SkyDekker
-
Content
21,691 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
96 -
Feedback
0% -
Country
Canada
Everything posted by SkyDekker
-
more qualified defined how? More education? More experience? Better team player? Fits better on the corporate golf team?
-
Sounds like you are off your meds. I would suggest filling the prescription.
-
In both cases nobody won and needless death ensued, other lives were changed forever. I doubt the guy killing a fake gun holding robber in the back is going to feel great about himself.
-
I mean, my staff runs in the hundreds. None of them will define reliable as "being a team player".
-
I mean I quit mine to go to another one. But I am going to enjoy the hell out my one week of being unemployed. Some time in Whistler and a buddy and I are hopping a PJ to Hawaii for a few days. But, I'm sure you will enjoy Spirit on your next trip!
-
No it isn't. Unless you just make things up.
-
Florida is probably on the bottom of my list of places I have any interest returning to, but thanks for the offer. But, Florida make sense for you I think, Florida Man.
-
About as good a look as your deaf buddy legal gun owner murdering his entire family.
-
Except when diversity is properly managed it leads to higher level of competence of a team. Better problem solving, earlier detection of problems, quicker implementation of mitigants. Even Winsor stated he wouldn't higher trouble makers even if they were competent. Would you hire a competent and reliable worker who so annoys the rest of your employees that their engagement and output drops by 50%? Yeah didn't think so.
-
Another few years and the majority of Republicans wouldn't be able to say what the full name of MLK is.
-
that's stretching things. So far he hasn't been able to say who he thinks the author actually was.
-
The view on diplomats being excluded under this wording is enshrined in law and regulation, but obviously never been challenged. Never would be. Sure, but not sure that is what is happening here. Remember that RBG didn't agree with Roe v Wade.
-
Sure they are subject to the law, just like diplomats are subject to the laws. The question is if they are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Diplomats are presumed to not be subject to the jurisdiction of the laws. There is a potential of a narrow view that would state illegal aliens are also not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
-
Not really. That argument is what excludes Diplomat children from having a birthright to citizenship.
-
who do you think the author was?
-
See, here is your problem. You need to interpret the words. Or at least have the ability to. Your veiled threats I am sure make other people quake in their boots.
-
I believe the end of this month is the end of dz.com. Also quite my job around teh same timeframe. Time for new adventures. I will miss dz.com as a place for political discourse and getting a sense of some for what plays for my friends south of the border. Over time understanding the various characters has just made that more fun. You and I certainly had had our battles, but certainly don't harbour any ill will. That is only reserved for one person here. Hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas and a great 2025 and beyond. I hope I am very wrong about what it will bring.
-
I did. Your inability understand isn't my problem.
-
I think it is incumbent on those who want to ask questions to first read what they are seeking to clarify.
-
Section 101(a)(20), 103, 262, 264 INA and 8 CFR 101.3, 101.4 and 264.2. Let me know if you need help with the words.
-
I am neither in a court of law, nor running a science experiment. Just a low T Canadian schooling a macho American special forces hero on his own country.
-
You are taking it too literal. It is exactly that little sentence that is going to be discussed though.
-
right. so that's when you start doing some research and find out that: Kids born to tourists in the US are indeed eligible for citizenship. The kids of foreign diplomats are NOT eligible. See, this is how you would have learned. If only you figured out how google works.
-
mmm, not quite. But for OAN a decent explanation. lol. The constitution says what the constitution says. The interpretation of what it means is up to SCOTUS and changes over time. (sometimes depending on the size of the RV or the amount of the child's tuition)
-
You asked a question. I provided an answer and a direction for you to look in. I know you are used to being told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. But consider this your first lesson in learning to form your own opinions.
