Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Porter Rockwell]

You don't realize it, but you're beginning to agree with what I'm saying. If we stop the flow of drugs by forcing the government to get out of the drug business and IF we prescribed drugs as the LAST option, not the first, we'd be making progress.

Then we have to repeal National ID, E-Verify, and background checks while helping people get rehabilitated so they get a second chance.

When they are in the workforce, there is less demand for foreign labor and no need for drug cartels to exist.

I don't know what one as to do with the other. What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?

The government is not in the drug business. The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally. As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that. Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now. I know a few people personally that are suffering myself. Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.

The government IS in the drug business. Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.

Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.

If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not. The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels. This aint rocket science.

And obviously you know few if any addicts. If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time. The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.

An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records. Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.

Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience. My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds. My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government. Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.

Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops. You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread. But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation. Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.

When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of. A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf. It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.

Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment. Treatment doesn't work in most cases. Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse. It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.

Furthermore it is not generational. My mother was an alcoholic. While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments. I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler. None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.

What gets some people on drugs is the availability. It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger. The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out. However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody. That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.

Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it. Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime. But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage. My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past. Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties. I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan. Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?

You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

• About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.

ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know what one as to do with the other. What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?

The government is not in the drug business. The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally. As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that. Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now. I know a few people personally that are suffering myself. Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.

The government IS in the drug business. Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.

Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.

If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not. The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels. This aint rocket science.

And obviously you know few if any addicts. If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time. The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.

An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records. Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.

Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience. My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds. My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government. Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.

Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops. You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread. But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation. Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.

When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of. A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf. It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.

Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment. Treatment doesn't work in most cases. Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse. It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.

Furthermore it is not generational. My mother was an alcoholic. While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments. I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler. None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.

What gets some people on drugs is the availability. It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger. The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out. However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody. That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.

Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it. Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime. But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage. My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past. Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties. I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan. Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?

You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

• About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.

ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.

First off, no, I"m not an addict. Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer. An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life. They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly. That's not me; it's not even close. It's like using the internet or watching television. It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.

Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public. We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with. In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people. I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem. But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide. We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.

As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago. I'm a truck driver. As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections. They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck. This has been going on for many years. And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.

The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong? They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong." Welcome to America.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The government IS in the drug business. Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.

Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.

If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not. The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels. This aint rocket science.

And obviously you know few if any addicts. If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time. The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.

An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records. Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.

Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience. My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds. My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government. Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.

Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops. You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread. But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation. Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.

When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of. A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf. It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.

Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment. Treatment doesn't work in most cases. Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse. It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.

Furthermore it is not generational. My mother was an alcoholic. While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments. I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler. None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.

What gets some people on drugs is the availability. It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger. The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out. However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody. That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.

Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it. Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime. But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage. My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past. Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties. I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan. Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?

You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

• About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.

ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.

First off, no, I"m not an addict. Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer. An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life. They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly. That's not me; it's not even close. It's like using the internet or watching television. It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.

Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public. We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with. In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people. I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem. But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide. We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.

As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago. I'm a truck driver. As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections. They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck. This has been going on for many years. And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.

The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong? They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong." Welcome to America.

I wasn't referring to your love of beer. You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD. Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it. If so, then you proved my point. If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society. For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it. And drinking beer on top of it??? Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.

There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know. Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."

You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay??? Is THAT your position?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And obviously you know few if any addicts. If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time. The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.

An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records. Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.

Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience. My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds. My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government. Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.

Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops. You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread. But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation. Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.

When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of. A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf. It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.

Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment. Treatment doesn't work in most cases. Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse. It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.

Furthermore it is not generational. My mother was an alcoholic. While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments. I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler. None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.

What gets some people on drugs is the availability. It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger. The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out. However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody. That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.

Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it. Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime. But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage. My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past. Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties. I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan. Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?

You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

• About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.

ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.

First off, no, I"m not an addict. Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer. An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life. They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly. That's not me; it's not even close. It's like using the internet or watching television. It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.

Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public. We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with. In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people. I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem. But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide. We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.

As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago. I'm a truck driver. As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections. They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck. This has been going on for many years. And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.

The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong? They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong." Welcome to America.

