Random Discussions

2»

Comments

  • There are a lot of people I disagree with that I don't think have nefarious motives. The guy who wrote that article is condemned by the way he arranged it, and it's absolutely obvious if you don't have preconceived notions.

  • @Bill said:
    it's absolutely obvious if you don't have preconceived notions.

    Mate, when your reasoning is "it'd be obvious if you were without bias like me", save everyone the bother and say God told you.

  • edited June 24

    @Bill said:
    The author of that article fooled you, Clme. The officer wasn't a green officer; he was an experienced officer on the job since 2011. The reason why he was just sworn in was because he was changing his place of employment. Notice how the author did his best to bury that fact. The reporter was doing his best, with malice aforethought, to stir up trouble. Bury the fact that it was an experienced officer. Bury the fact that the stopped car had just been through a gunfight.

    No, he didn't fool me. I didn't reread the entire article before posting two days later, so I had forgotten the bit about him being an officer in the region since 2011. That was my mistake, not the authors.

    You already know my problem with headline writers thinking clicks are more important than anything. Thats the other thing... In most cases editors write headlines, and the writers are lucky if they get input on it. (I don't know if that is the case here, but it is in general).

    When I posted about how this article was just an add-on to previously presented facts I did read the articles from the previous days though, and I believe my point still stands. Remember that these articles are written by a TV station and not a newspaper too. There is a difference between how a TV website and a newspaper website presents their data.

    I fail to see anything in there that would present inciting a riot. Honestly, if this article were enough to make someone get out there and start breaking things they were already on the way there.

  • Saw on twitter where someone who'd toured a detention center for immigrant kids said there was a poster on the wall: "If you work hard good things will happen". Maybe they thought "work makes you free" would be a little on-the-nose?

  • That's almost too apropos to be true... Shens without pics...

  • I apologize if anyone's favorite tags got deleted. I did a mass purging of the ones that looked spammy tonight.

  • edited June 27

    Interesting story from USA Today about how asylum seekers go through their process. At least up until May of this year.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/01/what-does-mean-seek-asylum-united-states/564262002/

    Most interesting bit to me was how the asylum seekers actually had a year to fill out their paperwork after they requested asylum at the border. Also note they couldn't legally look for work until 150 days after they submitted their paperwork, and they couldn't request citizenship until 5 years after asylum was granted.

    Even with that, many asylum seekers were ultimately deported. But their children were not separated from them. If they crossed outside of a recognized port of entry they were charged, but only with a misdemeanor in civil court which still allowed them to apply and not lose their children.

    (Also, for the record, Obama did not separate 3000, 7000, 750, or 90000 kids from their parents [depending on the meme and timeframe]. The children referenced in those memes either arrived unaccompanied, or else their parents were wanted for felonies).

    This article mentions how so many refugees are escaping gang violence, which ties into the MS13 tweets and speeches that our president has been giving. Yet what else was changed in May in addition to criminal charges instead of civil proceedings? That's right! Fleeing gang violence is no longer an acceptable reason to apply for asylum! Also, for some reason, neither is domestic violence. Hrm.

    In addition, you would think most of these people would be coming from Mexico but that is not the case. In 2016, 25% of them come from just three countries. Less than 1000 asylum-seekers came from Mexico. (see page 43)

  • Something for you to think about, while at work today: https://sniffpetrol.com/2018/06/26/did-you-lock-the-car/

Sign In or Register to comment.