mrrobj

My fiancé has been to the Bangkok Embassy on four separate occasions on the last two months, for baby's passport and K1 visa........and every time she went, she had nothing but good things to say about all the staff at this Embassy.

During the baby's interview.......that didn't ask any questions and spent the entire brief interview by joking with our baby. And during her K1 interview, the consular sensed that she was scared and tried to joke with her to calm her down. She also indicated he was extremely nice and the consular told her in broken Thai.....to have a good time and safe trip to US and congratulated her. My fiancé, however, cried thru the whole interview...lol

You'll be fine my friend......

Yeah I've been told that if you even mention the word "bar" you can forget it. Of course they can't deny you for that, but they can just come up with some other default reason for denial like they don't think it's a bonafide relationship and use that as an excuse.

This info is Spot on!

I recently obtained a Visa from the Bangkok Embassy and the one bit of advice that I would give you, is I would not bring up the word "Pattaya" period, not even to state you stayed at a hotel or whatever.

Of course, I am not telling you to lie, but if you mentioned she worked on a farm and/ or is currently working on a farm. Well, that is the truth, correct? Then only mentioned the farm work. Why even bring up Pattaya in the conversation????

Of course, do not provide photos, emails or anything else that even remotely discusses bars or the bar girl life. You are free to be honest or proceed as you fit, but you have been warned not only from Karee, who is very familiar with the subject matter and lived in Thailand for quite some time, but from someone you just recently got a visa approved out of Bangkok.

My fiancé wore something similar to a pants suit and it had the office look. I believed what also worked in my favor was the fact that we had a two year child together. It doesn't guarantee approval but it provides a foundation for the consular to believe its a bona fide relationship. Moreover, when my fiancé when to the Embassy to apply for the baby's passport, she was told by an Embassy official that reviewed her paperwork that she should make sure the passport was front and center when she goes for her interview.

Here interview lasted less than a minute......only two questions!!

BTW....I worked with an Immigration firm out of Bangkok, Brian Wright, as I felt more comfortable with a lawyer in the process and I heard is one of the best in the area.

You are pretty cute yourself! Great to see a hot looking chick for an avatar for a change.

That your wife, mrrobj?

Yes, as of two weeks ago... !

Your family is unbelievably good-looking (your good self included!). Your little girl is absolutely adorable!

Thanks for the compliments....its sincerely appreciated!!!

Oh yes, my little girl is adorable.....only 2 years and speaking two languages!!! LOL!!

Well dude... if she is yours.. You are indeed blessed.. She has hotness numbers north of 9

I support all rights, Gay, Gun Owners, Reproductive , and Photo polygamist.

Yes, she is ALL mine! and the love of my life!.

Thanks for the compliments!

Not important. My photos together with my wife have been posted for 5 years. What is important is that you agree with them on politics, most importantly gun control (I actually agree with them on everything else but not gun control and for that reason I must be attacked) If your wife is Ukrainian posting her photos at your profile will be considered bragging and "showing off", unless you also favor gun control.

You OTOH are the genuine article because you agree with them on gun control. So there are no questions about your relationship. I disagree with the on gun control and they cannot respond sensibly so they attack me, my wife and family. It was an unprovoked attacked by Maven in "response" to one of my posts that resulted in me postung the Italian model. This immediately brought forth a cascade of anti-gun posters to scream "LIAR", as I suspected they would. Great fun.

It does not work for you because you are on "their side" and they do not obsess about your whereabouts, what time you are posting, what cars your wife and children drive. I bet you could not get ANY of them to do internet searches of airline intineraies or post maps of foreign countries.

It is however, OK to be a gun control snob. For example, YOU can have a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed .32 auto with no cartridge in the chamber to protect your son from "bear attacks". But other people who wish to protect their families from attack are "gun nutters" and "wussies"

Most hoplophobes call 911 to summon a wussie with a gun of they are attacked.

Sorry you cannot discuss the topic of SYG. You still carry a .32 ACP as a bear gun?

I think you got me confused with someone else.....as I not believe I been on "their side", just the opposite, I been attacked quite a few times already...LOL!!

Nonetheless, I believe in stating my opinions honestly and I don't attempt to cater my opinions to fit anyone's agenda.

BTW....I believe in reasonable gun control laws, so I guess that's a strike against me.....

I was asked to fill in my profile by another poster, which I had no problem with......and also included photos in my profile page, as someone began to allege I was posting internet model photo. I believe they were just joking, but its all good. I have no reason or need to hide my identity or profile from members of this board.

A little off the topic, but is that your wife in the picture?