I wasn't referring to your love of beer. You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD. Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it. If so, then you proved my point. If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society. For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it. And drinking beer on top of it??? Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.

There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know. Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."

You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay??? Is THAT your position?

What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality. And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD? And what does beer have to do with it? It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time. However the Constitution is limited to government only. You do not have the right to free speech at work. You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you. You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed. You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper. You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience. My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds. My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government. Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.

Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops. You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread. But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation. Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.

When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of. A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf. It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.

Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment. Treatment doesn't work in most cases. Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse. It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.

Furthermore it is not generational. My mother was an alcoholic. While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments. I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler. None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.

What gets some people on drugs is the availability. It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger. The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out. However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody. That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.

Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it. Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime. But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage. My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past. Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties. I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan. Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?

You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

• About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.

ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.

First off, no, I"m not an addict. Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer. An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life. They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly. That's not me; it's not even close. It's like using the internet or watching television. It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.

Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public. We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with. In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people. I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem. But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide. We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.

As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago. I'm a truck driver. As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections. They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck. This has been going on for many years. And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.

The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong? They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong." Welcome to America.

I wasn't referring to your love of beer. You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD. Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it. If so, then you proved my point. If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society. For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it. And drinking beer on top of it??? Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.

There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know. Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."

You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay??? Is THAT your position?

What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality. And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD? And what does beer have to do with it? It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time. However the Constitution is limited to government only. You do not have the right to free speech at work. You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you. You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed. You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper. You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.

People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.

I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?

It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and qualitative analysis of the information. It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.

In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.

If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation. A man goes to a psychologist. His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated. Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?

We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom. The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society. I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."

 

[Flopper]

I don't know what one as to do with the other. What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?

The government is not in the drug business. The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally. As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that. Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now. I know a few people personally that are suffering myself. Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.

The government IS in the drug business. Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.

Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.

If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not. The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels. This aint rocket science.

And obviously you know few if any addicts. If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time. The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.

An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records. Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.

Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience. My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds. My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government. Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.

Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops. You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread. But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation. Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.

When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of. A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf. It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.

Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment. Treatment doesn't work in most cases. Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse. It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.

Furthermore it is not generational. My mother was an alcoholic. While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments. I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler. None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.

What gets some people on drugs is the availability. It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger. The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out. However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody. That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.

Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it. Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime. But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage. My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past. Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties. I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan. Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?

You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

• About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.

ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.

Back on topic...
We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.

Technology can be flexible, walls can not. When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years. Can anyone say that there will not be technology that will allows migrants to hop over the wall as easy as one steps across a mud poodle in a few years or that moving migrants by air or water will be used to circumvent the wall. No one can say how high, how thick, or how deep the wall should be to deal with new technologies in coming years.

Eventually, democrats will control government again. Thinking otherwise ignores history. When they do, there will be immigration reform which will radically reduce illegal immigration. Considering how long it will take to complete a border wall, we will probably have immigration reform long before the wall is completed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Back on topic...
We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.

So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?

When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.

Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment. Treatment doesn't work in most cases. Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse. It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.

Furthermore it is not generational. My mother was an alcoholic. While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments. I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler. None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.

What gets some people on drugs is the availability. It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger. The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out. However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody. That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.

Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it. Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime. But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage. My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past. Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties. I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan. Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?

You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

• About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.

ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.

First off, no, I"m not an addict. Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer. An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life. They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly. That's not me; it's not even close. It's like using the internet or watching television. It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.

Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public. We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with. In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people. I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem. But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide. We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.

As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago. I'm a truck driver. As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections. They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck. This has been going on for many years. And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.

The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong? They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong." Welcome to America.

I wasn't referring to your love of beer. You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD. Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it. If so, then you proved my point. If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society. For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it. And drinking beer on top of it??? Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.

There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know. Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."

You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay??? Is THAT your position?

What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality. And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD? And what does beer have to do with it? It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time. However the Constitution is limited to government only. You do not have the right to free speech at work. You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you. You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed. You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper. You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.

People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.

I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?

It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and qualitative analysis of the information. It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.

In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.

If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation. A man goes to a psychologist. His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated. Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?

We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom. The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society. I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."

When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor. Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients. However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government. Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.

Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property. I disagree. Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them. I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.

