are going to treat them like terrorist than we better use the same Intel (human and tech) to make sure this is a targeted hunt. Not it was going fast and didn't heed our calls there are too many reasons that fall short of a Hellfire why they don't want to get stopped by the US Coast Guard. Living in FL, NO ONE wants to be boarded by the Coast Guard. Good way to ruin your day over a 6 pack...

---

Agreed. It is a very thin line. I am actually not really sure what I think about it.

I guess I need someone to lay out why one might use these particular boats ... are they for fishing? Are they moving Nintendo games to MIA for BestBuy? What exports might Venezuela be sending to the United States on these boats? Can the country produce the bill a lading for the cargo? Seems like these are not difficult questions to answer.

I suspect the objection - as usual is - TRUMP! If Barry was doing it, the TDSers would be cheering him one as a visionary, and he'd probably get another Nobel Prize.

---

Well, that is true. It really doesn't matter what he does, it is right. Doesn't really matter what Biden/Obama did, they were wrong. Obamacare is a great example, all we hear is how bad it is, yet they can't get it killed in Congress because too many Republicans want it.

As for the boat thing, I would have a easier time if you made the crime a death penalty, had a trial and if guilty hang em. At least they were proven guilty of a crime on the books with the death penalty. But, I am a process person... Most on here are gut feel, they read a few macro economic books and now get tariff's better than anyone. Or anyone of a thousand subjects.

---

Honestly, not really sure what the Obamacare detour is supposed to posit ... but since you brought it up: has it significantly lowered health care costs as Barry and Pelosi promised?

What crime would they have committed? Whose laws would they have broken?

Speaking of tariffs, were the economic experts right on how they would impact the stock market and economy?

---

shows that even with the House snd Senate the GOP can't get the votes to kill it. so woth all the rhetoric when it comes time to vote, they don't. it must he needed and the constituents must want it or it would be gone. But it can't serve a purpose, or even God forbid good policy, because it was founded by a Dem. it was an example of how polarized we have gotten. Dems are just as bad. i could use border as an example, Trump did a great job. but it has to be bad to the Dems since it was Trump.

we decide on if something is good or bad based on who was behind it, not on its need or function. really is a sorry state of affairs.

---

Dems vote as a block to keep the gov closed to blackmail the American people to give 'free' healthcare to illegals


But its republicans fault


Of Course

---

Actually, it is not free healthcare to illegals, illegals are not eligible for the Government programs and never have been.

What you are seeing is that hospitals in the US, by law, cannot turn away life saving care. If you show up, they have to treat you. They either eat it (many do as pro-bono) or they apply to the Government for reimbursement, which if they get it would be under Medicaid.

So, do you want hospitals to require form of payment and have to wait until you demonstrate that you can pay before treating you? If so, don't ***** if someone dies from an aneurism waiting for their insurance to clear.

There are ramifications either way. But it is not because they are making illegals eligible for US programs.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

You are by far the dumbest individual on this board.

Replacing even Waco.

Grow up or drop out.


Don't care which you do.

---

I say you dumb so you say I dumb. What a conversation.

---

Reminds me of MSNBC

---

I have not really watched it in a decade or more, wouldn't know.

Just bizarre that the guy joins the forum long after Obama exited office yet knows what we all said during his 8 years. Does he think we'd believe any sane person would read back through decades of those forum?

---

Think this fella may be ol' Canada Bear or something to that effect ... I could be wrong.

---

I'm not Canada Bear, but you make a good point. Some of us were at the old site long ago.

Hey, remember when they invented dirt? Kids today have no idea how good they have it.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So no one can layout a case to oppose it?

---

No, but we better damn sure use all resources to determine who is on those boats. If we are going to treat them like terrorist than we better use the same Intel (human and tech) to make sure this is a targeted hunt. Not it was going fast and didn't heed our calls there are too many reasons that fall short of a Hellfire why they don't want to get stopped by the US Coast Guard. Living in FL, NO ONE wants to be boarded by the Coast Guard. Good way to ruin your day over a 6 pack...

---

Agreed. It is a very thin line. I am actually not really sure what I think about it.

