Latest Update on Large Drug Bust

Latest Update on Large Drug Bust

There are 179 comments on the KMAN-AM Manhattan story from May 9, 2013, titled Latest Update on Large Drug Bust. In it, KMAN-AM Manhattan reports that:

The number of arrests in a multi-law enforcement drug-related operation is up to 81 now, with additional arrests expected.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KMAN-AM Manhattan.

name it

Junction City, KS

#65 May 14, 2013
Fancy wrote:
We lose our rights everyday and nobody seems alarmed. Heard they listen in on phone calls too. No privacy at all and its all ok with a lot of people. We are losing our rights people. Some people were arestted for a roach and now they don't have a job because they went to jail.
what rights have we lost? I keep hearing we're losing or rights, but I haven't seen a single "Right" that we've lost.
Benjamin

Junction City, KS

#66 May 14, 2013
name it wrote:
<quoted text>
what rights have we lost? I keep hearing we're losing or rights, but I haven't seen a single "Right" that we've lost.
Here are a few...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/air-f...

http://www.businessinsider.com/trapwire-every...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/cell-car...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...

These should provide some good reading for you
name it

Junction City, KS

#67 May 14, 2013
I didn't ask for links to stories - can you tell me a right that you have lost
you sir

United States

#68 May 14, 2013
name it wrote:
I didn't ask for links to stories - can you tell me a right that you have lost
...are the douchiest of bags.
anthony

Manhattan, KS

#69 May 14, 2013
they haven't released how much of the tax payers money was spent during the 13 month investigation, all they said was it was very costly, they didn't release any information other than 90 people we're arrested and that the operation was costly and that their still making arrests.
anthony

Manhattan, KS

#70 May 14, 2013
name it wrote:
<quoted text>
what rights have we lost? I keep hearing we're losing or rights, but I haven't seen a single "Right" that we've lost.
you can't protest for more than three hours in front of government buildings, without being considered an unlawful assembly first amendment scratch that off, their trying to ban the second amendment, and they pass legislation against our constitutional rights so they don't have to obide by them, that sounds like we're losing our rights to me. and if we vote against something it don't matter cuz they'll take the electoral over the actual votes to get what they want, this ain't no free country unless your extremely rich and can pay for your rights
name one

Junction City, KS

#71 May 14, 2013
anthony wrote:
<quoted text>
you can't protest for more than three hours in front of government buildings, without being considered an unlawful assembly first amendment scratch that off,
What government buildings are you referring to - state, local, federal? As day-long (and longer) protests occur all over the country. As with any public area there is an expectation of rules to keep order. A three-hour permit to protest in select areas is not a violation of the first.
anthony wrote:
<quoted text>
their trying to ban the second amendment,
No one is trying to ban the second amendment. In fact right now, in all 50 states we have more rights to carry than we did prior to 2004 when the Brady Bill was allowed to expire. No one is trying to take away any rights, they are simply trying to find ways to balance a right to own a weapon with public safety - so nothing lost on the second
anthony wrote:
<quoted text>
and they pass legislation against our constitutional rights so they don't have to obide by them, that sounds like we're losing our rights to me.
The only legislation against the constitution that I have seen passed, at least in Kansas, is the legislation that attempts to supersede federal law, which will end up costing the state thousands to try and defend (and ultimately lose) in court.
anthony wrote:
<quoted text>
and if we vote against something it don't matter cuz they'll take the electoral over the actual votes to get what they want, this ain't no free country unless your extremely rich and can pay for your rights
On that we are in agreement - but it's not a matter of constitutional rights, it's a matter of law and order - and it has always been that way and always will.
name one

Junction City, KS

#72 May 14, 2013
you sir wrote:
<quoted text>
...are the douchiest of bags.
So in other words - you have nothing

