Peikko

I don't have an agenda. I haven't attempted to pin the blame on any one donkey. Israel has a claim to self defense, but so does Palestine. The solution to this issue does not lie in military force and making statements such as Hamas has itself to blame for all civilian Palestinian deaths is quite simply wrong and moreover a biased statement. You made it, so you revealed a certain bias which you may or may not wish to stand by.

I don't have an agenda. I haven't attempted to pin the blame on any one donkey. Israel has a claim to self defense, but so does Palestine. The solution to this issue does not lie in military force and making statements such as Hamas has itself to blame for all civilian Palestinian deaths is quite simply wrong and moreover a biased statement. You made it, so you revealed a certain bias which you may or may not wish to stand by.

All teenagers are suspected of being potential petty shop lifters I am sure by convenience store owners, but I suspect there is a hierarchy of suspicion with clean looking, affluent teens being viewed as slightly less suspicious than anyone who looks poor or who appears too 'ghetto'. The 'ghetto' look is not restricted to a certain color. Anyone that thinks showing their butt crack is a cool look is likely to be seen as potential thief by a store owner I would think.

Indeed, I read that, the article isn't trying to make the racism case, just observing a phenomena and it is an interesting one.

No way. It's a conspiracy.

As I said, there are two contradictory assumptions being made in this sort of rationale.
1) Civilian blood is solely on the hands of Hamas and not at all on the people who are killing them.
2) There is no such thing as a Palestinian Civilian in Gaza because they are complicit with Hamas.
Taking a solely measured view, the entire situation is abhorrent, from both sides. But seriously, trying to justify civilian casualties by blaming them on the other side is a sign of a very skewed moral compass.
There's a collective psychosis going over there. That's the best that can be said and it's why no long term solution is likely forthcoming.

It's the feeding frenzy, you know, you see blood and you all circle round and attack. There is nothing to be done. I tried, I didn't get through, they win

I don't see how you can say it's their fault when you know you are shooting at civilians because they hide behind them. Morally, you can't remove yourself from the equation.
You know the civilians are there, you're just making the choice to attack them anyway.

What's the current foreign minister's take on it? I'd think he would probably agree. However, I believe former politicians should keep their mouth shut when it comes to current political affairs.
See ####### Cheney.
ETA: Nice filtering. Ok then Richard Cheney. I guess the former VP should look in to getting his named changed to something more "family friendly"

Hang in there. Summer vacs are almost over and soon enough the kids will be back in school.

Gosh golly, you win.

Gosh golly, you win.

The writer of the article?? Nope, wrong again. The writer of the article is an adherent to a blog site you mistakenly believe is bringing you 'the news the government doesn't want you to hear'. The writer contrived to use a report to make it appear as though the only reason for minors making a long, dangerous and arduous journey to try to live in the US is because Obama wants them to. You have a vested interest in buying into this type of rubbish Enjoy.

Why is this blog comparing the perceived likelihood of being allowed to stay in the US (specifically the US) with a fear of violence as a likely cause of wanting to leave in the first place? No one simply migrates because they have been told that if they do they will probably get to stay. That's not a factor in a decision to migrate, that's a factor in a decision on where to migrate to. There has to be a motivation to leave, and that seems to remain completely obscure from this exciting, but very silly series of reports. I guess if you can't analyze what you are being asked to believe you will believe most anything if it fits your personal prejudice.

Well, that's an analogy I can ignore for being completely pointless.

The writer of the article?? Nope, wrong again. The writer of the article is an adherent to a blog site you mistakenly believe is bringing you 'the news the government doesn't want you to hear'. The writer contrived to use a report to make it appear as though the only reason for minors making a long, dangerous and arduous journey to try to live in the US is because Obama wants them to. You have a vested interest in buying into this type of rubbish Enjoy.

You really should consider manning up and moving to Alaska. It might help this situation.
Also, today I saw the weirdest application of "bait thread" I've ever seen on here. Apparently just being a nutter is now being a baiter, which I think is unfair. I mean, if you're a nutter, you can't really help posting crazy stuff.

English 101
Question: "Why do you want to migrate to America?"
Statement 1: "I want to move to America because of its lax immigration laws"
Statement 2: "I want to move to America because I am frightened of all the drug cartels and violence in my country"
Both answers are applicable but what question is each answer actually addressing? Answers from the peanut gallery only please.

Why? Asking a migrant why they chose to migrate to the US is a specific question, which an answer like, lax immigration laws, might well answer. Asking a migrant why they chose to migrate at all is a different question and one that can't be answered in the same way. The OP article mixes these two questions up, deliberately creating the impression that the reason for emmigration away from central/southern americas is less complicated than it really is and has little to do with the common and understandable reasons most commonly given, which are economic hardship, a percieved lack of opportunity and fears of violence from drug cartels which as we know from stories from Mexico is not some half arsed excuse but a daily reality for some people living in especially rough/deprived areas.

No, the migrants themselves said their choice to migrate to the US was, not their choice to migrate was. Your wonderful article has mingled the answers to two entirely different questions to get the outrage they desire. You bought it. Enjoy.

Well, that's an analogy I can ignore for being completely pointless.

Why? Asking a migrant why they chose to migrate to the US is a specific question, which an answer like, lax immigration laws, might well answer. Asking a migrant why they chose to migrate at all is a different question and one that can't be answered in the same way. The OP article mixes these two questions up, deliberately creating the impression that the reason for emmigration away from central/southern americas is less complicated than it really is and has little to do with the common and understandable reasons most commonly given, which are economic hardship, a percieved lack of opportunity and fears of violence from drug cartels which as we know from stories from Mexico is not some half arsed excuse but a daily reality for some people living in especially rough/deprived areas.

Well, that's an analogy I can ignore for being completely pointless.

Well, that's an analogy I can ignore for being completely pointless.

Indeed, who needs Doctors? Everyone should just have their own prescription pad issued at birth.
I have no idea why you paid $300 for antibiotics. Even without insurance it is easy to find places that issue prescriptions for under $50.