Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
This is pretty convoluted,
What's so convoluted about "First, how is it known that most come by air and sea? Is that a supposedly educated guess? If actual deliveries have been known to be happening, then they all should have been stopped. If the smuggling has been successful (undetected), as it apparently was, then how has it been determined which way it came?"
Three simple and related questions. One straightforward statement. No convolution. Sometimes, I think you just like to use certain words. Like "convoluted."
it's the same argument Stephen Miller tried to use when Wallace embarrassed him yesterday morning. How about the pineapple smuggling along the Rio Grande? What, never heard of it??? Exactly the point.
Now, here you are skirting the borders of convolution, becoming "extremely complex and difficult to follow." Is there some scuttlebutt about whether pineapples are smuggled here more by air and sea than by land? I'm not following your comparison. Exactly what point are you referring to?
How about a really simple answer, the experts at the DEA have studied the issue in depth.
|
Have these "experts" explained how they arrived at their conclusion? That shouldn't be difficult to lay out in order to convince us that their figures are correct. Oh . . . have the experts actually discovered some numbers/ratios about how much comes across the border and how much comes by air and sea? Can you point out what numbers they came up with?
Or do you just take their word, and, as Jim in CT pointed out, do you dismiss the words of other "experts."
And, if the smuggling of narcotics by the air/sea combination is stopped, would that mean that "the most" would then be by land? Or would it mean that no more illegal narcotics would be delivered here from south of the border, not even by land? What is the relevant point being made by claiming one method smuggles more than another?