As you know sir, my trial record is impeccable. My sig is proof of my jurist prudence.

Oh yes, that's my pride and joy in life....going on 7 years, but only been my wife for 2 weeks, 3 days and 4 hours....LOL!!

One of my favorite things on VJ is when some Joe Schmuck starts talking about Criminal Trial procedures as if he is a criminal defense attorney and the other guy is a 3rd year law student that should know what he is talking about. What law school did you go to ... UHH 5 mins of CNN OMG ROFL

You obviously didn't understand the joke in my comments when I mentioned "basic criminal trial procedures"....

The poster continued to challenge me and question others if it was conflicting issues in the GZ trial?

Hello.....why would you have to go to a trial, if there is no dispute or conflicting issues????

Seriously, do you need law degree to understand that??? I think not....

Because they're religious CRAZIES. Crazy people don't understand logic. Crazy religious people are even worse. They're not only illogical, but they believe that some all knowing being up in the sky is 100% behind their craziness. That makes them exponentially more crazy when they think they have god in their corner. They could care less if the republican party wins another election. As long as they did the lord's work trying to make it happen, then there's a special place for them up in the sky after their Social Security runs out and they starve to death. Same with the Islamic nuts and the virgins and all that.

It's a pretty easy decision really. If someone could convince me that I could spend eternity getting laid by 70+ virgins on a daily basis, rather than living a squalid existence in some $hithole in Pakistan, I might consider blowing myself up I doubt I could ever be convinced of that though. 70+ women and 1 man has trouble written all over it. I don't care if they're virgins or not. Sounds more like hell to me.

LOL!!!

It's a catch 22 thing. You'll never get the republican nomination by being a moderate. However, when you do get the republican nomination by being right wing nut, then the your democrat opponent beats you over the head with all the crazy $hit you said in the primaries to win the nomination in the first place. That's why you'll never see someone like Chris Christie or any other moderate republican win the nomination to run in the general election. Prepare to see Democrats in the white house for a long time in the future until the republican party can rid themselves of the religious crazies.

It's almost funny when they go on about how bad Islamist extremism is, yet the right wing christians in this country have alot in common with them. The Christian right in this country is basically a mild form of the Taliban. They just threaten people with calling them out for being "un-christian" rather than blowing them up. The principle is the same though.

Spot on!

This appears to be a common reality with the Republican party......and it continues like clock work. I mean, who does not understand this?

Given this reality, why don't the "religious crazies", as you call them, of the party.... can't comprehend this reality and wake up and smell the coffee. Don't they want their party to win a Presidential election in the next decade or more??

Or, are they seriously crazy and simply just can't comprehend or control how their actions are steadily hurting their party. Even after all that talk in the last election about how they vowed to make changes, look what they are doing right now???? They pushing these issues even further at full throttle.......so much for those changes, lol....

Since I'm a registered Democrat and obviously bias, can a Republican on this board please explain this? I'm honestly curious as what their position is on how their Republican party should move forward.....

Nope. Not even a teeny weeny tiny one. Now, they tried to repeal Obamacare 40 times already but they have failed with that effort, well, 40 times. Take Boehner by his word and judge him on how many laws he actually managed to repeal. Not one. He is the biggest failure that has ever occupied the office of Speaker of the House.

OUCH!!

So you guys are saying this so-called "conflicting evidence" didn't come out in court?

Serious? Let's get back to the basics of simple criminal trial procedures in a court of law......

If a case did not have any conflicting evidence, controversy or materials of fact in dispute, then this long trial would have not been necessary.

The Defense could have moved to dismiss the case before trial.

There was no dismissal in this case.....it proceeded to a trial and the jury had to determine the conflicting issues in dispute.

Get real.....

I'm sure a Democrat controlled Supreme Court would see it the same way. I'm sure they already have, but I didn't feel like looking it up. Both sides have have their list of reasons for keeping things the way they are. Somewhere near the bottom that list is what's best for the people in this country.

Herein lies the root of all our major problems......

The current system for electing Presidents needs fixing as well. Something is wrong when 8 or so "battleground" states decide a presidential election.

Agreed.....you can make arguments for and against a "popular vote", with the winner taking the most votes overall......or with the flawed electoral system. Choose your poison.....but can a divided government fix anything?

This lead us back to the Gerrymandering of districts.......and, I failed to see any merit in how this could be allowed to take place.....with either party!

How can we have a Government for and by the people, when are states are not properly represented. I don't think the frames of our Constitution meant for our system of elections to work in this manner.

Voting districts and maps should be made by "neutral parties", not by elected officials of parties.....who obviously are going to draw districts to their favor.

