How far can they go? If they had their way they would make sure we are all card carrying evangelicals or pay an “immoral” tax.

Unfortunately you’re being too kind to republicans in congress. If they really worried about security, they’d give up some of the pork for security. Sorry, but Walmart and the rest of the retail lobby managed to sway republicans – to the detriment of this country, and their image.

And there aren’t many ‘true small government’ republicans in this government, congress or otherwise. The republicans have been hijacked, and you’re fooling yourself if you believe that the republicans in congress represent those values. They’re virtually dead in republican circles, and are only given lipservice to folks like yourself who’re willing to believe it even though evidence hasn’t shown this to be the case in the last 30 years.

I can point you to statistics if you like, but Republican presidents have consistently grown spending and government size in the last 30 years at a much higher rate than democratic presidents have – no matter which party controls congress. The ’small government’ republican ideal is a dream that hasn’t been true in a generation. It’s all fantasy.

If you want for the government to spend more responsibly, vote for a democrat.

I’m all for tightening the borders and ports if it will bring some of the Liberties we need back (Notice I did not say wall). People and items not in this country should be scrutinized throughly (sp too tired to look it up)

If I had to make a guess (Strictly my opinion here) I would say the Democrats backed it because they knew the Fiscaly conservative side of the house is already really cheesed off at the budget. Knowing that they knew there was no way it was going to be backed by them and would not pass ( I think it is safe to ASSUME that there would be a significant increase in cost to do that). it was a safe bet. If it passed sure, they backed it if not, it’s a perfect talking point for later to show their support for security (Read: Win/Win situation, smart play).

From the Republican side (Read: true small government types) George has spent a whole lot of money in areas they already didn’t like and at some point they have to say stop (Read lose/lose tough choice).

Politically the Dems pulled this one out smartly and should hope it gets plenty of press to the masses.

If you never make mistakes, you aren’t trying hard enough. Screw up, learn, grow.

Jake

First of all, look at post 149 on that page – I thought you were that ever retarded moron squishypoop. That’s why I used that tone with you – something I APOLOGIZE for. You’ve generally been quite coherent and responsible – and I’m sorry for that mistake on my part of not treating you more reasonably. You deserved better.

Call me a flip flopper :)

I knew that meth had started in the US, and I didn’t realize how much production (volume) had shifted overseas in recent years until I came across the information that frontline had done on production in Mexico. All of the information I had was on the increase in meth production facilities in the US – which is growing at an alarming rate. That however only tells part of the picture, and I’ll admit that this was information that I didn’t have at the point I made the comment I did to you. It however doesn’t detract from the original point I was making – and I’ll explaing why.

My original point that it WAS a homegrown problem and the tightening of drug imports might temporarily reduce supplies, but it most certainly would not stop it. The labs in california and elsewhere around the company will just ramp up production to compensate. So the border solution will NOT stop meth, because of its unique nature, other measures would be required for that. Since it can be produced 100% domestically (no poppies need), either the big suppliers will shift back their operations here, or small suppliers will most certainly step up to to fill the spots left by the big players.

Remember in 2001 they shut down 8000+ ‘amateur’ labs – so my claim about the surge of meth production in the rural heartland is true (and most certainly why Krazny believes it’s such a homegrown problem as I did). No matter how you slice it, it IS a huge problem, that will not stop, and largely because it’s home grown.

But what I was trying to point out in my statement that I thought was going to squishypoop – is that don’t expect an improved border to solve meth. That has to be done by recognizing how it’s produced, and reducing access to the materials that are its foundation components. Or perhaps by finding a ‘cure’ that could somehow counteract its effects – a longshot with how medical research is funded.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Human_Smuggling.html

So much for the theory that port security isn’t important. Republicans – weak on security.

So you should leave proving people wrong to others more inteligent than you, the person with the obviously inferior intellect.

#149 in the thread
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/30/podhoretz-attacks-carroll/#comments

My Statement:
“I don’t know why we have such a terrible drug problem (Besides it’s addicitve nature), but my feelings on bringing it down involve stricter border controls and more people in prison not less. Tundra”

Your rebuttal on my Stricter borders proposal (Unless you don’t consider ports borders:
The fastest growing drug problems stem from home grown meth. The borders won’t help you, so once again that’s what you get for trying to ‘think’. Leave it up to those more literate and intelligent – like humor, it’s not your gift. Comment by Ryan Neat — March 30, 2006 @ 2:30 pm

OK wait a sec Ryan, wasn’t it only last week you were telling me that tightening border security would have little to no effect on drug traffic? You were quoting that the “Fastest Growing” method was home grown and border security would do nothing to stop drugs.

Were you wrong when you said that or wrong now?

Not true anymore. It WAS home grown, and in fact largely supplied from super factories from California – but that production has shifted abroad in recent years. It’s also true that you do have small local labs that cook it up, but much of the raw materials is still smuggled into the country. It’s why Mexico buys/produces more than twice as much sudafed as it did 5 years ago, or that it needs. That ingredient goes into drug production factories in Mexico and neighboring countries.

There are two sets of meth sources, one the small independent person, and then the larger cartel supplies.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/

It’s a more orchestrated problem than people realize unfortunately. The perception that it’s ’small’ and ‘homegrown’ is actually worked to permit the larger cartels to supply it largely unchecked. It’s quite unfortunate.

BREAKING: Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security
Wal-Mart and its Washington, D.C., lobbyist, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), have systematically undermined America’s security by working to defeat or weaken rules to make America’s seaports and supply chains safe from terrorist attacks…

They both represent a pattern of blindness and ineptitude among republicans who ‘assess’ threats very stupidly. They didn’t think the guys with the one way tickets were a big threat either. Just like they don’t think inspecting ALL incoming cargo is a big threat. This isn’t jumping from a topic, it’s the same topic, and the same pattern of republicans being weak on security when the real measures are required. I’m not surprised you don’t see that – you probably would have sided with Condi on the Bin Laden memos as well. You guys don’t deserve power, you aren’t competent enough to legislate.