Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

He said he didn't order murder of surrendering men. The next day he said he did. Granted he does not lie as often as often as trump

---

Hypocritical position. He did not order our troops to anything that hasn't been done for decades under administrations of both parties.

Apache Firing with 30 mm cannon on Insurgents. pic.twitter.com/BeDmSGpA5B

— WarRoom Archives (@WarRoomArchives) December 3, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

The only thing missing? Fishing gear...

---

You were at sea. What does Maritime Law say? If they just go by you do you have the rights to stop them?

Also, what is in there? You can guess, but unless you board and search it is not provable. It is just a picture of containers.

---

Please cite the provision of maritime law which prohibits kinetic strikes against designated terror groups operating in international waters.

boognish_bear said:

---

Seems like they are going about this backwards... they should've lead with this reasoning

🚨RUBIO: IRAN & HEZBOLLAH ARE OPERATING FROM INSIDE VENEZUELA

Senator Marco Rubio just issued one of the starkest warnings yet — and it changes the entire picture of the Venezuela crisis:

“The Venezuelan regime is a source of instability in the entire region…
Iran, its IRGC,… pic.twitter.com/EyTJyRJwA0

— Jim Ferguson (@JimFergusonUK) December 3, 2025

---

I love it.

"See, this seems like starting a war in Central America, with a small and totally failed nation that poses absolutely no threat to us, but since you dont believe that this will stop drugs from coming into our country, will you get on board with proxy bombing the Middle East? Yes! Truly! If we bomb Venezuela, it's just like bombing Iran!"

Dear @SenRandPaul and @lisamurkowski, this is called a go-fast boat.

Do you run 3 outboard engines with 900 horsepower combined when you fish? With plastic bags everywhere on the open deck?

Both of you are too stupid to be senators. Or corrupt. pic.twitter.com/cBFfPuXMk6

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) December 3, 2025

Assassin said:

---

Dear @SenRandPaul and @lisamurkowski, this is called a go-fast boat.

Do you run 3 outboard engines with 900 horsepower combined when you fish? With plastic bags everywhere on the open deck?

Both of you are too stupid to be senators. Or corrupt. pic.twitter.com/cBFfPuXMk6

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) December 3, 2025

---

Doesn't require membership in the Senate to be terminally stupid.

Several are obsessed about 'fishermen' right here on this little message board.

Dan Crenshaw: “I can’t recall any time in my history of doing counterterrorism operations where we strike a group, whether that’s a building or a boat or a vehicle, and then we were, like, ‘Oh, well, there’s survivors. We have to go. We can’t kill them.’ Of course we killed… pic.twitter.com/vR1QyGzhRb

— Julia 🇺🇸 (@Jules31415) December 3, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

The only thing missing? Fishing gear...

---

You were at sea. What does Maritime Law say? If they just go by you do you have the rights to stop them?

Also, what is in there? You can guess, but unless you board and search it is not provable. It is just a picture of containers.

---

Please cite the provision of maritime law which prohibits kinetic strikes against designated terror groups operating in international waters.

---

Your kidding right?

It is really a trick question.

You know that the US would not sign the Montego Bay Convention, even though we said we would honor it. What would it matter? Like the Budapest Memo and every other UN convention we don't like, we consider them non-binding.

As long as we can "smoke" the rest of the world, international law doesn't matter. So, make up whatever you want.

Well, the Hegseth issue is about to resolve itself. I predict a resignation and pardon quickly following. Maybe Trump will put an adult in that position that will work with Congress.

---

Okay, then let us try it the other way since you couldn't answer his question . . . Which maritime law allows for the safe transportation of narcotics from terrorist organizations?

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Dear @SenRandPaul and @lisamurkowski, this is called a go-fast boat.

Do you run 3 outboard engines with 900 horsepower combined when you fish? With plastic bags everywhere on the open deck?

Both of you are too stupid to be senators. Or corrupt. pic.twitter.com/cBFfPuXMk6

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) December 3, 2025

---

Doesn't require membership in the Senate to be terminally stupid.

Several are obsessed about 'fishermen' right here on this little message board.

---

Yea, what's with that?

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Dear @SenRandPaul and @lisamurkowski, this is called a go-fast boat.

Do you run 3 outboard engines with 900 horsepower combined when you fish? With plastic bags everywhere on the open deck?

Both of you are too stupid to be senators. Or corrupt. pic.twitter.com/cBFfPuXMk6

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) December 3, 2025

---

Doesn't require membership in the Senate to be terminally stupid.

