President Biden - Part 2

[The Tick]

You just enjoy the pretty pictures on it, then?

[Zambo]

Didn't get it from Foxhole. Put it in Google and watch the YouTube and come back and say why it's wrong. You'd to better to put your prejudices aside and focus on the content.

[subsub]

You just enjoy the pretty pictures on it, then?

[Vespa]

Chalk another one up for Joe.

Do you really read Foxhole?

No.

That's a foxhole story.

[Zambo]

See reply to Tick and try the same.

[The Tick]

So you've posted an image from a foxhole article, even though you don't read foxhole.

Either you've not bothered to read the article to verify its credibility, or you're too embarassed to admit that you did read it.

[Zambo]

I didn't post it from a Foxhole article. What part of it isn't credible?

[The Tick]

I didn't post it from a Foxhole article. What part of it isn't credible?

The fact that it's from foxhole.

If you didn't view it, what was the point in you referencing it here?

[Zambo]

I didn't post it from a Foxhole article. What part of it isn't credible?

The fact that it's from foxhole.

If you didn't read it, what was the point in you referencing it here?

Now how about some comments on the content, rather than the usual deflection tactics and rubbishing the source. What do you think should be done about it would be a good starting point, that is if you think something should be.

[The Tick]

If you couldn't be bothered to view the foxhole content, why should i bother?

[Zambo]

If you couldn't be bothered to view the foxhole content, why should i bother?

Don't, but it just shows you up again, as one of the batch of posters on here, who spend most of their time focusing on the source due to prejudice, rather than commenting on what is written in articles.

[The Tick]

You can't criticise others for not viewing things from a particular publication, if you profess to not view it either.

[Zambo]

You can't criticise others for not viewing things from a particular publication, if you profess to not view it either.

No that isn't what I'm criticising.

[The Tick]

Yes it is. You decide to not view foxhole content ,but criticise me for doing the same.

[Vespa]

I didn't post it from a Foxhole article. What part of it isn't credible?

The fact that it's from foxhole.

If you didn't read it, what was the point in you referencing it here?

Now how about some comments on the content, rather than the usual deflection tactics and rubbishing the source. What do you think should be done about it would be a good starting point, that is if you think something should be.

Even in Western countries not so long ago you could marry girls in their teens. In the US there are some US States where you can marry your daughters off at 12 even you can convince a court. Until 2015 in Spain you could have married a 14-year-old and the legal age of consent sex was 13. Marrying your daughter off as soon as she menstruates still being a thing is hardly a surprise, no matter how despicable it is.

The upside of this story is any 'child brides' going through the US immigration system are likely to be saved from their abusers by the system because it's a crime in the US.

Make you wonder they the headline isn't 'child brides saved by US immigration system' other than 'something something peados'