placeholder

Got a link to a credible source that shows Trump beat Clinton in the debates? As for the Biden Trump debate. Both performed abysmally. Biden just did worse.

People get their values and moral guidance from their parents.?So that's why the children of from families long established in the UK don't commit crimes...Oh wait a minute...

Your posting history speaks otherwise.

I did as you suggested and looked it up. It turns out you're right, that there is such a term as "second generation immigrants". But as the article notes "The term second-generation immigrant attracts criticism due to it being an oxymoron. Namely, critics say, a "second-generation immigrant" is not an immigrant, since being "second-generation" means that the person is born in the country and the person's parents are the immigrants in question. Generation labeling immigrants is further complicated by the fact that immigrant generations may not correspond to the genealogical generations of a family." So while there is such a term as "second generation immigrant" it doesn't mean "immigrant." Still, you were right that such a term exists and I was wrong.

If this was a maths issue, you might have point. But given that it's about the English language and James105's misuse of it, I'm beginning to wonder about your immigrant status.

A definition provided by a native bigot.

Here's the Oxford English dictionary definition of immigrant: a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country. "he's a recent immigrant to the US from Germany" https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+immigrant&oq=definition+of+immigrant&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU4OTZqMGo0qAIBsAIB&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 So according to you a second generation immigrant is a kind of immigrant who isn't an immigrant.

What exactly is a "second generation immigrant."

Really? Maybe you should read what you quoted again. It mentions the prosecutors twice. And the article goes on to say at the defense doesn't want details of biden's expenditures to be presented in court.

I'm sure your opinion is based on legal precedents and you're not just expressing a personal belief. Edit: actually sentencing guidelines don't allow drug or alcohol addiction as a mitigating Factor. So it's only useful as a tactic to gain an acquittal from a jury.

Didn't get the much traction at the gun trial which is actually a lot harder case for the prosecution. And it's you who quoted the portion of the article about the prosecution's case.

Actually, what Biden deserves, if he is found guilty, is whatever sentence those who have been convicted of similar crimes have received. What's the data on that? Does it say somewhere in the sentencing guidelines "deserves a long jail time"?

You seem to have utterly missed the point of that paragraph. The prosecutors weren't trying to excuse Biden because of his bad behavior, they were showing that he knowingly spent these funds in a depraved way instead of paying taxes.

Projecting much? You're the one who started this diversion with your claim about wrong usage. A claim that was disproven as conclusively as a claim can be.

I just checked it a little while ago and it was a bit below 19.

I'll tell you what. I'll apologize for the statement about Jamaicans if you apologize for claiming that you're not upset about it. Remember that this started when you made an over-the-top high dudgeon condemnation of Harris based on her father's condemnation.

Luke Cage was a show that failed to draw much of an audience. As for Harris's joke, had she not made an explicit connection to Jamaica, would anyone have assumed her youthful consumption of marijuana was due to her Jamaican heritage? And you have to be a real pearl clutcher to be upset about a reference to smoking marijuana in one's youth in this day and age.

Not obvious to me who has occasionally experienced such censorship which is their right to exercise. And if they were to allow people such as yourself to make unsupported assertions repeatedly, these pages would be abandoned by sensible people. I suggest you publish your assertions in the Journal of Because I Said So.

Luke Cage was not a documentary. And this scholarly comment does nothing to establish that Americans associate a black person smoking marijuana with Jamaican culture. Even if Kamala wore dreadlocks, which she didn't, I doubt most Americans would make the connection. But since she didn't present herrself as culturally Jamaican, why would even Americans knowledgeable about Jamaica make the connection?

I got news for you. This forum doesn't countenance unbridled free speech. And a good thing too. Otherwise, among other misfortunes,it would be overrun with people who make empty contrary to fact assertions citing themselves as authorities. There's a good reason the the rule stipulates links to credible sources. Your philological assertion would be better placed in the fiction forum.

Another empty assertion. Are you familiar with the rules of this forum that require assertions of fact to be backed by a link to a credible source? Rational folk consider dictionaries to be such a source.

Really? In America when Americans see a black person smoking they think that said person most likely is a Jamaican? It is to laugh.

For a minute there, I thought you were going to introduce evidence and not just double down on your unsupported assertion. I should have known better. Thank you self-appointed spokesman for speakers of American English everywhere.

And what has that got to do with your claim that lefties are 50% Marxist?

Owners also want to control wages hours and standards. That leads to negotiations. But what has that got to do with unions controlling the means of production? As the word indicates, it's owners who own the business and ultimately control it.