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#73 May 14, 2013
hmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see if I understand you correctly. I support a law against crack cocaine - black people were busted for breaking that law - so I am a racist.
No sir, I would submit that your continuous support of and defense of those who break the law, and contribute to the ruining of lives through their illegal activities make you the racist. As long as racists, as yourself, refuse to acknowledge the root of the problem improvements in so many economically depressed neighborhoods will be slow coming.
IOW, this poor ass blames the victims of poverty for their situation.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#74 May 14, 2013
bill wrote:
<quoted text>
why is a crack bust racist? because mostly blacks were arrested? Thats not racist. Apparently thats who was dealing the stuff
The penalty for crack cocaine is greater than the penalty for the form of cocaine powder favored by white hipsters ("nose candy"), thus making the policy racist and you are definitely one. Not to mention a self-rigteous one at that.
Scratchanother

Junction City, KS

#75 May 14, 2013
anthony wrote:
<quoted text>
and if we vote against something it don't matter cuz they'll take the electoral over the actual votes to get what they want
So much for knowing the constitution. The electoral college is a part of the constitution. That is the election system established by the founding fathers. Oops.
hmmm

Junction City, KS

#76 May 14, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW, this poor ass blames the victims of poverty for their situation.
Let's stay on track here. Nothing that I said even comes close to indicating that I blame the victims of poverty of their situation.
You accused me of being racist because I support laws against crack cocaine.

What I said was that people with your attitude do more harm than good for the individuals who are struggling with issues of poverty. When all you do is make excuses for those who refuse to try and break the cycle of poverty, and those who insist on surrounding themselves with crime and drugs, you only contribute to their unfortunate situation.
It is important to understand the root cause of poverty and work to fix it, not excuse it.
bill

Junction City, KS

#77 May 14, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
<quoted text>
The penalty for crack cocaine is greater than the penalty for the form of cocaine powder favored by white hipsters ("nose candy"), thus making the policy racist and you are definitely one. Not to mention a self-rigteous one at that.
if thats the case, why dont they just use the powder? dude, you are clueless
anthony

United States

#78 May 14, 2013
Scratchanother wrote:
<quoted text>
So much for knowing the constitution. The electoral college is a part of the constitution. That is the election systeablished by the founding fathers. Oops.
oops everybody can read and write now no need for the electoral votes the only reason the electoral votes we're added was because not everyone could read and write when this country was founded, oops
anthony

United States

#79 May 14, 2013
name one wrote:
<quoted text>
What government buildings are you referring to - state, local, federal? As day-long (and longer) protests occur all over the country. As with any public area there is an expectation of rules to keep order. A three-hour permit to protest in select areas is not a violation of the first.
<quoted text>
No one is trying to ban the second amendment. In fact right now, in all 50 states we have more rights to carry than we did prior to 2004 when the Brady Bill was allowed to expire. No one is trying to take away any rights, they are simply trying to find ways to balance a right to own a weapon with public safety - so nothing lost on the second
<quoted text>
The only legislation against the constitution that I have seen passed, at least in Kansas, is the legislation that attempts to supersede federal law, which will end up costing the state thousands to try and defend (and ultimately lose) in court.
<quoted text>
On that we are in agreement - but it's not a matter of constitutional rights, it's a matter of law and order - and it has always been that way and always will.

how about cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines, the breathalyzer machines for first time dui offenders is cruel and unusual punishment and illegal search and seizure, that was legislation passed against the constitution
anthony

United States

#80 May 14, 2013
name one wrote:
<quoted text>
What government buildings are you referring to - state, local, federal? As day-long (and longer) protests occur all over the country. As with any public area there is an expectation of rules to keep order. A three-hour permit to protest in select areas is not a violation of the first.
<quoted text>
No one is trying to ban the second amendment. In fact right now, in all 50 states we have more rights to carry than we did prior to 2004 when the Brady Bill was allowed to expire. No one is trying to take away any rights, they are simply trying to find ways to balance a right to own a weapon with public safety - so nothing lost on the second
<quoted text>
The only legislation against the constitution that I have seen passed, at least in Kansas, is the legislation that attempts to supersede federal law, which will end up costing the state thousands to try and defend (and ultimately lose) in court.
<quoted text>
On that we are in agreement - but it's not a matter of constitutional rights, it's a matter of law and order - and it has always been that way and always will.
have you seen what happens to peacefully protestors there held off like criminals by armed police, and get arrested and all kinds of bullshit, that's why they had to have a military militia to protect the protesters Ay occupy wall street protest, cuz your a criminal if you don't agree with there corrupt policies
anthony