When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are. You may get locked up for some time. You may lose your house. Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper. You may not be able to find a job when you get out. You won't be able to vote. Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.

If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes. Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The government IS in the drug business. Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.

Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.

If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not. The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels. This aint rocket science.

And obviously you know few if any addicts. If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time. The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.

An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records. Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.

Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience. My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds. My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government. Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.

Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops. You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread. But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation. Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.

When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of. A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf. It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.

Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment. Treatment doesn't work in most cases. Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse. It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.

Furthermore it is not generational. My mother was an alcoholic. While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments. I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler. None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.

What gets some people on drugs is the availability. It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger. The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out. However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody. That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.

Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it. Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime. But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage. My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past. Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties. I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan. Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?

You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

• About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.

ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.

Back on topic...
We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.

Technology can be flexible, walls can not. When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years. Can anyone say that there will not be technology that will allows migrants to hop over the wall as easy as one steps across a mud poodle in a few years or that moving migrants by air or water will be used to circumvent the wall. No one can say how high, how thick, or how deep the wall should be to deal with new technologies in coming years.

Eventually, democrats will control government again. Thinking otherwise ignores history. When they do, there will be immigration reform which will radically reduce illegal immigration. Considering how long it will take to complete a border wall, we will probably have immigration reform long before the wall is completed.

If someone were to try and argue the wall in a court of a law, the case would be dismissed due to "Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

It seems to go over the heads of those who want a wall, but the Democrats wanted it before the Republicans did. Donald Trump borrowed his ideas and developed his agenda based upon National Socialist philosophy - even recruiting some of their think tank guys to help him sell the idea. In every country that walls have been employed, the builders of the wall were either in a war OR the wall was erected by socialists and / or communists.

In this country, you have a solution with people seeking a problem to apply it to. Has China's wall been effective? Well yeah, 92 percent of China's citizenry is Han Chinese. So, let's take the good with the bad here.

If we want to preserve our heritage; our language, culture, and customs then we have to scrutinize the illegal way the 14th Amendment was passed. If we go back to the first illegal attack against us, it would have to be that amendment. In short, if you are committed to preserving, protecting, and advancing the white race, then you may have a good case for the wall.

Economically speaking, you have NO case for the wall. The Americans are willingly engaging in trade with the foreigners. It's for the mutual benefit of both sides. NOBODY and no wall can save you from yourself. If you're going to give me that crap about them sucking off the welfare dole, that's a red herring because it's not true, and even if it were, THEY did not vote for the politicians who let them stick their hands in your pocket. The politicians YOU voted for did that.

In your own words, you are okay with the surveillance society - drones patrolling you 24 / 7 / 365; the government telling you where you can work and who you can work for; armed ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries keeping you in line and the people unable to resist tyrannical government due to the massive sized government you advocate to help save you from yourself. I disagree. I don't want it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

• About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.

ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.

First off, no, I"m not an addict. Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer. An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life. They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly. That's not me; it's not even close. It's like using the internet or watching television. It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.

Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public. We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with. In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people. I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem. But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide. We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.

As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago. I'm a truck driver. As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections. They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck. This has been going on for many years. And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.

The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong? They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong." Welcome to America.

I wasn't referring to your love of beer. You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD. Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it. If so, then you proved my point. If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society. For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it. And drinking beer on top of it??? Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.

There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know. Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."

You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay??? Is THAT your position?

What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality. And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD? And what does beer have to do with it? It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time. However the Constitution is limited to government only. You do not have the right to free speech at work. You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you. You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed. You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper. You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.

People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.

I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?

It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and qualitative analysis of the information. It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.

In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.

If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation. A man goes to a psychologist. His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated. Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?

We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom. The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society. I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."

When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor. Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients. However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government. Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.

Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property. I disagree. Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them. I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.

When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are. You may get locked up for some time. You may lose your house. Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper. You may not be able to find a job when you get out. You won't be able to vote. Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.

If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes. Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.

You must be new to America. Let me be the first to welcome you in. Now, this how our de jure / constitutional / lawful / legal Republic works:

A person has the Right to be secure in their "papers." I'm positive that the founders would then apply that today to the records that are kept on you. You are not secure in your papers when the government can circumvent the Constitution by making your past available to any Tom, Slick, or Harry on God's green earth.