Several are obsessed about 'fishermen' right here on this little message board.

---

Yea, what's with that?

---

You know.

1989. Joe Biden delivers a televised message from the Democrat party, calling on then President Bush to do more to stop the flow of drugs into the country.

In addition to calling for more prisons and more cops, Biden said that Democrats want the creation of a strike force to… pic.twitter.com/mV8SbVsnob

— MAZE (@mazemoore) December 3, 2025

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

The only thing missing? Fishing gear...

---

You were at sea. What does Maritime Law say? If they just go by you do you have the rights to stop them?

Also, what is in there? You can guess, but unless you board and search it is not provable. It is just a picture of containers.

---

Please cite the provision of maritime law which prohibits kinetic strikes against designated terror groups operating in international waters.

---

Your kidding right?

It is really a trick question.

You know that the US would not sign the Montego Bay Convention, even though we said we would honor it. What would it matter? Like the Budapest Memo and every other UN convention we don't like, we consider them non-binding.

As long as we can "smoke" the rest of the world, international law doesn't matter. So, make up whatever you want.

Well, the Hegseth issue is about to resolve itself. I predict a resignation and pardon quickly following. Maybe Trump will put an adult in that position that will work with Congress.

---

Okay, then let us try it the other way since you couldn't answer his question . . . Which maritime law allows for the safe transportation of narcotics from terrorist organizations?

---

no, you are right. that Is why it Is legal to stop and board. not blow them up, multiple times.

ok, everyone is just making this up as being a problem. The GOP Congressmen are really Dems in disguise. they need an AUMF and the going back and killing survivors is a war crime. that is common practice and part of both geneva convention and montego bay convention.

Lets see how this plays out to see who is right. Hegweth is done. he will be lucky to escape prosecution. this plus the signal f-up and mass firings. he is done. lets see if i am right or you are that it is nothing and totally legal.

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

The only thing missing? Fishing gear...

---

You were at sea. What does Maritime Law say? If they just go by you do you have the rights to stop them?

Also, what is in there? You can guess, but unless you board and search it is not provable. It is just a picture of containers.

---

Please cite the provision of maritime law which prohibits kinetic strikes against designated terror groups operating in international waters.

---

Your kidding right?

It is really a trick question.

You know that the US would not sign the Montego Bay Convention, even though we said we would honor it. What would it matter? Like the Budapest Memo and every other UN convention we don't like, we consider them non-binding.

As long as we can "smoke" the rest of the world, international law doesn't matter. So, make up whatever you want.

Well, the Hegseth issue is about to resolve itself. I predict a resignation and pardon quickly following. Maybe Trump will put an adult in that position that will work with Congress.

---

Okay, then let us try it the other way since you couldn't answer his question . . . Which maritime law allows for the safe transportation of narcotics from terrorist organizations?

---

no, you are right. that Is why it Is legal to stop and board. not blow them up, multiple times.

ok, everyone is just making this up as being a problem. The GOP Congressmen are really Dems in disguise. they need an AUMF and the going back and killing survivors is a war crime. that is common practice and part of both geneva convention and montego bay convention.

Lets see how this plays out to see who is right. Hegweth is done. he will be lucky to escape prosecution. this plus the signal f-up and mass firings. he is done. lets see if i am right or you are that it is nothing and totally legal.

---

I appreciate you still think an "unnamed source" from a discredited, oligarch propaganda course is "news." TDS has consumed you.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

The only thing missing? Fishing gear...

---

You were at sea. What does Maritime Law say? If they just go by you do you have the rights to stop them?

Also, what is in there? You can guess, but unless you board and search it is not provable. It is just a picture of containers.

---

Please cite the provision of maritime law which prohibits kinetic strikes against designated terror groups operating in international waters.

---

Your kidding right?

It is really a trick question.

You know that the US would not sign the Montego Bay Convention, even though we said we would honor it. What would it matter? Like the Budapest Memo and every other UN convention we don't like, we consider them non-binding.

As long as we can "smoke" the rest of the world, international law doesn't matter. So, make up whatever you want.

Well, the Hegseth issue is about to resolve itself. I predict a resignation and pardon quickly following. Maybe Trump will put an adult in that position that will work with Congress.

---

Okay, then let us try it the other way since you couldn't answer his question . . . Which maritime law allows for the safe transportation of narcotics from terrorist organizations?