United States

#81 May 14, 2013
Scratchanother wrote:
<quoted text>
So much for knowing the constitution. The electoral college is a part of the constitution. That is the election system established by the founding fathers. Oops.
so much for knowing why the electoral college was put into the constitution,
anthony

United States

#82 May 14, 2013
hmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's stay on track here. Nothing that I said even comes close to indicating that I blame the victims of poverty of their situation.
You accused me of being racist because I support laws against crack cocaine.
What I said was that people with your attitude do more harm than good for the individuals who are struggling with issues of poverty. When all you do is make excuses for those who refuse to try and break the cycle of poverty, and those who insist on surrounding themselves with crime and drugs, you only contribute to their unfortunate situation.
It is important to understand the root cause of poverty and work to fix it, not excuse it.
I'm poverty level not cause I chose to be but because I was born into it, I can't get help from the government to better myself, I don't sell drugs, I just struggle to find work and barely survive, not because of crime or drug addicts on poverty level, but because its damn near impossible to get help if everything already has been fucked over by the previous generations who didn't care enough about there rights as humans to fight for a better future, instead just took what ever cause it is what it is, I'm sorry I would much rather be living free and not discriminated against cause I can't afford nice cloths and can't afford a car cause I'm to busy paying debts off that I never made. so I'm not socially accepted cause I'm poor and will slave for shit wages just to survive I'm sorry but it gets old after a while.
anthony

United States

#83 May 14, 2013
name one wrote:
<quoted text>
What government buildings are you referring to - state, local, federal? As day-long (and longer) protests occur all over the country. As with any public area there is an expectation of rules to keep order. A three-hour permit to protest in select areas is not a violation of the first.
<quoted text>
No one is trying to ban the second amendment. In fact right now, in all 50 states we have more rights to carry than we did prior to 2004 when the Brady Bill was allowed to expire. No one is trying to take away any rights, they are simply trying to find ways to balance a right to own a weapon with public safety - so nothing lost on the second
<quoted text>
The only legislation against the constitution that I have seen passed, at least in Kansas, is the legislation that attempts to supersede federal law, which will end up costing the state thousands to try and defend (and ultimately lose) in court.
<quoted text>
On that we are in agreement - but it's not a matter of constitutional rights, it's a matter of law and order - and it has always been that way and always will.

its not law and order its control if there was law and order the government and bankers would be held accountable for there actions, if it was law and order senators and there children would also get charged instead of being escorted home after being found smashed into a poll intoxicated, if it was law and order everyone would be held accountable for there actions not just the people who arnt socially accepted by the tyranny that's taking foot, and what kills me the most is they are succeeding in the devide and conquer antics against the lower and middle classes, instead of us just agreeing and helping each other
Scratchanother

Junction City, KS

#84 May 14, 2013
anthony wrote:
<quoted text>
oops everybody can read and write now no need for the electoral votes the only reason the electoral votes we're added was because not everyone could read and write when this country was founded, oops
anthony wrote:
<quoted text>
so much for knowing why the electoral college was put into the constitution,
You're not helping yourself at all, and with two replies to my post in 7 minutes, I'm beginning to think that you're high.

The electoral college had nothing to do with reading and writing as only property owners were allowed to vote to begin with, and they would have been the more educated people of their era. The electoral college had EVERYTHING to do with a balance of power between large states and small. It puts a limit on the number of votes that the large states can have and at the same time gives states with small populations at least a minimum say in who is elected.

If you need to take a civics lesson before commenting, please take your time so that you can get it right the first go round.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Drugs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Drug Investigation and Arrest in Laurel County 4 hr Kdog 3
News Sanctuary cities must be ended 6 hr Jim 6
News Fire remains under investigation; Chief doesn't... 7 hr Christy olden 1
News Authorities arrest 21, looking for 1 other in B... 7 hr well duh 2
News Hannibal police say four arrested after making ... 11 hr John 1
News Texas Rangers Raid Border Police Station a Cop ... 18 hr sullivan tax payer 1
News Depression still a top problem in high schools 19 hr johnjones125 3
More from around the web