Next, one must be realistic. Yesterday, Hush Bimbo (er... Rush Limbaugh) made the point that the feds lured Michael Flynn into a situation whereby they lied to him and led him - even coaxed him into breaking the law. Then, the prosecutors tell him that he will plead guilty OR be convicted and serve the maximum amount of time. So, even if he were NOT guilty, he's going to follow the path of least resistance. Unless you have relatives by the last name of Jobs, Gates, or Trump you are NOT going to take on the system. No rational person is going to take a chance on prison when the government can LIE about you and all you're doing is making a statement about your personal convictions.

You want to take the government's word for things and condemn a person for life. Then you want to mislead people as to what I believe. Your safety is NOT probable cause to rummage around in a person's legal past. The government cannot be trusted. Neither can you interpret their documents. And you would not read a court transcript to find out if an individual got railroaded. MILLIONS do get the shaft.

The best indicators YOU need to avail yourself of are the following:

1) Where does the person work and how long have they been there?

2) What does their present and past employer have to say about them?

3) What is their credit score?

4) How many residences have they lived in over the last five years?

5) Who are their personal references and how long have they known your potential renter?

You will find that to be a HELL of a lot more relevant than what a corrupt government has to say. BTW, my parents owned rental homes and an 84 lot mobile home park when I was growing up. That was what they did and it worked more times than not. Fact is, the worse tenants the old man had were Section 8 renters that the government vouched for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First off, no, I"m not an addict. Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer. An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life. They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly. That's not me; it's not even close. It's like using the internet or watching television. It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.

Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public. We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with. In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people. I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem. But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide. We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.

As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago. I'm a truck driver. As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections. They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck. This has been going on for many years. And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.

The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong? They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong." Welcome to America.

I wasn't referring to your love of beer. You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD. Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it. If so, then you proved my point. If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society. For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it. And drinking beer on top of it??? Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.

There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know. Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."

You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay??? Is THAT your position?

What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality. And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD? And what does beer have to do with it? It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time. However the Constitution is limited to government only. You do not have the right to free speech at work. You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you. You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed. You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper. You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.

People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.

I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?

It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and qualitative analysis of the information. It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.

In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.

If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation. A man goes to a psychologist. His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated. Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?

We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom. The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society. I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."

When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor. Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients. However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government. Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.

Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property. I disagree. Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them. I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.

When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are. You may get locked up for some time. You may lose your house. Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper. You may not be able to find a job when you get out. You won't be able to vote. Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.

If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes. Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.

You must be new to America. Let me be the first to welcome you in. Now, this how our de jure / constitutional / lawful / legal Republic works:

A person has the Right to be secure in their "papers." I'm positive that the founders would then apply that today to the records that are kept on you. You are not secure in your papers when the government can circumvent the Constitution by making your past available to any Tom, Slick, or Harry on God's green earth.

Next, one must be realistic. Yesterday, Hush Bimbo (er... Rush Limbaugh) made the point that the feds lured Michael Flynn into a situation whereby they lied to him and led him - even coaxed him into breaking the law. Then, the prosecutors tell him that he will plead guilty OR be convicted and serve the maximum amount of time. So, even if he were NOT guilty, he's going to follow the path of least resistance. Unless you have relatives by the last name of Jobs, Gates, or Trump you are NOT going to take on the system. No rational person is going to take a chance on prison when the government can LIE about you and all you're doing is making a statement about your personal convictions.

You want to take the government's word for things and condemn a person for life. Then you want to mislead people as to what I believe. Your safety is NOT probable cause to rummage around in a person's legal past. The government cannot be trusted. Neither can you interpret their documents. And you would not read a court transcript to find out if an individual got railroaded. MILLIONS do get the shaft.

The best indicators YOU need to avail yourself of are the following:

1) Where does the person work and how long have they been there?

2) What does their present and past employer have to say about them?

3) What is their credit score?

4) How many residences have they lived in over the last five years?

5) Who are their personal references and how long have they known your potential renter?

You will find that to be a HELL of a lot more relevant than what a corrupt government has to say. BTW, my parents owned rental homes and an 84 lot mobile home park when I was growing up. That was what they did and it worked more times than not. Fact is, the worse tenants the old man had were Section 8 renters that the government vouched for.

