Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

"Extrajudicially executing" LOLOLOL.

The mentally ill has got it bad this morning.

I love how he honestly thinks anybody believes he is arguing on merit. It's just his latest crybaby outrage that per usual is based on zero fact.

Double tap second order argh!!

---

I would like to hear Civ's thoughts on what to do with these boats heading to our shores...

---

We are basically playing the same game of wack-a-mole that has been happening since the late 70s. America will declare victory and the cartels will adjust.

Prohibition doesn't work. Addiction is the problem. Pour the resources into treatment.

---

Are you willing to give more of your resources to treatment? Can we put you down for a specific tax hike, say 10% of your salary in addition to your normal taxes? You in?

---

LMAO….. he's NEVER worked a day in his life!

What he has his parents have given him. He has a "job" in title only.

He couldn't pour piss out of a boot with a week to study the instructions.

He's just being his normal BS lying self.

If he actually ever had to work he wouldn't be on this board day in and day during normal working hours.

Pathetic no life having loser.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Dave also said we couldn't stop immigration. It's been this way since the 70s. Look what happened. I think the unserious people like civ and Dave need to be ignored, which thankfully it seems this administration is doing.

Civ wants to jail special forces leaders for killing narco terrorists because he's mentally ill. These people no longer deserve a seat at the table.

---

LOL @ "wants to jail special forces leaders." Um, no.

It's like whack-a-mole in here.

This whole conversation started because y'all were tantruming that Congressional ex-servicemembers had the audacity to cite a portion of the UCMJ on video that reminded servicemembers of their right and obligation to follow the Constitution, and not illegal orders.

Then when only a couple of weeks later it became patently obvious why the Seditious 6 said what they did, when communication surfaced that pointed to Captain Underpants out there ordering extrajudicial double-taps on drug runners that posed no imminent threat to the US, y'all want to talk about "wanting to jail special forces leaders."

How about just "wanting Trump and GI Joe to not operate like they're above the law."

---

Captain Underpants? Extrajudicial double taps? Drug runners that pose no imminent threat? "LOLOLOL " But you're not mentally ill?

How about not pretending you have standards? We can just look at your posting history and it is very clear you don't, unless they are conservative.

Look how you've been on a milk carton about your "daddy" or Epstein. You're not much better than a Russian bot, programmed by someone in a faraway room to spout unfounded partisan rhetoric. Baaaaaa.

hokiewolf said:

---

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

---

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

---

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.

---

I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

---

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.

---

I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.

---

I think youre probably right overall, but this is the same line of excuse we always hear after failed policies. If youre going to make drastic changes in things like public health, you better be sure the infrastructure is in place before said changes. Time and time again, thats not the case and its blamed for failures.

Its why Ive shifted towards a "Ill believe it when I see it" mode with these changes. A lot of them are great in theory, but until I see them actually work...Ill continue to be a skeptic and wont believe itll work.

hokiewolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

"Extrajudicially executing" LOLOLOL.

The mentally ill has got it bad this morning.

I love how he honestly thinks anybody believes he is arguing on merit. It's just his latest crybaby outrage that per usual is based on zero fact.

Double tap second order argh!!

---

I would like to hear Civ's thoughts on what to do with these boats heading to our shores...

---

We are basically playing the same game of wack-a-mole that has been happening since the late 70s. America will declare victory and the cartels will adjust.

Prohibition doesn't work. Addiction is the problem. Pour the resources into treatment.

---

Are you willing to give more of your resources to treatment? Can we put you down for a specific tax hike, say 10% of your salary in addition to your normal taxes? You in?

---

if it solves the drug problem in America yes. But we are already throwing good money after bad shooting missiles at boats.

---

Drug Addiction Charities: 9 Organizations for Recovery and Support

https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/drug-addiction-charities
- - - -

Good on you and this should get you started. Make a large donation and post the receipts here for us to see.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Dave also said we couldn't stop immigration. It's been this way since the 70s. Look what happened. I think the unserious people like civ and Dave need to be ignored, which thankfully it seems this administration is doing.

Civ wants to jail special forces leaders for killing narco terrorists because he's mentally ill. These people no longer deserve a seat at the table.

---

LOL @ "wants to jail special forces leaders." Um, no.

It's like whack-a-mole in here.

This whole conversation started because y'all were tantruming that Congressional ex-servicemembers had the audacity to cite a portion of the UCMJ on video that reminded servicemembers of their right and obligation to follow the Constitution, and not illegal orders.

Then when only a couple of weeks later it became patently obvious why the Seditious 6 said what they did, when communication surfaced that pointed to Captain Underpants out there ordering extrajudicial double-taps on drug runners that posed no imminent threat to the US, y'all want to talk about "wanting to jail special forces leaders."

How about just "wanting Trump and GI Joe to not operate like they're above the law."

---

Are drug runners above the law?

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

"Extrajudicially executing" LOLOLOL.

The mentally ill has got it bad this morning.

I love how he honestly thinks anybody believes he is arguing on merit. It's just his latest crybaby outrage that per usual is based on zero fact.

Double tap second order argh!!

---

I would like to hear Civ's thoughts on what to do with these boats heading to our shores...

---

We are basically playing the same game of wack-a-mole that has been happening since the late 70s. America will declare victory and the cartels will adjust.

Prohibition doesn't work. Addiction is the problem. Pour the resources into treatment.

---

Are you willing to give more of your resources to treatment? Can we put you down for a specific tax hike, say 10% of your salary in addition to your normal taxes? You in?

---

if it solves the drug problem in America yes. But we are already throwing good money after bad shooting missiles at boats.

---

Drug Addiction Charities: 9 Organizations for Recovery and Support

https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/drug-addiction-charities
- - - -

Good on you and this should get you started. Make a large donation and post the receipts here for us to see.