I guess I need someone to lay out why one might use these particular boats ... are they for fishing? Are they moving Nintendo games to MIA for BestBuy? What exports might Venezuela be sending to the United States on these boats? Can the country produce the bill a lading for the cargo? Seems like these are not difficult questions to answer.

I suspect the objection - as usual is - TRUMP! If Barry was doing it, the TDSers would be cheering him one as a visionary, and he'd probably get another Nobel Prize.

---

Well, that is true. It really doesn't matter what he does, it is right. Doesn't really matter what Biden/Obama did, they were wrong. Obamacare is a great example, all we hear is how bad it is, yet they can't get it killed in Congress because too many Republicans want it.

As for the boat thing, I would have a easier time if you made the crime a death penalty, had a trial and if guilty hang em. At least they were proven guilty of a crime on the books with the death penalty. But, I am a process person... Most on here are gut feel, they read a few macro economic books and now get tariff's better than anyone. Or anyone of a thousand subjects.

---

Honestly, not really sure what the Obamacare detour is supposed to posit ... but since you brought it up: has it significantly lowered health care costs as Barry and Pelosi promised?

What crime would they have committed? Whose laws would they have broken?

Speaking of tariffs, were the economic experts right on how they would impact the stock market and economy?

---

shows that even with the House snd Senate the GOP can't get the votes to kill it. so woth all the rhetoric when it comes time to vote, they don't. it must he needed and the constituents must want it or it would be gone. But it can't serve a purpose, or even God forbid good policy, because it was founded by a Dem. it was an example of how polarized we have gotten. Dems are just as bad. i could use border as an example, Trump did a great job. but it has to be bad to the Dems since it was Trump.

we decide on if something is good or bad based on who was behind it, not on its need or function. really is a sorry state of affairs.

---

Dems vote as a block to keep the gov closed to blackmail the American people to give 'free' healthcare to illegals


But its republicans fault


Of Course

---

Actually, it is not free healthcare to illegals, illegals are not eligible for the Government programs and never have been.

What you are seeing is that hospitals in the US, by law, cannot turn away life saving care. If you show up, they have to treat you. They either eat it (many do as pro-bono) or they apply to the Government for reimbursement, which if they get it would be under Medicaid.

So, do you want hospitals to require form of payment and have to wait until you demonstrate that you can pay before treating you? If so, don't ***** if someone dies from an aneurism waiting for their insurance to clear.

There are ramifications either way. But it is not because they are making illegals eligible for US programs.

---

Lots of info available to refute the "not for illegals" mantra. Medicaid has and will be used to cover illegals if the Democrat Party gets their way on their demands. Loopholes exist.
Hospitals will treat emergency life threatening care without proof of payment to a point. That will likely be reality for a long time still. We aren't that far gone yet. Doctors are professionals who for the most part want to take care of people.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So no one can layout a case to oppose it?

---

No, but we better damn sure use all resources to determine who is on those boats. If we are going to treat them like terrorist than we better use the same Intel (human and tech) to make sure this is a targeted hunt. Not it was going fast and didn't heed our calls there are too many reasons that fall short of a Hellfire why they don't want to get stopped by the US Coast Guard. Living in FL, NO ONE wants to be boarded by the Coast Guard. Good way to ruin your day over a 6 pack...

---

Agreed. It is a very thin line. I am actually not really sure what I think about it.

I guess I need someone to lay out why one might use these particular boats ... are they for fishing? Are they moving Nintendo games to MIA for BestBuy? What exports might Venezuela be sending to the United States on these boats? Can the country produce the bill a lading for the cargo? Seems like these are not difficult questions to answer.

I suspect the objection - as usual is - TRUMP! If Barry was doing it, the TDSers would be cheering him one as a visionary, and he'd probably get another Nobel Prize.

---

Well, that is true. It really doesn't matter what he does, it is right. Doesn't really matter what Biden/Obama did, they were wrong. Obamacare is a great example, all we hear is how bad it is, yet they can't get it killed in Congress because too many Republicans want it.

