jerryskids

I hesitate to get into a tard fight with you since it is your home field, but... by definition they "considered" it. Gemini agrees: Here from a Reuters article referenced by Gemini: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/denmark-spurned-chinese-offer-for-greenland-base-over-security-sources-idUSKBN1782E1/#:~:text=Reuters Plus-,Denmark spurned Chinese offer for Greenland base over security - sources,handles defence and foreign policy. So they considered it, and decided to turn down. Now go get your shine box.

That's your big win? The point is that we had no authority over whether or not it went through. I was saying that if we added such authority, that would be a win for us. Shadrap is right, you are just a mindless TDS troll buffoon. Carry on.

I think he will eventually take the canal back. China is too influential there. It would be consistent with his efforts to kick the bad guys out of our neck of the woods. I have been fairly busy today and not following, but recall that I posted about how Denmark considering selling land on Greenland (in fact, a now defunct naval base) to China. I would expect a new deal to prohibit such sales, or perhaps give us a right of refusal on any sales. If so, that would make it different than the status quo.

We had 4 or 5 pages of good discussion in that thread until you stumbled in and derped about muh transphobia. Everyone else, Left and Right, was participating You were like the slow clap guy at the end of a Not Another Teen Movie scene, never understanding the situation. You have an innate ability to boil down a series of complex posts into the purest essence of your own idiocy, creating a summary that would make weepaws proud. Also I just remembered that you are one of our last post guys, so tell me again how stupid my thoughts were.

I hear there are some Somalis looking for extra daycare work.

Sending such data over email, along with such text, seems like an incredibly tech un-savvy thing for a couple of tech bros to do. But as I said, investigate away, and if they did something wrong, prosecute away. Not butthurt, just surprised at the constant self-own reminders of your stupidity. With your level of nuance, you probably think Animal Farm is a cute book about talking animals.

Yeah, that second shot in particular, it looked like he was trying to bend it around the trees (vs. over). Did you see how it just missed the trunk? Guaranteed, my ball would have it that thing dead center and dropped straight down.

I was waiting for Bruce's surprising opinion before forming my own.

Musk isn't implicated. Read the bolded again. RIF. Fixed for you. Although it is funny that you try to be funny by reminding us of your inability to recognize nuance.

6:45 AM and you were scouring the internet for failed gotchas. Here, I'll highlight some things, since you forgot this lesson from up thread: Remember the lesson now? I'd expect a computer person to get this, but... It's worth investigating, and if these two did anything wrong, they should be prosecuted accordingly. It sounds like if they did, it had more to do with checking voter rolls than stealing your retirement money. But we'll see. Meanwhile, grab a coffee, maybe relax by screaming at the portrait of Trump with a knife in it on your wall, and get cracking on that next failed gotcha. If you are really nice, you will thank me for the lesson reminder.

Well, we can't watch great stuff like community college women's lacrosse all the time like you do, so...

@Fnordand @dogcows, thanks for the responses. My main point was in my first paragraph, which I'll repeat here: "I'm confident that ICE is doing some questionable-at-best things. But I also think that your chosen media is feeding you what they want you to see." You may feel I am not strong enough with "questionable," fine. But the media is exacerbating/lying about situations, and you are accepting it as gospel. The truth is likely somewhere between that, and "ICE is 100% correct and righteous." You seem to both acknowledge that you were fed some crap about the woman, good. Let's focus on the surprisingly fit old man. I intentionally set up the Occam's Razor dichotomy to isolate the reason ICE was there, vs. perp walking the guy. I'm confident that those agents thought there might be some bad illegal aliens there. Did they need to apprehend the guy? We don't know; perhaps they thought he had information he was withholding, and/or he had been uncooperative. Or perhaps their instructions were to grab the guy if the bad guys weren't there. Then again, maybe they thought just bringing in any person helps them reach their quota, or maybe they just wanted to be mean. We can agree to disagree I guess, but either way it is uncertain. Finally, did they need to walk him out without a shirt or jacket? That seems highly unlikely, so shame on the ICE agents. So, we've gone from "ICE sent a bunch of armed agents in to accost an old citizen and perp walked him half-naked!" to "ICE perp walked this guy with an unreasonable amount of clothing, which seems excessive and unprofessional."

Ben Shapiro said the other day, rightfully so, that if there is anything Americans don't like, it's seeing ugly pictures on their screens. And this situation has provided no shortage of them. I'm confident that ICE is doing some questionable-at-best things. But I also think that your chosen media is feeding you what they want you to see. For instance, in your first post above, they lead with "shoved to the ground" and link to a Yahoo article which has: First sentence, really? I know, you believe it because they are Nazi fascist Somaliphobe scum. But really? If you aren't suspicious yet, take the second sentence. It has a link to video of her being forced to the ground and then into a car. Problem is... when you go to the link, she is on her feet the entire time. A bunch of ICE agents are just standing around, and eventually she is escorted to a car. Now, I can't say she wasn't on the ground prior, but would you admit that the article flat out lied about their link? In your second post, that's a bad look, so I expect to be inundated with that photo. And perhaps deservedly so. But as I often like to do, what would Occam's Razor say? Option 1, the government's story, is that they believed the old man was harboring two violent criminal illegal aliens, hence the deployment of 10-15 heavily armed agents. Option 2, the story of your highly biased source (and hopefully you can agree that it is very biased), is that the government sent 10-15 heavily armed agents to terrorize an old man US citizen. To me it's obvious, but you may think the second option makes more sense. I'm not saying that justifies making a (surprisingly fit looking) old man walk out in shorts and a blanket. But it goes to context, at least the reason they were there.

I was going to suggest a glass of chardonnay. A rare privilege... This is great info, thanks.

Congrats man, that is so great! I've had in mind writing a book, but I keep finding distractions, the largest of which is this cesspool. I have a few ideas, one of which is to write about a lightly trafficked chat site with a bunch of mentally unstable posters. Anyway, I'll shoot you a PM if you'd like to send me a part to read. Also, please send some of the crack you sent to @MikeMatt to get him hooked.