---

Ahh, another day of Civ and Hokie trying to have an adult conversation while the rest of you (minus Flossy) are spazzing out like rabid teenagers spewing juvenile arguments and rage.

Same as it ever was.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

packgrad said:

---

"Extrajudicially executing" LOLOLOL.

The mentally ill has got it bad this morning.

I love how he honestly thinks anybody believes he is arguing on merit. It's just his latest crybaby outrage that per usual is based on zero fact.

Double tap second order argh!!

---

I would like to hear Civ's thoughts on what to do with these boats heading to our shores...

---

We are basically playing the same game of wack-a-mole that has been happening since the late 70s. America will declare victory and the cartels will adjust.

Prohibition doesn't work. Addiction is the problem. Pour the resources into treatment.

---

Are you willing to give more of your resources to treatment? Can we put you down for a specific tax hike, say 10% of your salary in addition to your normal taxes? You in?

---

if it solves the drug problem in America yes. But we are already throwing good money after bad shooting missiles at boats.

---

Drug Addiction Charities: 9 Organizations for Recovery and Support

https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/drug-addiction-charities
- - - -

Good on you and this should get you started. Make a large donation and post the receipts here for us to see.

---

Ahh, another day of Civ and Hokie trying to have an adult conversation while the rest of you (minus Flossy) are spazzing out like rabid teenagers spewing juvenile arguments and rage.

Same as it ever was.

---

Awww, I'm sorry you and Dave didn't get the water cooler shut down yet. Maybe they still will soon. Fingers crossed for you, little fella.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous takes I’ve ever heard.

It’s literally just flat out lies.

He says that Minnesota was promised to Somalians 3000 years ago and that the book of Genesis says that you must honor Somalians.

This must be one of the 70 IQ people that we’ve… pic.twitter.com/Q68XyrTuV3

— AmericanPapaBear™ (@AmericaPapaBear) December 3, 2025

Trump FIRES BACK at Ilhan Omar, What Happens Next Will SHOCK Many!! - Vi... https://t.co/hrScSbDYf2 via @YouTube

— CG (@CGL3960) December 3, 2025

Have you checked into it....and viewed the double chin. #LMAO

LOL, the corruption of our judicial system on full display.

It would take an act of Congress to defund Planned Parenthood

So Congress did precisely that

To suggest Congress somehow lacks the authority to do that is insane—and potentially impeachable https://t.co/eWMJl0JQ0u

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 3, 2025

Why do kindergarteners need gender studies? Why is Thomas the Teddy wanting to be a girl teddy named Tilly a relevant story for kindergarten kids? And on what planet is gender a “a feeling of who you thing you are - boy, girl, neither or a bit of both”? 🤦🏽‍♀️pic.twitter.com/DTsZiFiVvX

— TomiLola (@TomiLolaMoments) December 3, 2025

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

---

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.

---

I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.

---

I think youre probably right overall, but this is the same line of excuse we always hear after failed policies. If youre going to make drastic changes in things like public health, you better be sure the infrastructure is in place before said changes. Time and time again, thats not the case and its blamed for failures.

Its why Ive shifted towards a "Ill believe it when I see it" mode with these changes. A lot of them are great in theory, but until I see them actually work...Ill continue to be a skeptic and wont believe itll work.

---

Agree. You shouldn't ready, fire, aim when it comes to a dramatic shift in public health policies. Any Oregon officials that don't admit they weren't ready for this are gaslighting.

I do think overall that petty drug criminalization does more harm than good, and that we need waaaay more resources allocated to combat mental health and addiction.

Maduro's options seem to be dwindling.
Too bad, #Sieve.

🚨MADURO’S JUDGMENT DAY: THE NOOSE IS TIGHTENING

Fox just dropped the hammer: “Maduro is praying to Jesus.”

And he should be.

11 U.S. WARSHIPS — including the USS Gerald R. Ford, the largest aircraft carrier on Earth — are now positioned in the Caribbean.

Venezuela is fully… pic.twitter.com/zYkC8WH36F

— Jim Ferguson (@JimFergusonUK) December 2, 2025

So good.

For my money, the greatest Trump monologue of all time.pic.twitter.com/RH45DKijh5

— Keith Woods (@KeithWoodsYT) December 3, 2025

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

---

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.

---

I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.

---

Is it true that the block granting of dollars, from the Federal Government to the State Government help lead to the dismantling of Mental Health crises support we currently have?

This block grant was done during the Regan years. Since then, the states may have misused the funding and ultimately lead to the dismantling of the services.

Someone provide more context for me.

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

---

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.

---

I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.

---

I think youre probably right overall, but this is the same line of excuse we always hear after failed policies. If youre going to make drastic changes in things like public health, you better be sure the infrastructure is in place before said changes. Time and time again, thats not the case and its blamed for failures.

Its why Ive shifted towards a "Ill believe it when I see it" mode with these changes. A lot of them are great in theory, but until I see them actually work...Ill continue to be a skeptic and wont believe itll work.

---

Agree. You shouldn't ready, fire, aim when it comes to a dramatic shift in public health policies. Any Oregon officials that don't admit they weren't ready for this are gaslighting.

I do think overall that petty drug criminalization does more harm than good, and that we need waaaay more resources allocated to combat mental health and addiction.

---

I'm going to be nikpicky here...

That should have read: Fire, Aim, Ready

packgrad said:

---

So good.

For my money, the greatest Trump monologue of all time.pic.twitter.com/RH45DKijh5

— Keith Woods (@KeithWoodsYT) December 3, 2025

---

This is the raw talk that everyone needs to hear!! Plain and Simple!!