As for the boat thing, I would have a easier time if you made the crime a death penalty, had a trial and if guilty hang em. At least they were proven guilty of a crime on the books with the death penalty. But, I am a process person... Most on here are gut feel, they read a few macro economic books and now get tariff's better than anyone. Or anyone of a thousand subjects.

---

Honestly, not really sure what the Obamacare detour is supposed to posit ... but since you brought it up: has it significantly lowered health care costs as Barry and Pelosi promised?

What crime would they have committed? Whose laws would they have broken?

Speaking of tariffs, were the economic experts right on how they would impact the stock market and economy?

---

shows that even with the House snd Senate the GOP can't get the votes to kill it. so woth all the rhetoric when it comes time to vote, they don't. it must he needed and the constituents must want it or it would be gone. But it can't serve a purpose, or even God forbid good policy, because it was founded by a Dem. it was an example of how polarized we have gotten. Dems are just as bad. i could use border as an example, Trump did a great job. but it has to be bad to the Dems since it was Trump.

we decide on if something is good or bad based on who was behind it, not on its need or function. really is a sorry state of affairs.

---

Dems vote as a block to keep the gov closed to blackmail the American people to give 'free' healthcare to illegals


But its republicans fault


Of Course

---

Actually, it is not free healthcare to illegals, illegals are not eligible for the Government programs and never have been.

What you are seeing is that hospitals in the US, by law, cannot turn away life saving care. If you show up, they have to treat you. They either eat it (many do as pro-bono) or they apply to the Government for reimbursement, which if they get it would be under Medicaid.

So, do you want hospitals to require form of payment and have to wait until you demonstrate that you can pay before treating you? If so, don't ***** if someone dies from an aneurism waiting for their insurance to clear.

There are ramifications either way. But it is not because they are making illegals eligible for US programs.

---

Lots of info available to refute the "not for illegals" mantra. Medicaid has and will be used to cover illegals if the Democrat Party gets their way on their demands. Loopholes exist.
Hospitals will treat emergency life threatening care without proof of payment to a point. That will likely be reality for a long time still. We aren't that far gone yet. Doctors are professionals who for the most part want to take care of people.

---

I do know there is a pro-bono requirement that many research and non-profits have. That will keep happening. The research hospitals will also still look for specific cases, no matter what their nationality or ability to pay. This is an issue, along with education, that I think is a basic human right. If you are sick, getting medicine shouldn't be a borders thing. But, I am a Liberal on this Board!

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So no one can layout a case to oppose it?

---

No, but we better damn sure use all resources to determine who is on those boats. If we are going to treat them like terrorist than we better use the same Intel (human and tech) to make sure this is a targeted hunt. Not it was going fast and didn't heed our calls there are too many reasons that fall short of a Hellfire why they don't want to get stopped by the US Coast Guard. Living in FL, NO ONE wants to be boarded by the Coast Guard. Good way to ruin your day over a 6 pack...

---

Agreed. It is a very thin line. I am actually not really sure what I think about it.

I guess I need someone to lay out why one might use these particular boats ... are they for fishing? Are they moving Nintendo games to MIA for BestBuy? What exports might Venezuela be sending to the United States on these boats? Can the country produce the bill a lading for the cargo? Seems like these are not difficult questions to answer.

I suspect the objection - as usual is - TRUMP! If Barry was doing it, the TDSers would be cheering him one as a visionary, and he'd probably get another Nobel Prize.

---

Well, that is true. It really doesn't matter what he does, it is right. Doesn't really matter what Biden/Obama did, they were wrong. Obamacare is a great example, all we hear is how bad it is, yet they can't get it killed in Congress because too many Republicans want it.

As for the boat thing, I would have a easier time if you made the crime a death penalty, had a trial and if guilty hang em. At least they were proven guilty of a crime on the books with the death penalty. But, I am a process person... Most on here are gut feel, they read a few macro economic books and now get tariff's better than anyone. Or anyone of a thousand subjects.

---

Honestly, not really sure what the Obamacare detour is supposed to posit ... but since you brought it up: has it significantly lowered health care costs as Barry and Pelosi promised?

