Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 66

Thread: Agreement reached between Mexico and US averting tariffs

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Friday, June 21st, 2019 @ 10:56 AM
    Posts
    4,122
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Mexico Withholds Identities of Migrant Caravan Funders in U.S., Britain

    Freezing these assets was doubtless part of the negotiations ahead of the agreement yesterday.

    I'd like to see those financiers exposed, especially those in the U.S.

    (I suspect a fair amount of the U.S. money is from expatriates looking to help relatives or countrymen get here.)


    You're telling me Trump's wacky theory is partially correct?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:48 AM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    13,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    You're telling me Trump's wacky theory is partially correct?
    Trump's so-called "whacky theory" is undeniably correct and supported by lots of facts.

    Leftists have been funding these "caravans" from the start. Prior to that, Leftists were funding the effort to get people to storm the border with the Obama administration's blessing, which is also undeniable.
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:53 PM
    Posts
    12,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    So, the answer is "no one." Got it.
    I said don't.

    Freedom of speech, in this country, under this constitution, does not mean that a private web site can't ban anybody they feel like banning.
    Last edited by Norm dePlume; Monday, June 10th, 2019 at 10:59 PM.

    Priebus recalled that McGahn said that the President had asked him to "do crazy shit," but he thought McGahn did not tell him the specifics of the President's request because McGahn was trying to protect Priebus from what he did not need to know.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:48 AM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    13,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    I said don't.

    Freedom of speech, in this country, under this constitution, does not mean that a private web site can't ban anybody they feel like banning.
    So, the whole of the concept of freedom of speech is confined solely within the bounds of the First Amendment, then? It's utterly impossible for there to be a concept of freedom of speech outside of the First Amendment?
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:45 PM
    Posts
    10,251
    Post Thanks / Like
    ONe does wonder what "freedom of speech" has to do with American school children being forced to learn in Spanish...…………….

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 9:08 PM
    Posts
    8,430
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Marva
    ONe does wonder what "freedom of speech" has to do with American school children being forced to learn in Spanish...…………….
    One, maybe. Not two.

    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  7. Likes scott liked this post
  8. #37
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:45 PM
    Posts
    10,251
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    One, maybe. Not two.

    HUH? What? Amendments? Ain't not lookin' em up. Whatever. Sooner or later the illegals will demand all...……………….

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:53 PM
    Posts
    12,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    So, the whole of the concept of freedom of speech is confined solely within the bounds of the First Amendment, then? It's utterly impossible for there to be a concept of freedom of speech outside of the First Amendment?
    Sure. There could alternate concepts of the right to bear arms, too, unconnected to the second amendment. But when the chief executive of the federal government mentions the right to bear arms in a public pronouncement on a platform that he uses for official statements, the assumption is that he's referring to the government's codified concept of it. If he's referring to some personal code, he should use a different name for it, or make it clear that he's not referring to the official government concept.

    And if he's referring to some personal code, why would he think it would sway a for-profit corporation? A for-profit corporation exists to maximize profit, full stop. They are constrained by law in their quest for profit. They are not constrained by the personal code of a philanderer.
    Last edited by Norm dePlume; Tuesday, June 11th, 2019 at 8:51 AM.

    Priebus recalled that McGahn said that the President had asked him to "do crazy shit," but he thought McGahn did not tell him the specifics of the President's request because McGahn was trying to protect Priebus from what he did not need to know.

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:45 PM
    Posts
    10,251
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    They are not constrained by the personal code of a philanderer.
    Meaning JFK? Or Roosevelt?

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:53 PM
    Posts
    12,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Trump sweetened up his Mexico deal with a secret part.

    Trump’s secret deal with Mexico was news to them

    President Trump announced Monday that his administration has inked a secret agreement with Mexico on immigration enforcement that will be unveiled in the “not too distant future.”

    But the revelation stumped Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard, who said he wasn’t aware of any such deal.

    “We have fully signed and documented another very important part of the Immigration and Security deal with Mexico, one that the U.S. has been asking about getting for many years,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

    “It will be revealed in the not too distant future and will need a vote by Mexico’s Legislative body!”

    But Trump warned that if there is a problem and the “approval is not forthcoming,” tariffs against Mexican imports will be *imposed.

    The Trump administration has been prodding Mexico to enter into a “safe third country” agreement, which would deem Mexico a safe place for migrants and make it more difficult for migrants from Central America to pass through the country and claim asylum at the US border.

    Priebus recalled that McGahn said that the President had asked him to "do crazy shit," but he thought McGahn did not tell him the specifics of the President's request because McGahn was trying to protect Priebus from what he did not need to know.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •