losing your head in mexico...

[Chiutfan]

The victims' eyes were taped shut and the heads had been severed only a few hours before they were discovered, the statement saidhttp://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/WORLD/americas/03/10/mexico.heads/art.heads.in.coolers.jpg

5 human heads discovered in ice chests in central Mexico


no no no miha, when I said I wanted some head, thats not what I meant.

[BillVol]

The violence you see in Mexico will be here. Our homes will be like Mexican homes. Gated communities. Bars over windows. Walls around homes. No middle class. Lots of poor people.

This is what happens when you value your working class equal to that of workers in China and Mexico. And you lose manufacturing.

Ironic here: Newspapers are dying in large measure IMO because of the shrinking middle class. Poor people don't read newspapers. This is ironic because it is our nation's liberal media that has encouraged measures like NAFTA! Now, it is biting them in the butt! At the same time, much big business has backed NAFTA, now their companies are going bankrupt? Why? Because nobody here can buy their products?

[Oracle]

:chicken: Little

[OBs Dogs Nutsack Flea]

Mexico has a terrible problem because a large percentage of the police are corrupt and the money to be made in the drug business is HUGE compared to money being made anywhere else in Mexico. When you combine the two it's a recipe for violence. The violence won't be here to that degree because it's too damn hard to buy off an entire police force. You might get one or two, but that won't cause violence to escalate to that level.

The reason nobody's reading newspapers any more is that there are so many other options for news media that provide information minute to minute as opposed to once a day. By the time I read the paper each day, I already know more about the news than is what being reported. The exception (and the only reason I read the paper) is that local news and sports aren't as accessable via internet (at least not where I look).

[BillVol]

Mexico has a terrible problem because a large percentage of the police are corrupt and the money to be made in the drug business is HUGE compared to money being made anywhere else in Mexico. When you combine the two it's a recipe for violence. The violence won't be here to that degree because it's too damn hard to buy off an entire police force. You might get one or two, but that won't cause violence to escalate to that level.

The reason nobody's reading newspapers any more is that there are so many other options for news media that provide information minute to minute as opposed to once a day. By the time I read the paper each day, I already know more about the news than is what being reported. The exception (and the only reason I read the paper) is that local news and sports aren't as accessable via internet (at least not where I look).


OK, if that's the case (people reading net instead of newspaper), how come very few internet newspaper sites make money. I think someone said here that only the WSJ makes money. Maybe there are more, but I doubt many more.

Police corruption will be here in force, especially as the "culture" of Latin America grows here. It is a part of their culture and they will be the first to say so. Not that we're angels anyhow. With or without them, it will be more of a problem here because of the economy and the demand for drugs. There would be no drug violence in Mexico if not for the demand created by the United States.

[Napervol]

The difference in our police forces vs. theirs is first world compared to third world. We have always had corruption but never like them.

Agree on the NAFTA thing.

The "culture" that needs to be fixed is having babies like rabbits without a partner. This culture is being coddled and people whine about guns on the street instead of complaining and changing the one parent no job culture. You will always have situations where one parent households do excellent. But the "babies at 15 without a daddy and nobody working" households will kill our country eventually.

Legalize the damn drugs, sell them at a drug store and put the gangs out of business. That is probably one thing the government could do well since most of its employees (congress) are using the product and have much experience.

As for the paper thing. We still get a paper but it is getting smaller and smaller- and slower and slower. You get info days later after reading it on the net. Kids are more techno. They are reading a lot of stuff, but no newspapers. Newspapers have to change the business model instead of standing around with their hands on their butts.

Advertising pays the bills for those free sites. The Wall Street charges for some of its info because it can. KNS tried it on a pay site and failed miserably.

[SoftballVol]

This is ironic because it is our nation's liberal media that has encouraged measures like NAFTA! Now, it is biting them in the butt! At the same time, much big business has backed NAFTA, now their companies are going bankrupt? Why? Because nobody here can buy their products?
The liberal media is in lockstep with the unions and that means that they most definitely do NOT support NAFTA. The liberal media has been anti-NAFTA and anti-free trade for many years. NAFTA hasn't destroyed manufacturing in this country. Unions and trial lawyers and environmentalists have destroyed manufacturing here.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

Speaking for myself (which is all I can really do), I don't read the Wall Street Journal or any other on-line paper unless I'm prompted to go there. Several times a day, I go to MSN's main page and check out the news stories posted there. If anything catches my eye, I dig around further. All you have to do is google news the topic and you'll get a jillion stories about it.

If you can keep up with the top ten national and international news stories of each day, you normally have it about covered.

There's no doubt that US demand for drugs helps fuel the violence...I'm with Naper - legalized the drugs in the US, tax them real good and keep the price as low as possible so some dodo gets strung out, he won't have to break in my house to feed his habit.

[VaVol]

OK, if that's the case (people reading net instead of newspaper), how come very few internet newspaper sites make money. I think someone said here that only the WSJ makes money. Maybe there are more, but I doubt many more.
Bill, very few newspaper website make money because the economics are much different online than they are in print. 1000 eyeballs online doesn't equate to the same thing monetarily for print. For every dollar an advertiser pays to reach in print, they pay about 5-10 cents to reach the same online. As more people shift from paper to online, that's a lot of lost revenue that the newspaper publishers lose. And they haven't been able to figure out how to make up the difference yet. WSJ makes money because they charge a subscription fee. Not true for most every other paper as they simply don't have the same cachet.