What crime would they have committed? Whose laws would they have broken?

Speaking of tariffs, were the economic experts right on how they would impact the stock market and economy?

---

shows that even with the House snd Senate the GOP can't get the votes to kill it. so woth all the rhetoric when it comes time to vote, they don't. it must he needed and the constituents must want it or it would be gone. But it can't serve a purpose, or even God forbid good policy, because it was founded by a Dem. it was an example of how polarized we have gotten. Dems are just as bad. i could use border as an example, Trump did a great job. but it has to be bad to the Dems since it was Trump.

we decide on if something is good or bad based on who was behind it, not on its need or function. really is a sorry state of affairs.

---

Dems vote as a block to keep the gov closed to blackmail the American people to give 'free' healthcare to illegals


But its republicans fault


Of Course

---

Actually, it is not free healthcare to illegals, illegals are not eligible for the Government programs and never have been.

What you are seeing is that hospitals in the US, by law, cannot turn away life saving care. If you show up, they have to treat you. They either eat it (many do as pro-bono) or they apply to the Government for reimbursement, which if they get it would be under Medicaid.

So, do you want hospitals to require form of payment and have to wait until you demonstrate that you can pay before treating you? If so, don't ***** if someone dies from an aneurism waiting for their insurance to clear.

There are ramifications either way. But it is not because they are making illegals eligible for US programs.

---

Lots of info available to refute the "not for illegals" mantra. Medicaid has and will be used to cover illegals if the Democrat Party gets their way on their demands. Loopholes exist.
Hospitals will treat emergency life threatening care without proof of payment to a point. That will likely be reality for a long time still. We aren't that far gone yet. Doctors are professionals who for the most part want to take care of people.

---

I do know there is a pro-bono requirement that many research and non-profits have. That will keep happening. The research hospitals will also still look for specific cases, no matter what their nationality or ability to pay. This is an issue, along with education, that I think is a basic human right. If you are sick, getting medicine shouldn't be a borders thing. But, I am a Liberal on this Board!

---

The problem comes when an illegal not only gets treatment, but is allowed to stay indefinitely.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.
Congress can only declare war on a state. Congress can authorize military force against non-state actors, and has. Trump is using such authorization now.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.
Exactly.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.
What is the difference between sinking them at our border, or a 1000mi away from our border? Sunk is sunk. International waters are international waters. As a practical matter, it's far easier to find & sink a ship as it leaves port than it is to find it once it has escaped to open ocean.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.
You really went off the rails here. There is ample moral and legal justification.

---

Congress has already authorized the actions taken. Trump used that authorization to designate certain (not all) drug cartels as terrorist groups. If you cannot get a court to overrule the designation, then what he's doing is squarely, unambiguously legal. And it's worth the nickel. 20kgs of fentanyl is enough to kill 10m people. It's such a concentrated product that it begs for zero-tolerance policies.

It is also ethical, as it will save American lives. i.e. smoking one speed boat saves potentially 10m lives.
it is also good foreign policy, as it will pressure a hostile regime to change its policies toward us.

---

Congress can pass the same legislation as the AUMF that both the House and Senate have repealed, regarding cartels. It is the same as declaring war on the ski abd tuna boats.

Im a big fan of going after fentanyl. Not of killing whoever we say is a bad guy in international waters.

And if you are not sure what the difference is between parking off the coast of a country 1,000 miles away and killing people, and doing it on our own coastline, I'm not sure what to say. Think harder? The only real difference is Trump knows he could not just kill people without warning on our coastline, and thinks he can kill people with fewer consequences in international waters.

---

Obama was bombing the **** out of Middle East terrorists for his entire 8 year time in office.

But just now you want to debate the practice.


Bull****

---

Didn't you join the forum a few years ago? But you know I didn't say anything about the Drone King? You so dumb.

---

You are by far the dumbest individual on this board.

Replacing even Waco.

Grow up or drop out.

Don't care which you do.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So no one can layout a case to oppose it?

