jerryskids

Thanks for the info. I think it's a little more complicated than that. For instance, as part of the agreement you linked, Denmark took control of Gronnedal: While no longer in use, in 2016 Denmark considered selling Gronnedal to... wait for it... China: 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. They didn't do it, but they could have. Because at the end of the day, Greenland belongs to Denmark.

They thought they were playing a game. You could see it in their faces and hear it in the tones of their voices.

Federal officials are not legally obligated to assist local officials in a federal investigation. Furthermore, and these are the parts Lefties don't like to hear: - If local authorities simply kept criminal illegal aliens when they had them in custody, a lot of the neighborhood canvasing could be avoided. - If local authorities assisted with things like traffic control, which they're trained to do and in an area with which they are familiar, situations like the Good killing could be avoided. - If local authorities declared unlawful assemblies and disbursed crowds, riots caused by people inflamed by the violent rhetoric of Leftist leaders could be avoided. Basically, your side has significant culpability in all of this including your need to quote "enforcement", but you'll never acknowledge it, because in your religion you are on the side of righteousness.

Sorry I missed this yesterday, it's Seafoam-level pathetic.

I feel like I maybe had $50 in as well, but no, I tied with you for 3rd in the Hero - Edjr came in 2nd. The only other recent thing was a heads up with AD which I lost (by 0.05 pts ) and I put that money towards an electric scooter for a needy kid at Christmas. So unless I or someone else think of something, I think I'm starting with 0

My understanding is that they are discussing splitting it into 3 shots, but that's all I've heard. It's 8PM on a weeknight, football is about to start, and you are digging through a thread for year old attempted gotchas. Maybe hang with the family, or find a quick protest against Trump somewhere?

You married a cat lady and pretend to be a trans woman on a low-rent fantasy football chat board, and you feel the need to jump to Gutter's defense and question my manhood?

His absolute certainty that Ross murdered Good will prove wrong. Just today he predicted that someone in Trump's sphere must have shorted bank stocks before his announcement about CC cap, another unsubstantiated TDS rant. If I cared enough, I'd keep track of his mistakes, but I might break Excel doing it.

I just don't understand what he was doing the second time. Why approach a guy who has already punched you, and just stand there with no attempt to prepare for a fight whatsoever?

Hey look, Gutter found something from before Trump was president, in a thread I started to discuss valid concerns about Trump, where I was wrong. That means he's always right! Logic, meet Gutter. Gutter, logic.

That guy is the worst fighter in the history of ever.

It's actually an interesting discussion, IMO. One can make a solid argument that the people racking up debt on these high-interest cards would benefit from the tough love of removing them altogether. That of course would have another unintended consequence of lowering our GDP, because who is going to buy those $300 sneakers? My point was that the belief that you can come in and tell the financial industry to just NOT charge high interest rates, and believe that it won't have massive unintended consequences, is Leftist-level lack of reality.

You were wrong about me pushing the tariffs as a good thing, which was the point of this discussion, dummy.

The article says "Such a cap would likely require authorization by Congress. It is unclear what moves the president could make to bypass this." So... no, but Financial stocks took a dive today.

Now do local officials not assisting and often directly impeding DHS officials in their attempt to enforce US immigration law.