Arvoitus 1 #1 July 9, 2014 If you think about it, it makes absolute perfect sense for Mexicans to do that.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 July 9, 2014 You may want to run a check of the original source article. If you're having difficulty because you don't read Spanish, Google Translate does a decent job with it. I do not believe the article you linked by "examiner.com" has accurately described the situation. But again, I invite you to do your own investigation into whether I've reached the right conclusion on that and the "examiner.com" writer is just being a conservative troll baiting asshat.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 840 #3 July 9, 2014 Surely not such a trusted source as "examiner.com"?!?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 July 9, 2014 IagoI stand by my opinion that Mexico had been doing this for months with organized logistics from South to North. It is now just 'above-board' and official. Well, that may very well be your opinion, but nothing in the original source article says anything about "facilitating travel from Central America to the US border." That is a conclusion drawn by the "examiner.com" writer and yourself. What the original source article says is amazingly similar to what we'd want any country dealing with refugees to do; have some compassion for people fleeing a horrible situation and ensuring that the refugees are treated humanely. Nothing in the original source article even remotely mentions sending the refugees farther north and into the US.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 July 9, 2014 Hmmm, I could swear you said, " it's official." No. It's not. It's your opinion, but it's not "official."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 July 9, 2014 Your journalistic sourcing is piss-poor to non-existent. If you were a cub reporter, your editor would kick your ass out of his office and tell you to get out there and source the story properly. If it was an academic assignment, you'd get an F. If it was a complaint to the police, it'd be laughed outta the station house for lack of admissible evidence. If it was a story you told your parents, you'd be sent to bed without supper for fibbing. I think in the UK it would qualify as "wanking". Ah, but here in Speaker's Corner, you think your edjumacted guess is good enough to get solid traction. You're in the wrong forum. Please take Boobies to Bonfire. ETA: I'm open-minded. Bring me some solid sources and we'll talk again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 July 9, 2014 Iago Your opinion is your own. I prefer to read between the lines. Quade is reading between the lines, too. He noted the source is the online portal for a free rag that takes submissions from anyone....well anyone that bends a bit to the right. examiner.com can never be used as a single source. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #8 July 9, 2014 quadeHmmm, I could swear you said, " it's official." No. It's not. It's your opinion, but it's not "official." Since when did your opinion quantify this as 'official' of the inverse? Because you sure talk like 'your' opinion is the only correct option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 July 9, 2014 regulatorSince when did your opinion quantify this as 'official' of the inverse? I've never claimed my opinion on this was "official." Only that his "news" and claim of "Mexico to facilitate travel from Central America to the US border" being "official" was, in fact, simply incorrect. Nor did the article evidence he used to support his claim was official. Nor was that even the proper interpretation of the original source material. IN FACT, I suggested he run read the original source material himself in order to prove it was not what he claimed.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #10 July 9, 2014 Iago This is my shocked face. So now it's official instead of just collusion. I recommend letting them stay. In fact, I recommend paying for the airfare to relocate them within the US of A. There is an airfield at Kiska that would serve the purpose nicely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,050 #11 July 9, 2014 You think that's bad - San Diego recently put in a trolley from downtown RIGHT TO THE BORDER! They even brag about it on the SANDAG website. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #12 July 10, 2014 I have traveled through Mexico as well as Guatemala and spent time with the people there. I can assure you, if I were in the shoes of the people living there, I would do whatever I could to get my family to the USA. I am pretty sure everyone on DZ.COM would do the same. Many 'ugly americans' don't realize the lottery ticket we won just being born here. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,098 #13 July 10, 2014 Quote Hmm, let's see: -72 hour pass in Mexico -Protection going to and from the USA -Social services while country Sounds like they're helping them to me. Tomorrow I leave for Turkey. The Turkish government has made it easy (aka "official") for me to travel freely within their country for up to 90 days. Wow, they are expediting my illegal entry into Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria and/or Greece. Hmmm. Let's see: -72 hour 90 day pass in Mexico Turkey. -Protection going to and from the USA any neighboring state. -Social services while country Yep, Turkey is definitely encouraging illegal entry into other nations. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 840 #14 July 10, 2014 That's only because they don't know you like we do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,098 #15 July 10, 2014 normiss That's only because they don't know you like we think we do. TSA Pre-screened too... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 840 #16 July 10, 2014 Have a good trip! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #17 July 10, 2014 normiss Have a good trip! . . . and stay as LONG as you like.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #18 July 10, 2014 quadeYou may want to run a check of the original source article. If you're having difficulty because you don't read Spanish, Google Translate does a decent job with it. I do not believe the article you linked by "examiner.com" has accurately described the situation. But again, I invite you to do your own investigation into whether I've reached the right conclusion on that and the "examiner.com" writer is just being a conservative troll baiting asshat. The story is true, I double checked it on Breitbart.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,098 #19 July 10, 2014 jclalor***You may want to run a check of the original source article. If you're having difficulty because you don't read Spanish, Google Translate does a decent job with it. I do not believe the article you linked by "examiner.com" has accurately described the situation. But again, I invite you to do your own investigation into whether I've reached the right conclusion on that and the "examiner.com" writer is just being a conservative troll baiting asshat. The story is true, I double checked it on Breitbart.com. Very droll!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #20 July 11, 2014 Iago This is my shocked face. So now it's official instead of just collusion. I read the article and as much as I like poking Obama in the eye about how fucked up he is, this article doesn't even come close to ringing any truth. 3 glaring wrongs in this article, just to start out with: 1. The Mexican southern border is secure. You can cross the southern border for the equivelent of a $1.30 in plane view of the police. The only people the police care about are the rich that they can extort. 2. They are providing transportation to the U.S. Mexican border. When was the last time the Mexican government provided anything to it's people? If they are, the closest thing that it could possibly mean is that they are designating areas for people to meet with coyotes. 3. They will give special protections and financial assistance to those transiting to America. Please refer to my statement number 2. About the closest thing they will get to protection is that the coyotes will not beat/rob/rape/kill the women and children in plane view of the police they are bribing. Anyone else feel free to chime in on anything I may have missed."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #21 July 11, 2014 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/1300-migrants-avoid-harm-mexico-train-derails-24512106 1,300 Migrants Avoid Harm as Mexico Train Derails. A Mexican official says "We are shocked, migrants on trains, not our trains." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #22 July 11, 2014 Andy9o8Your journalistic sourcing is piss-poor to non-existent. If you were a cub reporter, your editor would kick your ass out of his office and tell you to get out there and source the story properly. If it was an academic assignment, you'd get an F. If it was a complaint to the police, it'd be laughed outta the station house for lack of admissible evidence. If it was a story you told your parents, you'd be sent to bed without supper for fibbing. I think in the UK it would qualify as "wanking". Point of order - in British-English the term "wanking" is pretty much reserved* for a description of the physical act of onanism. (cf the now-archaic, pseudo-dialectic, use of the term to mean "to cut class" e.g.: "wanking off school"). One can however be considered a "wanker", without specific reference to your masturbatory habits, but rather as an overarching comment on your wider personality traits. Here however, after some consideration, I would suggest the phrase, "being a bit of a twat" or perhaps the variant term, "something of a bell-end". In the alternative, one could employ the phrase "wanking in the wind", itself being a variant form of "pissing in the wind", though I am not entirely confident that the phrase adequately expresses the precise idiom for which you were searching. We Brits pride ourselves on having one of the most colourful and extensive ranges of profanity available to man. If anyone would like further assistance with British-English slurs and/or slanders, I can be reached via PM. It is, to say the least, a vast and expansive topic and I would not wish to invite further thread drift. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #23 July 11, 2014 Sighhh. Fine. If he was trying to have sex, he'd be flaccid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #24 July 11, 2014 Andy9o8 Sighhh. Fine. If he was trying to have sex, he'd be flaccid. You feel OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #25 July 11, 2014 Andy9o8 Sighhh. Fine. If he was trying to have sex, he'd be flaccid. Ah, in that case I'd probably go with "wankstain". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