---

No, but we better damn sure use all resources to determine who is on those boats. If we are going to treat them like terrorist than we better use the same Intel (human and tech) to make sure this is a targeted hunt. Not it was going fast and didn't heed our calls there are too many reasons that fall short of a Hellfire why they don't want to get stopped by the US Coast Guard. Living in FL, NO ONE wants to be boarded by the Coast Guard. Good way to ruin your day over a 6 pack...

---

Agreed. It is a very thin line. I am actually not really sure what I think about it.

I guess I need someone to lay out why one might use these particular boats ... are they for fishing? Are they moving Nintendo games to MIA for BestBuy? What exports might Venezuela be sending to the United States on these boats? Can the country produce the bill a lading for the cargo? Seems like these are not difficult questions to answer.

I suspect the objection - as usual is - TRUMP! If Barry was doing it, the TDSers would be cheering him one as a visionary, and he'd probably get another Nobel Prize.

---

Well, that is true. It really doesn't matter what he does, it is right. Doesn't really matter what Biden/Obama did, they were wrong. Obamacare is a great example, all we hear is how bad it is, yet they can't get it killed in Congress because too many Republicans want it.

As for the boat thing, I would have a easier time if you made the crime a death penalty, had a trial and if guilty hang em. At least they were proven guilty of a crime on the books with the death penalty. But, I am a process person... Most on here are gut feel, they read a few macro economic books and now get tariff's better than anyone. Or anyone of a thousand subjects.

---

Honestly, not really sure what the Obamacare detour is supposed to posit ... but since you brought it up: has it significantly lowered health care costs as Barry and Pelosi promised?

What crime would they have committed? Whose laws would they have broken?

Speaking of tariffs, were the economic experts right on how they would impact the stock market and economy?

---

shows that even with the House snd Senate the GOP can't get the votes to kill it. so woth all the rhetoric when it comes time to vote, they don't. it must he needed and the constituents must want it or it would be gone. But it can't serve a purpose, or even God forbid good policy, because it was founded by a Dem. it was an example of how polarized we have gotten. Dems are just as bad. i could use border as an example, Trump did a great job. but it has to be bad to the Dems since it was Trump.

we decide on if something is good or bad based on who was behind it, not on its need or function. really is a sorry state of affairs.

---

Dems vote as a block to keep the gov closed to blackmail the American people to give 'free' healthcare to illegals


But its republicans fault


Of Course

---

Actually, it is not free healthcare to illegals, illegals are not eligible for the Government programs and never have been.

What you are seeing is that hospitals in the US, by law, cannot turn away life saving care. If you show up, they have to treat you. They either eat it (many do as pro-bono) or they apply to the Government for reimbursement, which if they get it would be under Medicaid.

So, do you want hospitals to require form of payment and have to wait until you demonstrate that you can pay before treating you? If so, don't ***** if someone dies from an aneurism waiting for their insurance to clear.

There are ramifications either way. But it is not because they are making illegals eligible for US programs.

---

Lots of info available to refute the "not for illegals" mantra. Medicaid has and will be used to cover illegals if the Democrat Party gets their way on their demands. Loopholes exist.
Hospitals will treat emergency life threatening care without proof of payment to a point. That will likely be reality for a long time still. We aren't that far gone yet. Doctors are professionals who for the most part want to take care of people.

---

I do know there is a pro-bono requirement that many research and non-profits have. That will keep happening. The research hospitals will also still look for specific cases, no matter what their nationality or ability to pay. This is an issue, along with education, that I think is a basic human right. If you are sick, getting medicine shouldn't be a borders thing. But, I am a Liberal on this Board!

---

The problem comes when an illegal not only gets treatment, but is allowed to stay indefinitely.

---

KaiBear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So no one can layout a case to oppose it?

---

No, but we better damn sure use all resources to determine who is on those boats. If we are going to treat them like terrorist than we better use the same Intel (human and tech) to make sure this is a targeted hunt. Not it was going fast and didn't heed our calls there are too many reasons that fall short of a Hellfire why they don't want to get stopped by the US Coast Guard. Living in FL, NO ONE wants to be boarded by the Coast Guard. Good way to ruin your day over a 6 pack...