Wrong on so many levels.

If a person responds to my ad for an apartment and was a convicted child molester, do you think I want to rent to him if one of my other tenants was a frail single mother who lived alone? Should that very piece of important information be hidden from me and my tenant, and most importantly, her three year old daughter?

I have every right to know who I'm renting to and not just by their job or past rental history. I have tenants to protect, I have property to protect, I have myself to protect. I don't want to be put in a position of having to evict somebody who was a violent murderer.

Like myself, employers have the right to protect their workers and themselves as well.

Years ago our state had a program to help ex-cons work. They paid employers to hire them and give them a full-time job. The employer we worked with thought that was a great idea. So he loaded his floor with ex-cons. Next thing you know, fist fights were breaking out, so he hired a security guard. Then the security guard got hurt so he hired a team of security guards.

After a while, his other employees quit their job; some with the company for many years because of threats and assaults. Some even had their vehicles broken into and stolen. After a while, he quit the program. Even though he was making a killing by paying them low wages (nobody else would hire them) getting a kickback from the state, his workman's compensations claims were killing him. Nobody else wanted to work there and a reputation of the company grew. The security team was very costly. It just didn't work out.

There are very few zebras you can change the stripes on. And one of the responsibilities the government has is to protect their citizens. Keeping dangers hidden from them is not protecting innocent people.

 

[francoHFW]

The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican. Very happy to see the ten billion for Mexico and Central America which will do more good. This problem will of illegals will go on forever until the GOP comes out for national ID card like every other modern country that has this problem. Democrats no longer will do it because the GOP just caused the Communist and fear-mongers it..

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I wasn't referring to your love of beer. You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD. Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it. If so, then you proved my point. If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society. For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it. And drinking beer on top of it??? Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.

There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know. Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."

You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay??? Is THAT your position?

What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality. And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD? And what does beer have to do with it? It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time. However the Constitution is limited to government only. You do not have the right to free speech at work. You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you. You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed. You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper. You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.

People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.

I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?

It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and qualitative analysis of the information. It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.

In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.

If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation. A man goes to a psychologist. His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated. Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?

We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom. The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society. I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."

When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor. Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients. However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government. Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.

Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property. I disagree. Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them. I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.

When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are. You may get locked up for some time. You may lose your house. Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper. You may not be able to find a job when you get out. You won't be able to vote. Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.

If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes. Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.

You must be new to America. Let me be the first to welcome you in. Now, this how our de jure / constitutional / lawful / legal Republic works:

A person has the Right to be secure in their "papers." I'm positive that the founders would then apply that today to the records that are kept on you. You are not secure in your papers when the government can circumvent the Constitution by making your past available to any Tom, Slick, or Harry on God's green earth.

Next, one must be realistic. Yesterday, Hush Bimbo (er... Rush Limbaugh) made the point that the feds lured Michael Flynn into a situation whereby they lied to him and led him - even coaxed him into breaking the law. Then, the prosecutors tell him that he will plead guilty OR be convicted and serve the maximum amount of time. So, even if he were NOT guilty, he's going to follow the path of least resistance. Unless you have relatives by the last name of Jobs, Gates, or Trump you are NOT going to take on the system. No rational person is going to take a chance on prison when the government can LIE about you and all you're doing is making a statement about your personal convictions.

You want to take the government's word for things and condemn a person for life. Then you want to mislead people as to what I believe. Your safety is NOT probable cause to rummage around in a person's legal past. The government cannot be trusted. Neither can you interpret their documents. And you would not read a court transcript to find out if an individual got railroaded. MILLIONS do get the shaft.

The best indicators YOU need to avail yourself of are the following:

1) Where does the person work and how long have they been there?

2) What does their present and past employer have to say about them?

3) What is their credit score?

4) How many residences have they lived in over the last five years?

5) Who are their personal references and how long have they known your potential renter?

You will find that to be a HELL of a lot more relevant than what a corrupt government has to say. BTW, my parents owned rental homes and an 84 lot mobile home park when I was growing up. That was what they did and it worked more times than not. Fact is, the worse tenants the old man had were Section 8 renters that the government vouched for.

Wrong on so many levels.

