Barihawk

Rice is a lot of hard work and expectations. Very few of the "intelligent," "intellectual," "smart" kids from high school that I knew of survived there because they actually require you to be smart instead of just coasting by. I'd also recommend Houston. You can get a quality education at a state school, and get craploads of street smarts from meeting people from a more diverse group instead of half-brain dead, sleep deprived nerds (in the good way). Saving money is also a great thing. It's very nice to have money when you get OUT of college rather than having a lot of debt.

What I think is funny about my cologne choices is that it's mostly for men (or in some cases women) to notice me and that I'm willing to go out of my way to impress them. Mostly for professional stuff, though. Right guard, good hygiene, and a little gillette aftershave is all I do for day-to-day (and even dates).

You can fly with eye problems but expect to be flying cargo planes for a living. Glasses or Lasik only.

What's funny is that if you end up pursuing that field, your ESO will almost likely be my brother-in-law. Muwhawhawha. I have health concerns that keep me out of the military but I'm trying to get into the Department of Defense as a civilian teacher. I would get the same benefits as someone who signs into the military which will be great.

A Scotsman and an Irishman walk into a pub. The Scotsman says "Free drinks for everyone, on the house!" The next morning the headlines of the local paper read "Irish ventriloquist found beaten to death behind pub." A young Scottish couple had just been engaged when the woman began to complain about the paltry size of her engagement ring. The Scotsman said "You can't complain, you picked it out yourself. It's not my fault you don't know how to work the little crane." <3 Love Scottish people, just got to keep the rivalry alive :P.

A Scotsman and an Irishman walk into a pub. The Scotsman says "Free drinks for everyone, on the house!" The next morning the headlines of the local paper read "Irish ventriloquist found beaten to death behind pub." A young Scottish couple had just been engaged when the woman began to complain about the paltry size of her engagement ring. The Scotsman said "You can't complain, you picked it out yourself. It's not my fault you don't know how to work the little crane." <3 Love Scottish people, just got to keep the rivalry alive :P.

I don't know why, but it really annoys me when people say "why so serious?" The movie is old, the phrase is old, it's not cute anymore because everyone says it. "Lulz" in OT is like that one guy at a party who is constantly telling bad jokes and does not know when to stop, while the majority of the people who post in those threads are the people with bad humor who keep on laughing. I'm fine for something that's amusing, but fart jokes and describing your ejaculation are not really funny. Things like the "Funny Pictures Here" thread started off funny but the aforementioned "don't know when to stop" guys come in and ruin the thread.

You guys hit it on the head. Communes really only world (and do, in real life) with a small number of people. I'm talking village, here. There's just no way to transmit it to a society without everyone spreading out into farming communes and only producing what they need.

That's the only expensive stuff I like. I used to have a bottle, but I gave it to my brother. I think I need another, it's good for special occasions. I think my dad uses that. I might switch to it on my next bottle. But considering I've had this bottle of Polo for four years and am only down to 1/4 the bottle, I think it might be a while :P.

Heh, I just use Irish Spring soap and Right Guard and smell fine. If I do go somewhere fancy, I use Ralph Lauren, though. Go to a perfume desk and ask the lady for help with the toilette water. It's not like it makes you gay or anything to stand around smelling it. A good cologne can make a huge difference in certain affairs. I'd recommend not getting cologne for everyday use, though. It tends to be expensive.

Funny, I'd think if they were impersonating military operations they would be using the M-16, which is the standard battle rifle for Mexico. I'd also think they'd be cheaper and easier to get, since the military is dirty.

JIM, you could just not take what I said personally. Because generally, I'm sitting where you are hearing people saying that their ideas are correct and that I'm some backwards yahoo for not agreeing with them. It's OT, expect to be provoked. As for the sarcasm, that was only one post. The other posts were because I did find something wrong with your logic and commented on it, to which you kept repeating to me "That's what I was saying." But it wasn't. That was aggravating me, to be honest. Not nearly as wrong as other people, but I was trying to steer you closer a bit. And educate those other punks. Also, pent up frustration for the lose. I get it out when I get it. Also glad to see the discussion taking a more enlightened turn. Wait, a system that strives to only produce what is needed here and now is going to lead to profits? What?

I do kind of agree with that ban. I was not fond of seeing AK47's marked down at flea markets with some redneck giving me the sales pitch of "better buy it before Obama makes it illegal!" Then again, who the hell hunts with an AK47 or similar weapon? There is no reason for them to be on the market, not even home defense. EDIT: Sold assault rifles are not automatic, however. The automatic rifles and grenades in that news post were obviously given to drug runners by dirty military contacts. You can not buy grenades anywhere in America legally, period.

I don't take sarcasm well in this kind of topic. Mostly because *most* of the time people don't know what they are talking about. As for my condescending tone, learn to deal with it. It's me. I have no problem with it so it's unlikely to change. Fortunately I am very practiced and versed in the subject, so I am confident in my jackassery. And yes, I do teach. If you'd state facts instead of giving them out sarcastically, we might not be having this discussion. Sarcasm promotes little to an intellectual discussion except make you look smug, and it is not transmitted very well at all through text. If I don't know you're joking, I'll treat you like you weren't.

And here I am writing papers on black history using the term "black" and "white" like candy and nobody really cares. Of course this is East Texas, but meh. Don't shy away from racial topics. But don't be racist about it either. We may all be the same on the inside, but the way different races were treated for thousands of years led to distinct differences in culture and ideologies. We are different, and it's ok to talk about it. Personally I think we should try to celebrate our differences rather than attempt to hide or eliminate them.

The only internet research I do is on JSTOR and it's unlikely you pay $300 a year to read it like I do. And to be honest that's merely an archive of published material. Or books. Internet research is terrible, and I prefer print. If you'd like I can give you suggestions for class loads in universities and their graduate programs. About six years worth. Also, I'd like to point out that he did not invent Communism the ideal, merely communism the ideology. I explained how this should make sense in my last post, but forgive me as it involves some serious insight into Marxist theory to understand. No, we are regulated capitalist. When Marx was alive regulated capitalism didn't exist. It was Laissez-Faire. After the problems in the Gilded Age with people like Rockefeller and such, the US clamped down on industry (and likewise Britain) and began to regulate what businesses could and could not do. You see this today with the bailout discussions. We are *not* Capitalist in the sense that Karl Marx was writing about. Adam Smith would have a heart attack if he saw how government stepped into the economy, even in such "capitalist" nations as America.

I'm not nitpicking you, there are some so-called "socialists" and even "communists" on these boards who really need the pedantic lecture. And Communism as an ideology does exist. As a title of a book. I'm still saying that Marx intended in the Manifesto for a Socialist government. The word Communist as a political ideology was an invention of Stalin, almost purely. It was a bastardization of Marx, not a propaganda tool for the west. Lenin set out in the Revolution to create a socialist government, and Stalin changed that. He had his own unique view of socialism, which he called Communism because he felt it was the true method that Marx was pushing for. If you claim to be "Communist" you automatically claim to hold Stalin's ideology regarding totalitarian control over industry and commerce. In other words, you skipped the Socialist mini-stage of Marx' plan and went straight to utopia without setting it up. Socialism was the final stage in economic evolution, Marx would argue. Communism is the end result. You can't have Communism without a long period of socialism in order to set it up. Which is something that all Communist governments completely skipped. The change from capitalism to communism must be gradual or bad things will happen.

I don't understand whether you're countering my point or offering an explanation... :) Stalinism is a Communist-Marxist theory but there are also some non-Marxist forms of Communism. Someone claiming to be a Communist but whom doesn't act as a Communist, isn't a Communist. Then there is no such thing as Communism except for the name of Marx' book. Because all so-called Communist governments have used massive violence (Khmer Rouge made Stalin look like a boy scout) to secure their power, even when it was unnecessary. Communist governments use violence to gain control, much in the way that fascists do the same. On most political-economic models, Communism and Fascism lie on the same coordinates (ironically). While Socialism is close to authoritarianism, regulated capitalism close to republicanism, and laissez-faire where democracy should lie. Communism is an invention of Stalin, not Marx. Mark named his book that, but what he wanted was what we now call Socialism (which he also called it in his book). Socialism and Communism are about as different as regulated capitalism vs laissez-faire. Major differences, actually. Anyone who preaches Marx really needs to use the term socialism, because the modern connotation of "communist" has been bastardized.

You've read Marx? Then you will note that the implementation of socialism has never EVER gone the way he said it. Marx was speaking to German workers 150 years ago with a set plan and agenda. Not to a ragtag bunch of Russians who had a poorly educated and trained peasant base. Or Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese people of whom the "bourgeois" consisted of most of the nation and relied on illiterate peasantry to form it's backbone (the proletariat was created AFTER the revolution?!!) In all real-world implementations of Communism, there has been mass death of anyone who doesn't conform to the agenda, or who are labelled as not conforming to the agenda (such as the great purges in the Soviet Union by Stalin). There are no checks in real world Communism's power. No people to answer to, no force to balance anything done by the government. It is essentially a dictatorship, even if one person doesn't have the power (although in almost all cases, they do). Marx was a philosopher describing a utopian view of the future. His followers over the years have never taken into account that a push to socialism (WHAT MARX WAS ACTUALLY PROPOSING) requires a utopian society in it's own regard. Not to mention a distinct process had to be followed that was SKIPPED in almost all nations who adopted the Communist model (most of the time this step was an Industrial Revolution, which Russia had to fake it's way through, and China is just going through NOW). Hell, Russia found itself without a bourgeois after the Revolution (everyone had skipped out or fled the cities) so they ended up having to create one just to have a bourgeois to oppose! Now, those people calling you a Commie might be idiots. But so are you if you think what Marx was proposing was Communism. He wanted Socialism, where the government controlled most, but not all. Not Communism in it's modern sense, which was created by Stalin and mirrored in other nations. Also, there is no pure Capitalism in contrast with the pure Communism you propose. All "Capitalist" nations follow regulated Capitalism. The "invisible hand" so many armchair economists like to point out belongs to Smith's view of Laissez-Faire capitalism which died out in the Gilded Age about a hundred years ago. Describing things as Capitalist vs Communist is like using Conservative vs Liberal, only the extremes. Stalin alone penned the deaths of thirty million people within a ten year period, the vast majority of which had never done anything wrong except be born into certain families or classes before the Revolution. Claiming your views are right and killing anyone who disagrees with you? And then legitimizing this power as an extension of the Revolution? That's fascism. It's not the ideology, it's the practice. Not to mention the fact they couldn't just wake Marx' zombie up and ask him if they were doing it right or not.

Whiteguy, I am very well read on the subject, forgive my blatant use of sarcasm. Easily transmitted in person, not on the internet. I agree that corruption affects Mexico in the law enforcement agencies and military. But at some point they really do need to take control of their country back from the cartels. Even if that means asking for outside assistance. The cartels can network with Mexican officials all they want, but if Mexico invited the US in to deal with this the cartels would be naked and exposed. The problem is that politicians are worried about retribution and rightly so, but also because they fear what happened to Mexico the last time the US decided to stop by and intervene (the Pancho Villa crisis during the Revolution). It's really a sad state of affairs, but something does need to be done. I'm sorry if I came across as being ignorant. I'm told I have a flair for the dramatic at times.

Forgive me, I misunderstood decriminalization as legalization. That makes a ton more sense. I agree with that assessment, I was thinking decriminalization in the sense of legalizing the narcotics. That was driving me insane. I fully support detox programs and things like that for first timers and that distributors should be the ones going to jail. I fully disagree on legalizing prostitution but this debate isn't really about that. Sorry for causing a fuss. I do believe that legalization and taxation of these products would be a very bad thing. However, people who habitually abuse these drugs and begin to drain the detox programs should probably have some legal discourse enforced on them. Would that be considered fair?

Aren't you forgetting something? Oh yeah, the people dying from drug use. Cocaine in it's purest form is dangerous, but not necessarily lethal. Problem is that it's expensive, even if it would be legalized. The poor would still be turning to unrefined or dirty drugs to get their fixes. The gangs centered around illegal drugs would still be there, so would the crackhouses and prostitution. It's the exact same game except the government makes the money, not the cartels.

Um, the policies called, "The War on Drugs" is something proposed by the US, not some gang war battle about drugs (1). The most extreme drugs are the cause for concern with respect to these cartels, they barely even deal in marijuana. Legalizing marijuana is the first step, and you could even combine decriminalizing all other drugs with the legalization of marijuana. Decriminalization is really the only first step that I see towards making these cartels lose some of their power. We can go from there when we figure out how to truly stop them. Wait, I'm sorry. Are you pushing for the decriminalization of cocaine, meth, and other drugs that are proven to be EXTREMELY bad for you? These drugs are not bad because of the drug trade, their crime against humanity is rooted in the distributor/buyer relationship. Even if legalized, only the wealthy will be able to afford them (like it is now) which they can distribute amongst the poor in the ability to keep them coming back for more...like now. Putting a tax on it's sale is essentially profiting off of people's misery and exploitation. It's also a pretty bourgeois thing to say, considering this is you. Screwing the poor for the benefit of the rich, and so on. Sure, you may hurt the cartels. Or you can make them expand their networks with no repercussions. Never mind the blatant disregard for Americans who are going to be getting hooked and dying with no legal recourse (hell, the distributors would have legal protection, actually). This is like dropping a nuclear bomb where a bullet might have sufficed. How about instead of legalizing narcotics, we give one rifle, a handful of bullets, and some intelligence to the Mexican authorities and tell them if they can't grow a pair of balls, we will march in their country and do it ourselves. Set a nice precedent for the South Americans, while we are at it. Marijuana can be argued and debated as being "harmless" all day and all night. Narcotics are a completely different category of drug that have profound health impacts even after the first use and are extremely addictive. While we are at it, let's re-legalize slavery to end the illegal slave trade that has cropped up in the US. Because it exists, and Mexicans are smuggled across the border much more than drugs. That ought to put a dampener on the slaver's profits. Or will it? Also, this thread is crack full of half-baked speculation, subjective sources, and crackpot theories. All referring to people other than magekllr. I thought his post was great, except for the little bit that launched my tirade above.

If I knew where the cameras were (as an agent) I probably would be in the air or in a blind spot :P.

That's the entire point. If illegal immigrants or drug dealers knew where the cameras were pointing, they would be able to use this new technology to get through unnoticed. The only way they would know where the cameras are looking is if they'd personally walk around the border and take pictures, in which case they'll probably be arrested. Whats stopping them from going to the website and knowing the areas? Hell It wouldn't be hard to know the area and shoot/blow up the camera. At least five helicopters fly that particular border and I'm sure if a camera went out they'd be on it like a ton of bricks. There's very little in the wastes for people to get away on and settlements are heavily patrolled. Then again, these cameras only select high risk areas where things are being "staked out." They in no way cover the entire border region and there are lots of blind spots. The cameras are only there to 1) provide awareness and 2) deal with high risk areas used for drug and slave trafficking.