Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

20-year-old woman MX Police Chief


Carolina Mike II

Recommended Posts

She made news when she was the ONLY person willing to stand up in her town to the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels. After many death threats & a possible attempted kidnapping I would not blame her for seeking help from the US seeing how she has a small child!

Since I live down here I will tell you they normally KILL (be-headings/torture) any Law Enforcement Officers that are trying to stop them. Something needs to be done down this way to protect people!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/marisol-valles-garcia-fired_n_832316.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

legalizing coke? lol yea the cartels would dissapaite but that would open up a whole set a new problems, to innocent people as well. Totally disagree, all hard drugs should be outlawed, for the safety of others. People on coke kill, seen it, lived in it.

MJ on the other had I 100% agree, I think this will kill enough of hte cartel to at least get it under control. Legalizing and regulating marijuana would help immensely, industry wise, state funding wise and crime/cartel wise.

I hear hwat you're sayin though, just legalize it and let the fools sort themselves out, problem is when the fools start aftecting, us, our lives, people who know a sense of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

legalizing coke? lol yea the cartels would dissapaite but that would open up a whole set a new problems, to innocent people as well. Totally disagree, all hard drugs should be outlawed, for the safety of others. People on coke kill, seen it, lived in it.

MJ on the other had I 100% agree, I think this will kill enough of hte cartel to at least get it under control. Legalizing and regulating marijuana would help immensely, industry wise, state funding wise and crime/cartel wise.

I hear hwat you're sayin though, just legalize it and let the fools sort themselves out, problem is when the fools start aftecting, us, our lives, people who know a sense of control.

The problem is, they already are affecting our lives. Outlawing it doesn't make it harder to get, it only makes it more profitable for bad guys. And fwiw, Liquor is every bit as hard of a drug as coke, and perhaps more damaging overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing here in El Paso, TX is each night we see on the news how on average the cartels kill 12 people a day in the city right across the border. Last year they started running out of bullets for their guns at one point. That is when they started be-headings. Plus the new thing they have started is IED's. The US government is allowing those that live in Juarez to come into El Paso to live to get away from the violence. ONLY problem is not all of these so called victims have turned out to be victims, but rather cartel members! When you drive around EVERYWHERE there is MORE MX tags on cars than US plates. Hospitals ER's have waiting rooms packed with an average of 8-10 hrs to be seen. Case in point my son BROKE his arm 12 HOURS later we got seen. And the schools are the same way.

Something has to be done. NOT talking about being mean or treating the illegals BAD, JUST do something that is both humane & FAIR to them and US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, they already are affecting our lives. Outlawing it doesn't make it harder to get, it only makes it more profitable for bad guys. And fwiw, Liquor is every bit as hard of a drug as coke, and perhaps more damaging overall.

Agree. But, the reason I believe they are ineffective is they are trying to defend everything in a new age. In the 50s and 60s it was probably pretty easy to , maintain. But people change, the y evolve, become more liberal and free thinking if we legalized things like marijuana, psychedelic shrooms, LSD maybe even opium that would cut down ALOT of the responsibilities of foreign and internal security. The drugs, while opium may be addictive it's not a psycho drug, you don't go and kill people for it, same with mushrooms and marijuana. LSD can be dangerous but neither it nor mushrooms are not a recreational drug. These drugs are also natural (except lsd), which is why they are illegal, becasue you can produce them with little effort on your own. These I would be more open to than coke.

Coke is a dangerous drug to legalize, but yeah one who defends everything defends nothing. Doesn't mean some things aren't worth defending for, legalizing coke would effect people way too much, it would be a mass problem as it is extremely addicting drug that peoele literally die for. Just my perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opium may be addictive it's not a psycho drug, you don't go and kill people for it,

WTF do you think Heroin comes from? :rolleyes:

legalizing coke would effect people way too much,

Yeah maybe I will finally be able to blast a few rails while I wait in line at safeway without getting stared at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I have a hard time buying that the thugs, cutthroats and murderers currently running the drug cartels would just play nice or turn into respectable businessman if their product were to be legalized. Nor do I buy that it would automatically put them out of business.

They might change their methods, but they'd still be the same people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...