---

no, you are right. that Is why it Is legal to stop and board. not blow them up, multiple times.

ok, everyone is just making this up as being a problem. The GOP Congressmen are really Dems in disguise. they need an AUMF and the going back and killing survivors is a war crime. that is common practice and part of both geneva convention and montego bay convention.

Lets see how this plays out to see who is right. Hegweth is done. he will be lucky to escape prosecution. this plus the signal f-up and mass firings. he is done. lets see if i am right or you are that it is nothing and totally legal.

---

I appreciate you still think an "unnamed source" from a discredited, oligarch propaganda course is "news." TDS has consumed you.

---

we will see how it plays out. when he resigns will you admit i am right?

Newsmax senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano:

“It gives me no pleasure to say what I’m about to say, because I worked with Pete Hegseth…Everybody along the line who did it, from the Secretary of Defense to the admiral…should be prosecuted for a war crime” pic.twitter.com/0Gh9pG6MaN

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) December 3, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

The only thing missing? Fishing gear...

---

You were at sea. What does Maritime Law say? If they just go by you do you have the rights to stop them?

Also, what is in there? You can guess, but unless you board and search it is not provable. It is just a picture of containers.

---

Please cite the provision of maritime law which prohibits kinetic strikes against designated terror groups operating in international waters.

---

Your kidding right?

It is really a trick question.

You know that the US would not sign the Montego Bay Convention, even though we said we would honor it. What would it matter? Like the Budapest Memo and every other UN convention we don't like, we consider them non-binding.

As long as we can "smoke" the rest of the world, international law doesn't matter. So, make up whatever you want.

Well, the Hegseth issue is about to resolve itself. I predict a resignation and pardon quickly following. Maybe Trump will put an adult in that position that will work with Congress.

---

Okay, then let us try it the other way since you couldn't answer his question . . . Which maritime law allows for the safe transportation of narcotics from terrorist organizations?

---

no, you are right. that Is why it Is legal to stop and board. not blow them up, multiple times.

ok, everyone is just making this up as being a problem. The GOP Congressmen are really Dems in disguise. they need an AUMF and the going back and killing survivors is a war crime. that is common practice and part of both geneva convention and montego bay convention.

Lets see how this plays out to see who is right. Hegweth is done. he will be lucky to escape prosecution. this plus the signal f-up and mass firings. he is done. lets see if i am right or you are that it is nothing and totally legal.

---

I appreciate you still think an "unnamed source" from a discredited, oligarch propaganda course is "news." TDS has consumed you.

---

we will see how it plays out. when he resigns will you admit i am right?

---

Of course. If he resigns for bombing a drug boat I will absolutely bow and eat crow. I am more worried about the truth and reality than being right or politics.

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

The only thing missing? Fishing gear...

---

You were at sea. What does Maritime Law say? If they just go by you do you have the rights to stop them?

Also, what is in there? You can guess, but unless you board and search it is not provable. It is just a picture of containers.

---

Please cite the provision of maritime law which prohibits kinetic strikes against designated terror groups operating in international waters.

---

Your kidding right?

It is really a trick question.

You know that the US would not sign the Montego Bay Convention, even though we said we would honor it. What would it matter? Like the Budapest Memo and every other UN convention we don't like, we consider them non-binding.

As long as we can "smoke" the rest of the world, international law doesn't matter. So, make up whatever you want.

Well, the Hegseth issue is about to resolve itself. I predict a resignation and pardon quickly following. Maybe Trump will put an adult in that position that will work with Congress.

---

Okay, then let us try it the other way since you couldn't answer his question . . . Which maritime law allows for the safe transportation of narcotics from terrorist organizations?

---

no, you are right. that Is why it Is legal to stop and board. not blow them up, multiple times.

ok, everyone is just making this up as being a problem. The GOP Congressmen are really Dems in disguise. they need an AUMF and the going back and killing survivors is a war crime. that is common practice and part of both geneva convention and montego bay convention.

Lets see how this plays out to see who is right. Hegweth is done. he will be lucky to escape prosecution. this plus the signal f-up and mass firings. he is done. lets see if i am right or you are that it is nothing and totally legal.

---

I appreciate you still think an "unnamed source" from a discredited, oligarch propaganda course is "news." TDS has consumed you.

---

we will see how it plays out. when he resigns will you admit i am right?

---

Of course. If he resigns for bombing a drug boat I will absolutely bow and eat crow. I am more worried about the truth and reality than being right or politics.