[Chiutfan]

[QUOTE=Dog of Orangebutt;3238]Speaking for myself (which is all I can really do), I don't read the Wall Street Journal or any other on-line paper ......




yeah we know and it shows.... you and flea, what a pair...you shit and he eats it...

[OBs Dogs Nutsack Flea]

that my flea's turds are smarter than you....

[LegendofNation]

In fact, it will make it much worse. You people think that when pot is legalized, everyone is just gonna drive to the local drug store and buy an ounce. Bullshit. Everyone and their grandmother will be growing the shit themselves and selling it all over the place. You will have HUGE cartels right here in the USA. Crime will go up, accidents will rise, your insurance premiums will sky rocket on your vehicle and home, etc.

Nothing, not one thing good will come from it. Only bad, but the Liberals sure will be happy when another section of America is flushed straight down the toilet.

[ZippyVol]

Everything you said is wrong. As this is not a political board, I wont go further to explain (and I doubt you would really listen anyway).

[ZippyVol]

The liberal media is in lockstep with the unions and that means that they most definitely do NOT support NAFTA. The liberal media has been anti-NAFTA and anti-free trade for many years. NAFTA hasn't destroyed manufacturing in this country. Unions and trial lawyers and environmentalists have destroyed manufacturing here.


Just how, exactly, have trial lawyers 'destroyed manufacturing here'?

If you want to answer, please do so on the politics board. Also, please include your definition of what you think 'trial lawyer' actually means so that the discussion has accurate context.

[ZippyVol]

In fact, it will make it much worse. You people think that when pot is legalized, everyone is just gonna drive to the local drug store and buy an ounce. Bullshit. Everyone and their grandmother will be growing the shit themselves and selling it all over the place. You will have HUGE cartels right here in the USA. Crime will go up, accidents will rise, your insurance premiums will sky rocket on your vehicle and home, etc.

Nothing, not one thing good will come from it. Only bad, but the Liberals sure will be happy when another section of America is flushed straight down the toilet.

A few questions:

1) If everyone and their grandmother is growing it in their backyard, who would be left for them to sell it to?

2) If it is legal to sell, why would you use the term 'cartel' to describe the sellers? A more appropriate term would be businesses. Because, you know...it would not be illegal to sell it.

There is basically no way whatsoever to defend your statement that crime would RISE if it were legalized. This should be obvious to even the least sophisticated of observers due to the simple fact that there would be less crimes to commit. For reference, please see The Volstead Act, history of.

Now, if you want to argue that the country would see moral decay; well, at least that is defensible. Its still wrong, but its not as illogical as what you are trying to argue here.

Last off topic post from me here 'till this thread moves over to the politics board. I really mean it this time.

[LegendofNation]

A few questions:

1) If everyone and their grandmother is growing it in their backyard, who would be left for them to sell it to?

2) If it is legal to sell, why would you use the term 'cartel' to describe the sellers? A more appropriate term would be businesses. Because, you know...it would not be illegal to sell it.

There is basically no way whatsoever to defend your statement that crime would RISE if it were legalized. This should be obvious to even the least sophisticated of observers due to the simple fact that there would be less crimes to commit. For reference, please see The Volstead Act, history of.

Now, if you want to argue that the country would see moral decay; well, at least that is defensible. Its still wrong, but its not as illogical as what you are trying to argue here.

Last off topic post from me here 'till this thread moves over to the politics board. I really mean it this time.

You know exactly what I meant when I said everyone and their granny would be growing it. Why you have to act like a complete idiot on these types of things is beyond me. With people growing tons of pot all over the place home robberies will sky rocket, as well as accidents and every damn thing else you can think of. If you dont understand that fact then you are a true idiot.

More people will be growing, selling, and using pot. Its complete lunacy to say that crime will not rise. Just out of this world complete and total nonsense. "Less crimes to commit." Are you insane?

[ZippyVol]

More people will be growing, selling, and using pot. Its complete lunacy to say that crime will not rise. Just out of this world complete and total nonsense. "Less crimes to commit." Are you insane?

If pot is legal: growing it, selling it, and using it more frequently...even including every single solitary soul; man woman and child... would actually create less criminals than today. And no, that's not lunacy. It's not even an opinion. Its fact. A quite simple one, really...you should barely have to engage your brain at all to understand.

If you want to argue marijuana should remain illegal, you really need a more convincing argument. I'm trying to help you out here.

[Polemicvol]

Last year off of internet advertising. Almost enough money to pay for their worldwide newsgathering effort. But they lose money on the print edition, enough that they are in the red overall. Their new income model includes a "pay to link" feature, but I'm not sure how they will collect that revenue.

In 5 to 10 years most major newspapers will only print a Sunday edition and everything else will be on line. And it might happen sooner than that, but some papers have families and trusts and so forth that keep them printing, even at a loss.

There is a great article in Newsweek last week about the Newspaper business. I'll see if I can find it.

Here ya go, "Dubious new models for News".... (http://www.newsweek.com/id/185804)

[Polemicvol]

Let him have it, wear him out.

Don't fuck with Zippy the proto-attorney on legal shit and definitions. He actually knows what a lot of words mean.:thk: