Ronald Hamric

Ronald Hamric 18 hours, 10 minutes ago on 953 Here's what failing to send illegals home and slamming the door after them can do to a country.

And I think you need to research your implication about what the SCOTUS ruled regarding Obama's Executive action regarding "illegals" deportation. Here is simply one and it is hardly from an Obama antagonist source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-won't-revive-obama-plan-to-shield-illegal-immigrants-from-deportation/2016/06/23/6cea5f1e-3950-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html And SCOTUS did not really "rule" on the issue. There was a 4 to 4 split, so the 5th Circuit's ruling on the matter stands.

Perhaps you are referring to something entirely different, if so you need to provide some factual sources. As it currently stands, the Administration has asked the SCOTUS to review that ruling with their wish to have it set aside. I think we will all simply have to wait and see what happens there.

And on your final point. I have yet to find many people who are viscerally opposed to "ILLEGAL" immigration (primarily due to it violating this nation's current laws), that are as viscerally opposed to "LEGAL" immigration. That we are a nation of immigrants is a no brainer. It is simply a matter of factual history. The mixing of the "illegal" as opposed to the "legal" immigrants is simply a ploy of the open borders factions.

The floor is now yours Mr. Eby. Try not to sound angry.

0

Ronald Hamric 18 hours, 10 minutes ago on 953 Here's what failing to send illegals home and slamming the door after them can do to a country.

Mr. Eby,

Not certain why you and others , when someone has a differing view on issues other than yours, you immediately jump to the conclusion that they are somehow "angry." You assume too much and apparently read far too much into how people express their views and opinions. You do not know me personally nor I you, so I won't presume who you are based simply on your views posted on this forum. I can tell you in all honesty, you have NOT seen me angry in the context you imply. As to the issue at hand, why did you choose to evade my question? Are this nation's federal laws of no consequence? Do you not appreciate that if you or I or others who post on this forum were caught breaking Federal law, they (Feds) would rain down hell fire and brimstone on us. How is it then that you make excuses and apologize, rationalize the violation via lack of enforcement, by those very elected officials that are above all else, charged with the enforcement of this nation's laws? How do you come to terms with the fact that people who have entered this nation in violation of our laws are not only treated with special privilege, but are given things that even natural born citizens of this nation do not enjoy? And I believe you are using a straw man argument as to how this whole illegal immigrant issue is dealt with. It does get a bit tiresome to continually hear folks imply that we "can't round up and deport the millions that are here". I would suggest in that vein that you need to study about "Operation Wetback" which President Eisenhower implemented during his term dealing with precisely the same problem we are facing today. In light of that successful operation, all your other arguments against such an approach become invalid. There was no "problems" for our economy. The same, if not even more "resources" are as available today as they were then. And how do you presume that I let ANYONE off the hook for their failure to honor and uphold their oath of office? Understand that when I put out my view on these types of issues, I am far from "angry". Disgusted with what I am witness to, certainly. And I am in very good company as there are millions more of us Americans who are equally as disgusted, that number far more than there are those that constitute the "illegal" population.

-cont'd-

0

Ronald Hamric 1 day, 6 hours ago on 953 Here's what failing to send illegals home and slamming the door after them can do to a country.

How about they both simply enforce the existing laws on the books. Is that too much to ask? Anyone who thinks either of those two really care about those "illegals" is a total fool. They are simply pandering for voters. PERIOD!!

0

Ronald Hamric 3 days, 16 hours ago on 932 Should we legalize most drugs?

Pat, Don't think I haven't had any experience with cigarettes. I smoked them for many years before they began to cause me some health issues, along with all the health information that the tobacco industry never wanted us to know. Heck, at one time it was darned un-American NOT to smoke. Had them issued in my C-Rations in the service. Have been off them for more than 40 years now. I try very hard, in light of my own use of them in the past, not to be hypocritical of those that still use them. I know how hard it is to kick the habit. I lost my older brother to chronic emphysema due to a two pack a day habit. BUT (and isn't there always a "but"?) you and I and anyone who haven't been living in another realm know very well the health risks that come with smoking . I breathed enough smoke just doing my fire service job that I should have succumbed long ago to the ills of inhaling particles of incomplete combustion (smoke). And yes, I am very familiar with people who have smoked most of their lives and lived to a ripe old age. Unfortunately for most, that simply goes against the factual data.

Those facts and data are one of the reasons I find it humorous that so many are pushing for legalized pot. Most pot is smoked and the hazards associated with it are no different than with regular tobacco as far as the lungs are concerned. As well are the second hand smoke issues for both. The lungs do not distinguish between types of smoke so much as they simply respond to it as something that does not belong in them. The other chemical effects on the neural centers of either tobacco or pot are a different issue. Yet the government currently seems to want to make ALL cigarettes go away and are trying to tax them into oblivion, yet they are relenting to marijuana legalization knowing full well that there is little difference in the health risks of either. Now you want to talk about being hypocritical? That is it!!

0

Ronald Hamric 3 days, 22 hours ago on 932 Should we legalize most drugs?

Don, Couldn't agree more. Where there is a market, someone WILL provide for the demands of that market. Even though prohibition on alcohol was repealed, there is still a very active "moonshine" trade going on to this very day. And let's not forget the drug labs that are present all over rural and metropolitan America providing for that market as well. Heck, while I was on our HazMat Response Team, we had to disassemble a drug lab in a hotel right across from the Magic Kingdom (Disneyland). Currently there is simply too large a market and too much profit in drugs for it to ever truly go away. The best we can hope for is to channel some of that profit back into the mainstream that is feeling the social effects of those who choose the path of drug use and their providers. I think taxes, although not the ultimate solution (look at cigarettes) , will at least be a minor disincentive for some perhaps. I really don't have much hope after all I witnessed in my career.

0

Ronald Hamric 4 days ago on 932 Should we legalize most drugs?

Pat,

Do you honestly believe that those same people are NOT out there this very day? The only difference as I see it, is the drugs they are currently on are mostly illegal, as opposed to being "legalized" in order to suppress the black market in the drug trade and take the huge illicit profit out of that trade. I have known hard drug users even at our highest level of government and social strata. Anyone who thinks it is a "blue collar" or poor person problem have their heads in the sand. It is all over the place right now. Making it legal and taxed is probably NOT going to increase or decrease the use of those things by those that simply cannot face life's tough issues without stuffing some junk into their body.

0

Ronald Hamric 5 days, 2 hours ago on 931 Another company, another myth.

I remember one thing Johnny Carson said as regards automobiles. He said" I want a car that runs off the fumes from the car in front of me." Now there is something Mr. Musk should work on.

0

Ronald Hamric 5 days, 2 hours ago on 932 Should we legalize most drugs?

Tom, Thanks for your help. As to the topic at hand. I know I must come across as having as much heart as a rock, but I did NOT arrive at this view overnight. As you said above and many times before, people should have the right to do whatever they choose to themselves as long as it does not cause problems for someone else. I agree with that. I believe it is called "Freedom". We have way too much government intervention into things they have no business sticking their noses into. Having said all that, "freedom" is NOT absolutely free from consequences. With all the information that has been put out in the public arena about the dangers/risks of drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc,, one has to be completely detached from reality to ignore all those facts and then make the choice to avail themselves of that junk. If they do, then why does it fall to someone else to fix the results of those poor choices? Does not everyone else have "freedom" as well? Freedom from having to support or deal with the results of other people's poor choices/decisions, both financially and emotionally? If someone falls on hard times through no fault of their own, I'm there for those folks. But when someone makes the terrible, conscious choice to abuse drugs (ANY of them, alcohol, narcotics, prescription drugs, cigarettes, etc) then don't expect ANY sympathy or response from those who are not that stupid. You want it? You got it! Just be man/woman enough to accept the consequences of YOUR choices. NO WHINING!!

0

Ronald Hamric 6 days, 1 hour ago on 932 Should we legalize most drugs?

Absolutely legalize ALL of it, but with one caveat. Not one copper penny of taxpayer money should be spent on ANYONE who chooses to avail themselves of this junk. And before the "compassionate" folks chime in about taking care of our brothers, then YOU reach out to these drug users and take care of them yourselves. I call it suicide by choice and they should be permitted to let THEIR choice run it's course without the slightest imposition on anyone else.

0

Ronald Hamric 1 month, 2 weeks ago on The monster has returned

Pat,

I've seen pictures of Buckhead Mesa at the turn of the century and it was all tall grass. Today it is cedar and juniper. I have little doubt that the policy of putting out every single fire as quickly as possible has led to this change in the regional landscape. Now perhaps we've learned our lesson and can get back to the reality that "nature knows best" and let the natural cycle run it's course. Certainly life and property STILL need the number one priority, but as we are seeing currently with the new approach the Forest Service is taking, we can do both at the same time. Of course there could be Managed burns that for whatever reason become unmanaged and do damage to property, Los Alamos, New Mexico comes to mind. But in light of all the decades of taking the wrong approach, I look forward to the results of this new approach. Now if we could just get the environmentalists out of Tucson to go along with the necessity of this new approach, I believe the final result will satisfy most everyone. Most agree there are simply too many trees for a healthy forest. It is how we get those forests back to their more natural condition that is the rub. I expect the fight to continue.

0

Prev