---

No, you seem more interested in winning some intellectual minutia contest. But that is ok, we all have our things.

How Hegseth has handled the top leadership position in the military has been unprofessional and bombastic. Might be ok for a Platoon Leader in the field getting young troops motivated or talking putting together Op Orders, but not for a Garrison leadership position. SecDef is as Admin as you get, it is budgets, briefings, interacting with Congress daily. You have GOP Senators saying they got more info from Biden!

Don't hate him he is miscast in the Administration, he should be Press Secretary to leverage his media credentials. Leavitt's boss. Just my opinion.

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

how about a war on drugs through HSA and Congressional approval? Using military and the secrecy from DoD is problematic. Actually, it is not use of military. It is how Total Male Pete is running it. Sorry, drugs is still a law enforcement action. No one is attacking the US. They are interested in money, not attacking

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

how about a war on drugs through HSA and Congressional approval? Using military and the secrecy from DoD is problematic. Actually, it is not use of military. It is how Total Male Pete is running it. Sorry, drugs is still a law enforcement action. No one is attacking the US. They are interested in money, not attacking

---

Attacking the citizens of the USA by pushing drugs is attacking the USA. Everything else has been tried. Why would you begrudge a new field of vision in the War on Drugs?

No reason to extend the timeline of allowing drugs into the USA
If you don't want to be bombed don't traffic drugs

STxBear81 said:

---

No reason to extend the timeline of allowing drugs into the USA
If you don't want to be bombed don't traffic drugs

---

Common sense approach. Refreshing.

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

how about a war on drugs through HSA and Congressional approval? Using military and the secrecy from DoD is problematic. Actually, it is not use of military. It is how Total Male Pete is running it. Sorry, drugs is still a law enforcement action. No one is attacking the US. They are interested in money, not attacking

---

Attacking the citizens of the USA by pushing drugs is attacking the USA. Everything else ha8s been tried. Why would you begrudge a new field of vision in the War on Drugs?

---

i dont. just follow the rules. we have a system of government. Executive Branch is a co branch of government, not the primary.

this operation is a circumvent of the rules by declaring it an emergency and terrorist. using new definitions.

i have problems with Politicians taking power circumventing rules and norms. i am surprised how quickly this Board has fallen lockstep with Trump taking MORE Federal control. Actually cheering for him. Power 9f personality i guess.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

how about a war on drugs through HSA and Congressional approval? Using military and the secrecy from DoD is problematic. Actually, it is not use of military. It is how Total Male Pete is running it. Sorry, drugs is still a law enforcement action. No one is attacking the US. They are interested in money, not attacking

---

Attacking the citizens of the USA by pushing drugs is attacking the USA. Everything else ha8s been tried. Why would you begrudge a new field of vision in the War on Drugs?

---

i dont. just follow the rules. we have a system of government. Executive Branch is a co branch of government, not the primary.

this operation is a circumvent of the rules by declaring it an emergency and terrorist. using new definitions.

i have problems with Politicians taking power circumventing rules and norms. i am surprised how quickly this Board has fallen lockstep with Trump taking MORE Federal control. Actually cheering for him. Power 9f personality i guess.

---

Or, the War on Drugs has been a failure and they say, "Let's try something new. If we go to Congress, we may lose. And we can't compet with some of the money that is being paid off the books by the cartels. And we cannot go against yet another mis-ruling. Since we are not going to Congress, try something innovative..."

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

in the old days we did coffee and donuts.....

- uncle fred

D!

Kids these days......

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

Go Bears!!

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

how about a war on drugs through HSA and Congressional approval? Using military and the secrecy from DoD is problematic. Actually, it is not use of military. It is how Total Male Pete is running it. Sorry, drugs is still a law enforcement action. No one is attacking the US. They are interested in money, not attacking

---

Attacking the citizens of the USA by pushing drugs is attacking the USA. Everything else ha8s been tried. Why would you begrudge a new field of vision in the War on Drugs?

---

i dont. just follow the rules. we have a system of government. Executive Branch is a co branch of government, not the primary.

this operation is a circumvent of the rules by declaring it an emergency and terrorist. using new definitions.

i have problems with Politicians taking power circumventing rules and norms. i am surprised how quickly this Board has fallen lockstep with Trump taking MORE Federal control. Actually cheering for him. Power 9f personality i guess.