If a person responds to my ad for an apartment and was a convicted child molester, do you think I want to rent to him if one of my other tenants was a frail single mother who lived alone? Should that very piece of important information be hidden from me and my tenant, and most importantly, her three year old daughter?

I have every right to know who I'm renting to and not just by their job or past rental history. I have tenants to protect, I have property to protect, I have myself to protect. I don't want to be put in a position of having to evict somebody who was a violent murderer.

Like myself, employers have the right to protect their workers and themselves as well.

Years ago our state had a program to help ex-cons work. They paid employers to hire them and give them a full-time job. The employer we worked with thought that was a great idea. So he loaded his floor with ex-cons. Next thing you know, fist fights were breaking out, so he hired a security guard. Then the security guard got hurt so he hired a team of security guards.

After a while, his other employees quit their job; some with the company for many years because of threats and assaults. Some even had their vehicles broken into and stolen. After a while, he quit the program. Even though he was making a killing by paying them low wages (nobody else would hire them) getting a kickback from the state, his workman's compensations claims were killing him. Nobody else wanted to work there and a reputation of the company grew. The security team was very costly. It just didn't work out.

There are very few zebras you can change the stripes on. And one of the responsibilities the government has is to protect their citizens. Keeping dangers hidden from them is not protecting innocent people.

In my opinion you do not belong in the United States of America. To paraphrase what Benjamin Franklin told me about you:

He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

You've admitted to being on drugs for what you think is a behavioral issue; you've admitted that you like to drink beer. When the liberals get through, you will not be allowed to own a firearm - and possibly your own avatar will be your worst enemy.

Look dude, the government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all that you have. They are corrupt and they lie. They lock good people out of society AND the government - starting with vulnerable children are the biggest purveyors of drugs in this country.

What counts is what a person is doing today - and what they have been doing in the recent past. If you're saying people cannot be rehabilitated, then we should keep them locked up forever. What you're promoting is plain out stupidity.

A person gets a criminal record. They are locked out of society. The Americans who committed a crime are unemployable. A foreigner comes in and works the job the Americans get locked out of and you're unhappy. I propose to put those Americans back to work and you fight me tooth and nail. You are only consistent with inconsistency. And you're not going to appreciate what I've said to you until it's your ass that is on the chopping block.

What you want will have a price. For everything you gain, there is something lost. So, when you get your wall and it don't pan out and the government starts looking for more people to jerk around, just think - you might be next.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican. Very happy to see the ten billion for Mexico and Central America which will do more good. This problem will of illegals will go on forever until the GOP comes out for national ID card like every other modern country that has this problem. Democrats no longer will do it because the GOP just caused the Communist and fear-mongers it..

Was that a joke? The Tea Party Republicans passed the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify YEARS ago. Who have here? Rip Van Winkle? LOL.

The wall is a done deal. Then, when Pelosi gets total gun control, the Democrats can laugh all the way to the voting booth when they take over in 2020.

 

[dblack]

The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican.

For the first time that I know of, I agree with you franco. I don't believe you, but I agree with you.

 

[danielpalos]

where is this alleged, wall building power to be found?

 

[francoHFW]

I wasn't referring to your love of beer. You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD. Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it. If so, then you proved my point. If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society. For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it. And drinking beer on top of it??? Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.

There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know. Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."

You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay??? Is THAT your position?

What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality. And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD? And what does beer have to do with it? It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time. However the Constitution is limited to government only. You do not have the right to free speech at work. You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you. You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed. You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper. You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.

People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.

I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?

It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and qualitative analysis of the information. It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.

In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.

If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation. A man goes to a psychologist. His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated. Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?

We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom. The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society. I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."

When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor. Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients. However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government. Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.

Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property. I disagree. Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them. I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.

When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are. You may get locked up for some time. You may lose your house. Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper. You may not be able to find a job when you get out. You won't be able to vote. Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.

If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes. Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.

You must be new to America. Let me be the first to welcome you in. Now, this how our de jure / constitutional / lawful / legal Republic works:

A person has the Right to be secure in their "papers." I'm positive that the founders would then apply that today to the records that are kept on you. You are not secure in your papers when the government can circumvent the Constitution by making your past available to any Tom, Slick, or Harry on God's green earth.

