What the Heck?! Thread (Closed)
- Thread starter TerraN_EmpirE
- Start date
- Status
If by reward you mean pay for the bounty hunter's work, the bail bondsman does. It doesn't matter what the person (bail bondsman's customer) due in court has to post bail for, can be missing childcare payments, can be drunk driving, can be homicide.
If by reward you mean specifically payment of a reward offered by someone then whoever offered the reward will. Most of the time there are no rewards offered to get someone to show up in court.
If you believe the Wikipedia article, supposedly only the US and former/current US commonwealth/territories such as the Philippines allow bounty hunters.
Equation
Lieutenant General
There is a good Korean movie about it called "My Way" Only this time it's about two rival marathon runners (one Korean and one Japanese) whose so happens to get caught up first fighting for the Japanese Imperial army before being captured by the Soviets, and than finally only to be caught on D-day invasion in the German army.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Sounds very interesting, I'm going to look for the movie. I love offbeat history as depicted by films like that, even if they tend to take some liberties with actual events.There is a good Korean movie about it called "My Way" Only this time it's about two rival marathon runners (one Korean and one Japanese) whose so happens to get caught up first fighting for the Japanese Imperial army before being captured by the Soviets, and than finally only to be caught on D-day invasion in the German army.
Indeed worthy of a WTF cringe.
Insult your own executive order you personally signed.
Throw Sean Spicer under the bus on his hilarious travel ban word play LoL.
Love this guy so much. Keep up the good work, Don !!!!
Trump’s latest tweets will likely hurt effort to restore travel ban
By June 5 at 11:49 AM
President Trump on Monday derided the revised travel ban as a “watered down” version of the first and criticized his own Justice Department’s handling of the case — potentially hurting the administration’s defense of the ban as the legal battle over it reaches a critical new stage.
Trump in a tweet called the new ban “politically correct,” ignoring that he himself signed the executive order replacing the first ban with a revised version that targeted only six, rather than seven, Muslim-majority countries and blocked the issuance of new visas, rather than revoking current ones.
Trump said the Justice Department should seek a “much tougher version” and made clear — despite — that the executive order is a “ban,” not a pause on some sources of immigration or an enhanced vetting system.
“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Trump .
.................................
................................
Federal judges across the country have in ordering the ban be frozen, determining that the president’s words expose the measure as being a tool for discrimination disguised as a national security directive.
.......................
Omar C. Jadwat, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote that Trump’s tweets amounted to “a promise: let me do this and I’ll take it as license to do even worse.” In an interview, Jadwat said the president’s tweets “seem to undermine the picture the government’s been trying to paint.”
“I can’t say for sure what our brief is going to look like, but this stuff seems relevant,” Jadwat said.
..........................
Trump tweeted Monday that the Justice Department “should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted” to the Supreme Court. In addition to creating possible headaches in court, that misstates the process. Trump himself signed the executive order imposing the ban. The Justice Department defends his policies in court.
Trump also wrote that the Justice Department “should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court — & seek much tougher version!” The Supreme Court would not be the body to enact a ban; they are merely weighing whether Trump’s order can pass constitutional muster.
The travel ban seems to have been on Trump’s mind since the terrorist attack in London Saturday, when Trump wrote on Twitter, “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”
Legal analysts were quick to point out that the president was hurting his own case.
“In case it’s not obvious, these will only undermine the government’s case before #SCOTUS for both a stay & on the merits of the #TravelBan,” University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck posted on Twitter. “These will also go a long way toward mooting debate over use of campaign statements; no need when, as President, he still says these things.”
Trump also wrote on Twitter that the administration was already “EXTREME VETTING” travelers coming into the United States — which he said was necessary to keep the country safe because courts are “slow and political!” The Department of Homeland Security has , but that, too, seems to undercut the Justice Department’s legal position.
The travel ban was supposed to be a temporary measure, designed to afford the administration time to conduct a review and decide what new vetting procedures were necessary. When a federal judge in Hawaii ordered the ban frozen, though, the government interpreted his order as stopping even that review — and the judge declined to clarify that it did not.
Wall told the 4th Circuit last month that the administration had “put our pens down” and had “done nothing to review the vetting procedures for these countries.”
If the administration already has implemented new vetting procedures, that would seem to call into question the necessity of a temporary ban. Legal analysts, though, have previously said that president’s remarks indicate he might not view the measure as temporary — despite what the text of the executive order itself says.
Insult your own executive order you personally signed.
Throw Sean Spicer under the bus on his hilarious travel ban word play LoL.
Love this guy so much. Keep up the good work, Don !!!!