---

Or, the War on Drugs has been a failure and they say, "Let's try something new. If we go to Congress, we may lose. And we can't competed with some of the money that is being paid off the books. And we cannot go against yet another mis-ruling. Since we are not going to Congress, try something innovative..."

---

he is using the US military and blowing up boats. Sorry, that needs more than Executive Branch labeling them terrorists. Defining the word as it has never been used. That requires a direct authorization from Congress. we are not talking taking funds here through some accounting trick. we are killing people.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

how about a war on drugs through HSA and Congressional approval? Using military and the secrecy from DoD is problematic. Actually, it is not use of military. It is how Total Male Pete is running it. Sorry, drugs is still a law enforcement action. No one is attacking the US. They are interested in money, not attacking

---

Attacking the citizens of the USA by pushing drugs is attacking the USA. Everything else ha8s been tried. Why would you begrudge a new field of vision in the War on Drugs?

---

i dont. just follow the rules. we have a system of government. Executive Branch is a co branch of government, not the primary.

this operation is a circumvent of the rules by declaring it an emergency and terrorist. using new definitions.

i have problems with Politicians taking power circumventing rules and norms. i am surprised how quickly this Board has fallen lockstep with Trump taking MORE Federal control. Actually cheering for him. Power 9f personality i guess.

---

Or, the War on Drugs has been a failure and they say, "Let's try something new. If we go to Congress, we may lose. And we can't competed with some of the money that is being paid off the books. And we cannot go against yet another mis-ruling. Since we are not going to Congress, try something innovative..."

---

he is using the US military and blowing up boats. Sorry, that needs more than Executive Branch labeling them terrorists. Defining the word as it has never been used. That requires a direct authorization from Congress. we are not talking taking funds here through some accounting trick. we are killing people.

---

We are killing cartel drug runners vs them killing American citizens. Dont you want your fellow Americans to survive?

whiterock said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

He said he didn't order murder of surrendering men. The next day he said he did. Granted he does not lie as often as often as trump

---

Hypocritical position. He did not order our troops to anything that hasn't been done for decades under administrations of both parties.

Apache Firing with 30 mm cannon on Insurgents. pic.twitter.com/BeDmSGpA5B

— WarRoom Archives (@WarRoomArchives) December 3, 2025

---

These poor 'fishermen' were not even offerred the opportunity to surrender.

The crew of that Apache should have landed first and asked if they ( ang everyone else around the village ) wanted to be taken prisoner.

No doubt all these 'legal drug' guys would have jumped at the chance to risk their ass in such a manner.

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

how about a war on drugs through HSA and Congressional approval? Using military and the secrecy from DoD is problematic. Actually, it is not use of military. It is how Total Male Pete is running it. Sorry, drugs is still a law enforcement action. No one is attacking the US. They are interested in money, not attacking

---

Attacking the citizens of the USA by pushing drugs is attacking the USA. Everything else ha8s been tried. Why would you begrudge a new field of vision in the War on Drugs?

---

i dont. just follow the rules. we have a system of government. Executive Branch is a co branch of government, not the primary.

this operation is a circumvent of the rules by declaring it an emergency and terrorist. using new definitions.

i have problems with Politicians taking power circumventing rules and norms. i am surprised how quickly this Board has fallen lockstep with Trump taking MORE Federal control. Actually cheering for him. Power 9f personality i guess.

---

Or, the War on Drugs has been a failure and they say, "Let's try something new. If we go to Congress, we may lose. And we can't competed with some of the money that is being paid off the books. And we cannot go against yet another mis-ruling. Since we are not going to Congress, try something innovative..."

---

he is using the US military and blowing up boats. Sorry, that needs more than Executive Branch labeling them terrorists. Defining the word as it has never been used. That requires a direct authorization from Congress. we are not talking taking funds here through some accounting trick. we are killing people.

---

We are killing cartel drug runners vs them killing American citizens. Dont you want your fellow Americans to survive?

---

There is a reason some folks were rear echlon pukes.

Forgive me if I can’t feel sorry for people in boats spreading poison that kills and destroys lives. My heart leans more towards those affected by the loss of life from their activities. Saw another dead man in a parking lot today. Some family will never see their loved one…

— Deon Joseph (@ofcrdeonjoseph) December 4, 2025

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

how about a war on drugs through HSA and Congressional approval? Using military and the secrecy from DoD is problematic. Actually, it is not use of military. It is how Total Male Pete is running it. Sorry, drugs is still a law enforcement action. No one is attacking the US. They are interested in money, not attacking

---

Attacking the citizens of the USA by pushing drugs is attacking the USA. Everything else ha8s been tried. Why would you begrudge a new field of vision in the War on Drugs?

