mikebike

9 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

I think they are unequivocally pandering to the extremely liberal left-wing weirdos in an attempt to capture a minority demographic. 

Or, more logically, they are looking to expand their enrollment base by 100%.

11 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

The extremely liberal left-wing weirdos. 

You think that’s why the BSA wants to ramp up female membership? Couldn’t be their enrollment dropping like a rock the last couple of decades, eh?

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

What a weak, weak bunch of PC 'leadership'.  And Girl Scouts next?  Boys Brigade?  Hu-MAN?   where will it end?  a bunch of minorities holding sway over the masses it's outrageous we allow this to happen and is why people vote for megalomaniac Trump because they have HAD ENOUGH. 

 

Anyway what has BSA motorbikes got to do with the Scouts?

Which minorities are holding sway over the masses?

39 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Think I understand what you're trying to say. However, personally, I would not define people attracted to Islamist ideology / neo Nazism as 'warriors'.

Yeah, that post/thought was awkward...

I agree, I would not define them that way as well... but this is how they self-define and is significant in their life choices.

1 hour ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Can you offer an explanation as to why the guy's recent conversion to Islam made him plot terror attacks? Is there something about Islam that encourages its followers to attack people, or is his recent conversion to Islam merely coincidental and if he had converted to lets say Rastafarianism or Buddhism he would still be compelled to attack non believers?

Didn't the OP clearly state he was attracted to the IS version of Islam because of the fighting? So he had a desire to be a fighter and then looked for the extremist branch of the religion which suited he desire. The key being he was looking for a fight and looking for someone to justify and inflame his personality flaw. Some of these youngsters end up with IS some with the neonazis. The point is they are looking to be warriors before they find their justification.

Wonder who is crafting the paper-trail. 45 better have accountants better than his lawyers!!

5 minutes ago, meinphuket said:

These economic migrants should be returned to the first country of entry ie. Mexico which is considered a democratic nation, and apply for asylum there. The American pie is only for legitimate migrants, not illegals.

So if I am understanding you, if these particular migrants/assylum-seekers were Mexican you'd be fine with it, correct?

12 minutes ago, poanoi said:

i do not disturb or steal business opportunities just cause i feel like using their

chairs, and i do have a tremendous back pain.

if i do chose to sit and occupy their property, i make damn sure to order something

to justify me sitting there right away.

i do not have the nerve to just spoil their business at my leisure

Again, that is trespass, not loitering. My response was to a poster calling them loiterers.

I just don't see any political will in any of these other countries to do what you suggest. They just  do not have the same issues with migration that the USA does. These countries are not having their populations drained as you imply.

3 minutes ago, jimmyyy said:

They broke the rules, they should be paying starbucks.

Weird that Starbucks does not agree.

6 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

I'm thinking Central American countries would agree to the deportation process. Mexico doesn't want these caravans travelling through either. And their countries of origin presumably don't don't want their population drained. It would only be temporary in any case, until the people get the message.

There seems to be no evidence to back your theory that any central/south American countries would be amicable to forfit their sovereign rights to the USA. In fact most discussion seems to point to the polar opposite.

3 minutes ago, ezzra said:

In litigious America there must be by now a bunch of people just waiting

hoping and praying to be harassed, discriminated and dragged of

a flights just to be able to sue for millions....

Just NOW? This seems to have been a form of occupation for some for decades. In both personal and corporate litigation.

CharlesSwan:

You do realize "the other side of the boarder" is a soveriegn country where the USA has no jurisdiction to "place guards" or transport anyone anywhere, right?

12 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You tell me. 1st, name the crime you're referring to since humping isn't 1, then find the statute.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

We have been discussing "defamation" as introduced in your post which I replied to.

9 minutes ago, smedly said:

is this a wind up post 

 

lets say you own a coffee shop and someone walks in sits down at one of your tables opens a laptop using your free wifi and refuses to buy anything

 

you ask them to leave and they refuse...……………….what next ?

 

only one option

That's trespassing not loitering.

1 hour ago, skorp13 said:

Out, get 'em out! No entrada!

Sorry to be so cold blooded about this but the U.S. can not be taking in the disfortunate from other countries while it so grossly continues to ignore its own. Also these people need to be vetted properly for their backgrounds as well as any prior criminal history and we can't have them wait on the U.S. side of the border where they can commit crimes against U.S. citizens

If you know how bad it is for disfortunate US citizens in the greatest country in the world imagine what it must be like for the disfortunates in shithole countries without the resources of the richest country the world has ever seen and without the US's robust human rights laws...

6 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You should read the article before posting. Seems she couldn't remember a whole lot of details but suddenly, 6 yrs later it all becomes clear? 

I am well aware of the facts. Just a simple answer for your simple question.

Question for you: have any statutes of limitation run out?

Question. Why is loitering considered a "crime"? Has anyone here ever loitered? If yes, do you feel like you were committing an incarceratable offence?

So as we move towards this historic summit NK is saying, and doing all the right things, setting themselves into the role of the capitulators. 

What do we actually expect to see in a deal? Or, what is each side really expecting to accomplish?

We are expecting total NK disarmament and capitulation. What is the trade-off? What is an acceptable  US counter-offer?

If the negotiations go south, has NK successfully positioned itself to claim higher ground? Ie: "we have done everything you have asked and all we want is X... why can't you give us this one concession. If you don't we will walk but the egg will be on your face".

5 minutes ago, meechai said:

 

Common Sense would agree

What does common sense have to do with govt policy?

21 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

But you didn't address the highlighted part......

 

There's the problem with you guys....you believe nothing that you don't want to believe/doesn't suit your agenda.   If she'd said that he had nothing to do with KJU's changed position, you'd be all over her like a bad suit, saying what a great politician she was.   

I didn't address that directly because I see no situation where the FM would say that. Even if it were true there is no value for a FM to state it publicly. BUT if what she did state publicly was true or not it serves a powerful purpose for her as FM.

I don't know her but she seems to be a competent FM in her handling of this.

26 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The object of the story I posted says they got it wrong. What happens then?

 

I'm not saying they got it wrong BTW, I'm saying it is really shoddy journalism. So shoddy it could give license to, dare I say it, "fake" stories ,, as no one would know the difference except the person they're writing the story about.

Then, if they believe they have a case and can prove it they sue and crush the liar(s).

36 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I read those same articles quoting people who decline to give their name, while people who are willing to go on the record say it's bullshit.  Article after article after article quoting "sources". Since no one ever names the sources, what's to stop the "journalist" from just making up stories and saying they got it from a "source" who declines to go on the record?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kelly-calls-bs-report-called-trump-idiot-211307512--politics.html

I believe the country's libel laws are what was put in place to protect protect both journalistic integrity and individuals from unsourced abuses. The journalist does not have to reveal sources unless they are called to do so in a court of law. Very smart those earlier US politicians.