---

Agreed. It is a very thin line. I am actually not really sure what I think about it.

I guess I need someone to lay out why one might use these particular boats ... are they for fishing? Are they moving Nintendo games to MIA for BestBuy? What exports might Venezuela be sending to the United States on these boats? Can the country produce the bill a lading for the cargo? Seems like these are not difficult questions to answer.

I suspect the objection - as usual is - TRUMP! If Barry was doing it, the TDSers would be cheering him one as a visionary, and he'd probably get another Nobel Prize.

---

Well, that is true. It really doesn't matter what he does, it is right. Doesn't really matter what Biden/Obama did, they were wrong. Obamacare is a great example, all we hear is how bad it is, yet they can't get it killed in Congress because too many Republicans want it.

As for the boat thing, I would have a easier time if you made the crime a death penalty, had a trial and if guilty hang em. At least they were proven guilty of a crime on the books with the death penalty. But, I am a process person... Most on here are gut feel, they read a few macro economic books and now get tariff's better than anyone. Or anyone of a thousand subjects.

---

Honestly, not really sure what the Obamacare detour is supposed to posit ... but since you brought it up: has it significantly lowered health care costs as Barry and Pelosi promised?

What crime would they have committed? Whose laws would they have broken?

Speaking of tariffs, were the economic experts right on how they would impact the stock market and economy?

---

shows that even with the House snd Senate the GOP can't get the votes to kill it. so woth all the rhetoric when it comes time to vote, they don't. it must he needed and the constituents must want it or it would be gone. But it can't serve a purpose, or even God forbid good policy, because it was founded by a Dem. it was an example of how polarized we have gotten. Dems are just as bad. i could use border as an example, Trump did a great job. but it has to be bad to the Dems since it was Trump.

we decide on if something is good or bad based on who was behind it, not on its need or function. really is a sorry state of affairs.

---

Dems vote as a block to keep the gov closed to blackmail the American people to give 'free' healthcare to illegals


But its republicans fault


Of Course

---

Actually, it is not free healthcare to illegals, illegals are not eligible for the Government programs and never have been.

What you are seeing is that hospitals in the US, by law, cannot turn away life saving care. If you show up, they have to treat you. They either eat it (many do as pro-bono) or they apply to the Government for reimbursement, which if they get it would be under Medicaid.

So, do you want hospitals to require form of payment and have to wait until you demonstrate that you can pay before treating you? If so, don't ***** if someone dies from an aneurism waiting for their insurance to clear.

There are ramifications either way. But it is not because they are making illegals eligible for US programs.

---

Lots of info available to refute the "not for illegals" mantra. Medicaid has and will be used to cover illegals if the Democrat Party gets their way on their demands. Loopholes exist.
Hospitals will treat emergency life threatening care without proof of payment to a point. That will likely be reality for a long time still. We aren't that far gone yet. Doctors are professionals who for the most part want to take care of people.

---

I do know there is a pro-bono requirement that many research and non-profits have. That will keep happening. The research hospitals will also still look for specific cases, no matter what their nationality or ability to pay. This is an issue, along with education, that I think is a basic human right. If you are sick, getting medicine shouldn't be a borders thing. But, I am a Liberal on this Board!

---

The problem comes when an illegal not only gets treatment, but is allowed to stay indefinitely.

---

This 100x


Folks don't comprehend the games that are played.

The doctors make extra money and the illegals get to hang around.

The only losers are the taxpayers

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-strikes-another-boat-accused-of-carrying-drugs-near-venezuela-killing-6-trump-says

---

Luv em.

Hope Trump eventually bombs the living **** out of all the major drug labs throughout central and south America.

Would save the lives of tens of thousnds of Americans.

---

You comfortable that they are "drug dealers?" What if they aren't?

---

My gut tells me there was hard intel coming from within the country regarding these boats.

---

Mine tells me those boats do not have the fuel capacity to travel from Venezuela to the US.

I'd also like to see China better control the production and movement of the chemicals used to make fentanyl.

Until they (China) do, I bet we won't be bombing their ships.

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

a This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---