---

i dont. just follow the rules. we have a system of government. Executive Branch is a co branch of government, not the primary.

this operation is a circumvent of the rules by declaring it an emergency and terrorist. using new definitions.

i have problems with Politicians taking power circumventing rules and norms. i am surprised how quickly this Board has fallen lockstep with Trump taking MORE Federal control. Actually cheering for him. Power 9f personality i guess.

---

Or, the War on Drugs has been a failure and they say, "Let's try something new. If we go to Congress, we may lose. And we can't competed with some of the money that is being paid off the books. And we cannot go against yet another mis-ruling. Since we are not going to Congress, try something innovative..."

---

he is using the US military and blowing up boats. Sorry, that needs more than Executive Branch labeling them terrorists. Defining the word as it has never been used. That requires a direct authorization from Congress. we are not talking taking funds here through some accounting trick. we are killing people.

---

We are killing cartel drug runners vs them killing American citizens. Dont you want your fellow Americans to survive?

---

You keep mixing the results with the responsibilities of the Office. They have a greater responsibility to the 365 million Americans and our position in the World. That is the burden of Command, you cant do what you want. They dont get the luxury of going vigilante. You see that?

1989. Joe Biden delivers a televised message from the Democrat party, calling on then President Bush to do more to stop the flow of drugs into the country.

In addition to calling for more prisons and more cops, Biden said that Democrats want the creation of a strike force to… pic.twitter.com/mV8SbVsnob

— MAZE (@mazemoore) December 3, 2025

The bottom part is cut but looks like this...

In addition to calling for more prisons and more cops, Biden said that Democrats want the creation of a strike force to attack drug dealers before they reach our borders.

"Let's go after the drug lords where they live with an international strike force. There must be no safe haven for these narco-terrorists and they must know it."

Times have changed a little.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

how about a war on drugs through HSA and Congressional approval? Using military and the secrecy from DoD is problematic. Actually, it is not use of military. It is how Total Male Pete is running it. Sorry, drugs is still a law enforcement action. No one is attacking the US. They are interested in money, not attacking

---

Attacking the citizens of the USA by pushing drugs is attacking the USA. Everything else ha8s been tried. Why would you begrudge a new field of vision in the War on Drugs?

---

i dont. just follow the rules. we have a system of government. Executive Branch is a co branch of government, not the primary.

this operation is a circumvent of the rules by declaring it an emergency and terrorist. using new definitions.

i have problems with Politicians taking power circumventing rules and norms. i am surprised how quickly this Board has fallen lockstep with Trump taking MORE Federal control. Actually cheering for him. Power 9f personality i guess.

---

Or, the War on Drugs has been a failure and they say, "Let's try something new. If we go to Congress, we may lose. And we can't competed with some of the money that is being paid off the books. And we cannot go against yet another mis-ruling. Since we are not going to Congress, try something innovative..."

---

he is using the US military and blowing up boats. Sorry, that needs more than Executive Branch labeling them terrorists. Defining the word as it has never been used. That requires a direct authorization from Congress. we are not talking taking funds here through some accounting trick. we are killing people.

---

We are killing cartel drug runners vs them killing American citizens. Dont you want your fellow Americans to survive?

---

You keep mixing the results with the responsibilities of the Office. They have a greater responsibility to the 365 million Americans and our position in the World. That is the burden of Command, you cant do what you want. They dont get the luxury of going vigilante. You see that?

---

Common sense is what I am claiming. As long as the US does not say he is doing something illegal, why would we not do that?

ScottS said:

---

1989. Joe Biden delivers a televised message from the Democrat party, calling on then President Bush to do more to stop the flow of drugs into the country.

In addition to calling for more prisons and more cops, Biden said that Democrats want the creation of a strike force to… pic.twitter.com/mV8SbVsnob

— MAZE (@mazemoore) December 3, 2025

The bottom part is cut but looks like this...



In addition to calling for more prisons and more cops, Biden said that Democrats want the creation of a strike force to attack drug dealers before they reach our borders.

"Let's go after the drug lords where they live with an international strike force. There must be no safe haven for these narco-terrorists and they must know it."

Times have changed a little.

---

Go Joe, go!