Next, one must be realistic. Yesterday, Hush Bimbo (er... Rush Limbaugh) made the point that the feds lured Michael Flynn into a situation whereby they lied to him and led him - even coaxed him into breaking the law. Then, the prosecutors tell him that he will plead guilty OR be convicted and serve the maximum amount of time. So, even if he were NOT guilty, he's going to follow the path of least resistance. Unless you have relatives by the last name of Jobs, Gates, or Trump you are NOT going to take on the system. No rational person is going to take a chance on prison when the government can LIE about you and all you're doing is making a statement about your personal convictions.

You want to take the government's word for things and condemn a person for life. Then you want to mislead people as to what I believe. Your safety is NOT probable cause to rummage around in a person's legal past. The government cannot be trusted. Neither can you interpret their documents. And you would not read a court transcript to find out if an individual got railroaded. MILLIONS do get the shaft.

The best indicators YOU need to avail yourself of are the following:

1) Where does the person work and how long have they been there?

2) What does their present and past employer have to say about them?

3) What is their credit score?

4) How many residences have they lived in over the last five years?

5) Who are their personal references and how long have they known your potential renter?

You will find that to be a HELL of a lot more relevant than what a corrupt government has to say. BTW, my parents owned rental homes and an 84 lot mobile home park when I was growing up. That was what they did and it worked more times than not. Fact is, the worse tenants the old man had were Section 8 renters that the government vouched for.

Wrong on so many levels.

If a person responds to my ad for an apartment and was a convicted child molester, do you think I want to rent to him if one of my other tenants was a frail single mother who lived alone? Should that very piece of important information be hidden from me and my tenant, and most importantly, her three year old daughter?

I have every right to know who I'm renting to and not just by their job or past rental history. I have tenants to protect, I have property to protect, I have myself to protect. I don't want to be put in a position of having to evict somebody who was a violent murderer.

Like myself, employers have the right to protect their workers and themselves as well.

Years ago our state had a program to help ex-cons work. They paid employers to hire them and give them a full-time job. The employer we worked with thought that was a great idea. So he loaded his floor with ex-cons. Next thing you know, fist fights were breaking out, so he hired a security guard. Then the security guard got hurt so he hired a team of security guards.

After a while, his other employees quit their job; some with the company for many years because of threats and assaults. Some even had their vehicles broken into and stolen. After a while, he quit the program. Even though he was making a killing by paying them low wages (nobody else would hire them) getting a kickback from the state, his workman's compensations claims were killing him. Nobody else wanted to work there and a reputation of the company grew. The security team was very costly. It just didn't work out.

There are very few zebras you can change the stripes on. And one of the responsibilities the government has is to protect their citizens. Keeping dangers hidden from them is not protecting innocent people.

Your only problem is listening to garbage propaganda Non-Stop... Rush Limbaugh during the day and Fox at night?

The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican. Very happy to see the ten billion for Mexico and Central America which will do more good. This problem will of illegals will go on forever until the GOP comes out for national ID card like every other modern country that has this problem. Democrats no longer will do it because the GOP just caused the Communist and fear-mongers it..

Was that a joke? The Tea Party Republicans passed the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify YEARS ago. Who have here? Rip Van Winkle? LOL.

The wall is a done deal. Then, when Pelosi gets total gun control, the Democrats can laugh all the way to the voting booth when they take over in 2020.

Too bad e verify is a joke doesn't work... I think the GOP Masters love illegal workers because they are cheap and easily bullied... GOP voters only care during a GOP depression or recession anyway. They like the cheap maids and Gardeners.

 

[francoHFW]

The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican.

For the first time that I know of, I agree with you franco. I don't believe you, but I agree with you.

I never lie and I am always right. How do you mean you don't believe me LOL?

 

[Flopper]

Back on topic...
We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.

So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?

When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.

Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?

Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.

My point is that we are not living in stagnation. More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving. This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating. The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US. There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people. Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead. It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control. Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues. These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.

It is not the wall democrats fear. It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.

 

[Flopper]

The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican.

For the first time that I know of, I agree with you franco. I don't believe you, but I agree with you.

I never lie and I am always right. How do you mean you don't believe me LOL?

You sound just like your mentor in the White House.