Then you have a Republican controlled Supreme Court that does not want to address the issue......cuz then it would lose it control.

So....we are back to square one!

A divided government whereas nothing can get done in Congress, as a small minority in Congress has the power to obstruct and prevent anything from moving forward.....

My rant for the day.....

Gerrymandering? Hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are just as guilty of this when drawing minority districts.

Granted, but it wasn't a dispute about which party was guilty or not.

My response was strictly related to the fact that poster indicated the "good ole boys" will continue to lose elections.

I was only emphasizing the fact that they will continue to lose National Presidential elections and possibly some Statewide Senator elections, but not local elections.

Your America is the good old boys. You make up the less populated areas. That's why you keep loosing elections.

Also, without pointing out the obvious differences between now and 1776, what are the odds of this great military revolution you refer to happening in present day America. In my mind, none.

I'd appreciate a response that doesn't reference Jews in Germany in 1930s

Spot on!

But despite the fact that a lot of these areas are less populated and less likely to win National elections, with all the gerrymandering of the red districts in these areas, they will continue to hold enough power at the State/local levels to continue their "good old boys" America.

If this is directed at me, ugh what are talking about? Stand your ground? I don't care about it. Not at all. Mostly because any and all of this is just discussing the after effects of a guy carrying a gun around in public. If GZ did not have a gun, he wouldn't have had the balls to play cop. You know cops are trained how and when to handle their weapon. This guy isn't. You guys believe in gun rights to a fault. Even when your own children kill themselves or others with your guns. It's not even a hobby anymore. It's become an obsession for some. And it's not for personal protection. It's for holding back a fascist us military advance. You guys know how insane that sounds?

Are those "facts" you heard form Al Sharpton and MSNBC?

Classic!

Attack the source, when you are unable to respond or dispute what was written.

Are those "facts" you heard form Al Sharpton and MSNBC?

NO,

But I did hear in was a "cut and dry case" multiple times from FOX news.

What evidence was conflicting? This case was pretty cut and dry that's why GZ wasn't even charged in the first place.

First, some of the witnesses to the incident were not even interviewed until weeks later and AFTER GZ was released.

It was conflicting testimony as to who was on top during the fight, who was screaming on the phone, the route that Trayvon took, what reasons GZ was following him, etc, etc.....

Again, too much conflicting evidence for not even a trial or arrest to take place.

At end of the day, an unarmed teenager was shot and killed.

We can agree and disagree on who was right or wrong in this altercation, but it was far from a cut and dry self defense case.

And yes, no charges were made that nite.......but officers were disciplined for their actions that nite as while. You can argue this discipline was political, but others will argue it was faulty police work.

Nonetheless, at the end of the day, too much conflicting evidence and facts for any immediate decision.

This is tragic but the good news is that the homicide rate in Chicago is down 37% since Concealed Carry was forced on the Governor and Mayor who were protecting criminals like the one that did this. As more and more IL residents get their concealed carry permits, this sort of thing will be reduced and hundreds more young people will NOT be killed every year.

In response to crime victim George Zimmerman's "acquittal" for something he had to do to defend himself we see a push in many places to repeal laws that protect victims from criminals.

Fortunately this will aslo be rejected.

The permits will not be issued until sometime next year....so much for that theory!

Let's just flood the streets with unlimited supplies of guns.....I'm sure that will solve all our problems.

Why don't we try to keep criminals from getting guns and going after the gun runners who are putting thousands of guns in the hands of criminals.

Wouldn't it just be great for political debate if Holder were to bring Zimmerman up on Federal Charges though? You can forget about Bengazi if that happens.

Despite the outcry, I believe Holder, at the end of the day, is going to decline the urge to file any federal charges. I believe he made a subtle attempt in last speech to state this. But, he has to play the role and state his department is looking into it.

Obama pretty much stated the same thing in his last speech, without actually saying it outright.

I think it is obvious that it would be a very high hurdle to cross to prove federal charges in the GZ case. He has to prove intent. And, that is why both are them are mainly talking about the review of the SYG laws, and not a federal prosecution case.

Now you're pointed in the right direction.

You are the one who desires open borders. I say send all the illegals back. I am just realistic as to what the situation will be for the uneducated workforce in America. Why should I be happy over generations of nonproductive Americans draining the country dry. I wish every black person had a good job but if you cannot even do basic math where are you going...In china that same person would be handed a broom to sweep the street,,,, Don't see that happening here,

That's funny, you mentioned sending all "illegals back" and about blacks not having "basic math" skills......but judging your writing skills in this post, I'll guess we'll have to deport you as while or give you a broom to sweep the streets...LOL!!