Yup. "Murrica Has No Shortage of Deplorable Motherfuckers

[Amarok]

It's time to overthrow the Mexican government.

‘IT’S A HUMAN RIGHT’: MEXICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ON MASS EXODUS TO AMERICA
5:45 PM 06/22/2018
Dominic Mancini 

"Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.

“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

He then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports."
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/mexica...on-speech/

Any want to move to Mexico?  It's your human right to do so, no paperwork required!

Yeah, well, the Mexican Army patrols the border with Guatemala and manages to just repel the majority of the transients on their way to the US. Hypocrisy writ large.

"In 2015, Mexico deported more Central Americans than the United States did. So to say that Mexico is ignoring this problem or, you know, sitting around with its arms crossed and encouraging people in the United States does not match with the facts on the ground. There is an aggressive policy in Mexico to deal with this problem."

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/04/0...t-migrants

I'm not even close to a position which encourages an overthrow of the Mexican gov, BTW.

Tiz, you grew up in the Frozen North. Any wonder you thought it was too hot.

True enough 

[henryp]

Sigh 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigr...separated/

So there's probably no reason for Time magazine to issue a correction then.

[Amarok]

So there's probably no reason for Time magazine to issue a correction then.

No there is not as they did nothing wrong .

[henryp]

So there's probably no reason for Time magazine to issue a correction then.

No there is not as they did nothing wrong .

It was a trap!  They already issued a correction yesterday for lying about some of what happened.

[Amarok]

It was a trap!  They already issued a correction yesterday for lying about some of what happened.

No they issued a clarification os why they used the photo because idiots like you keep saying they lied .

[henryp]

It was a trap!  They already issued a correction yesterday for lying about some of what happened.

No they issued a clarification  because idiots like you keep saying their lying .

“The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she taken from the scene,” the correction reads. “The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together.”

That's a hell of a misstatement.  "Oh, did I say carried away screaming by the Border Patrol?  I meant to say carried by her mother.  I always get those two things confused!" 

[Amarok]

No they issued a clarification  because idiots like you keep saying their lying .

“The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she taken from the scene,” the correction reads. “The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together.”

That's a hell of a misstatement.  "Oh, did I say carried away screaming by the Border Patrol?  I meant to say carried by her mother.  I always get those two things confused!" 

Once again they still didn't lie

[henryp]

“The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she taken from the scene,” the correction reads. “The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together.”

That's a hell of a misstatement.  "Oh, did I say carried away screaming by the Border Patrol?  I meant to say carried by her mother.  I always get those two things confused!" 

Once again they still didn't lie

No, of course not.  They just said one thing happened when a completely different thing actually happened.  

The Brian Williams school of journalism.

[Amarok]

Sigh they did not lie

Lying implies dubious intent it was a clarification of the issue and the photo as they have already pointed out .

[henryp]

Sigh they did not lie

Lying implies dubious intent it was a clarification of the issue and the photo as they have already pointed out .

You understand they said the girl was "Carried away screaming by US Border Patrol Agents" in the original article, right?
That was completely made up.  How does one mistakenly think the child was "carried away screaming by border patrol agents?"  The photographer saw what they had written, and corrected them.  
It was a piece of fiction that advanced the already phony narrative that goes with this photo.  That this girl is the 'face of Trumps immigration policy."  Even though everybody has said this incident has nothing to do with the change in policy.  But you get the picture going viral without the context, and a bunch of dopey people will draw the conclusions they want them to draw.
The 'clarification' is that the picture is bullshit.  The correction, is that they just made up part of the story.

---

Remember back when you found that snopes article, and you thought you got me good!? Those were good times.

Now you're like "I don't think they intended to say "She was taken away screaming by border patrol agents." instead of the truth for any dubious reasons.

Just so you know, "Yeah, Times fucked up on this one. They need to be better." is still on the table as an acceptable response.