Trump’s latest tweets will likely hurt effort to restore travel ban
By June 5 at 11:49 AM
President Trump on Monday derided the revised travel ban as a “watered down” version of the first and criticized his own Justice Department’s handling of the case — potentially hurting the administration’s defense of the ban as the legal battle over it reaches a critical new stage.
Trump in a tweet called the new ban “politically correct,” ignoring that he himself signed the executive order replacing the first ban with a revised version that targeted only six, rather than seven, Muslim-majority countries and blocked the issuance of new visas, rather than revoking current ones.
Trump said the Justice Department should seek a “much tougher version” and made clear — despite — that the executive order is a “ban,” not a pause on some sources of immigration or an enhanced vetting system.
“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Trump .
.................................
................................
Federal judges across the country have in ordering the ban be frozen, determining that the president’s words expose the measure as being a tool for discrimination disguised as a national security directive.
.......................
Omar C. Jadwat, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote that Trump’s tweets amounted to “a promise: let me do this and I’ll take it as license to do even worse.” In an interview, Jadwat said the president’s tweets “seem to undermine the picture the government’s been trying to paint.”
“I can’t say for sure what our brief is going to look like, but this stuff seems relevant,” Jadwat said.
..........................
Trump tweeted Monday that the Justice Department “should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted” to the Supreme Court. In addition to creating possible headaches in court, that misstates the process. Trump himself signed the executive order imposing the ban. The Justice Department defends his policies in court.
Trump also wrote that the Justice Department “should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court — & seek much tougher version!” The Supreme Court would not be the body to enact a ban; they are merely weighing whether Trump’s order can pass constitutional muster.
The travel ban seems to have been on Trump’s mind since the terrorist attack in London Saturday, when Trump wrote on Twitter, “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”
Legal analysts were quick to point out that the president was hurting his own case.
“In case it’s not obvious, these will only undermine the government’s case before #SCOTUS for both a stay & on the merits of the #TravelBan,” University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck posted on Twitter. “These will also go a long way toward mooting debate over use of campaign statements; no need when, as President, he still says these things.”
Trump also wrote on Twitter that the administration was already “EXTREME VETTING” travelers coming into the United States — which he said was necessary to keep the country safe because courts are “slow and political!” The Department of Homeland Security has , but that, too, seems to undercut the Justice Department’s legal position.
The travel ban was supposed to be a temporary measure, designed to afford the administration time to conduct a review and decide what new vetting procedures were necessary. When a federal judge in Hawaii ordered the ban frozen, though, the government interpreted his order as stopping even that review — and the judge declined to clarify that it did not.
Wall told the 4th Circuit last month that the administration had “put our pens down” and had “done nothing to review the vetting procedures for these countries.”
If the administration already has implemented new vetting procedures, that would seem to call into question the necessity of a temporary ban. Legal analysts, though, have previously said that president’s remarks indicate he might not view the measure as temporary — despite what the text of the executive order itself says.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The amusing thing about Governor Tsai's weak sauce try at trouble making is how little support she has received from the western media. A decade ago, you'd hear more noise from the usual bevy of neocons, liberal interventionists, and kumbaya westerners. Not this time. Put a fork in Taiwan's independence movement, it's all over but the shouting.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
"For democracy: some are early, others are late, but we will all get there in the end," Tsai wrote
This part was especially funny. You can literally insert any word in place of "democracy" and you can't be proven wrong. LOL
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
It's hard for me to picture Canada as anything but a racist country. 
Woman Tells Workers To 'Go Back To China’.. While Ordering Chinese Food
Video of a white woman telling Asian grocery store employees to “Go back to China” while she contemplates ordering Chinese food is leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those who’ve seen it.
Video of a white woman telling Asian grocery store employees to “Go back to China” while she contemplates ordering Chinese food is leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those who’ve seen it.
The footage from a Foodymart in Toronto showed the unidentified customer berating workers on Friday, claiming “none of these people speak English,” though clearly, some of them did.
Another woman in the video can be seen trying to defuse the tense situation by attempting to help the angry customer.
Hong said he posted the video to show that Canada isn’t “safe from these disgusting attitudes and behaviours.”
“It makes me nothing but seething mad that this lady had the audacity to spew such toxic words while exploiting POC cultures. Absolutely Horrendous,” he wrote on Facebook.
Hong only captured 84 seconds of the woman’s xenophobic rant, but said he listened to her for three minutes and tried to intervene before deciding to film her.
Although the video is receiving international attention, Toronto police told CTV News Toronto that they aren’t investigating the encounter as a hate-related incident and said that no official complaint had been filed.
Blackstone
Brigadier
I wish more Westerners would read about the May 4th Movement, and why Chinese's trust of US/Western countries and institutions remain cynically low. Patrick Mendis's article is well written and highlights important history US/Western countries need to understand to better deal with China.
Continued...
Continued...
- Status