w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

I can see the opening sequence.. Ken lands at an airport somewhere in Latin America and a group of busty Latinas with perfect butts in string bikinis who clean at the airport abandon their duties to follow him around, purring ay papi, while they vie for his attention....

VJ wasn't like that when I was a newbie. In a way, this site has become a victim of its own success. With too many posters comes too much noise, and with too much noise, anything good and helpful tends to get drowned out.
Good luck with your visajourney. Grow a thick skin, and learn to wade through the ѕhit to find the gold. It's still there, ya just gotta look harder (and longer) now than I ever did.

I think you misunderstand the concept.

A lot of it depends on the means of the man you've married. I don't know about you, but a lot of these foreign exotic chicas are married to men much much older than themselves, men drawing pensions and/or of significant net worth....
If you're a more regular couple, chances are good that being spoiled today will come at the cost of splurging on that vacation next year or even retiring one day....

This is the Middle East, baby. Whaddaya expect, PEACE? ROFL.

You have no right to board an aircraft. If you choose to board that little metal tube with a bunch of fellow human beings, be prepared to prove you're safe. If you ain't willing to do that, stay out of my metal tube. Drive. Or swim.

VJ wasn't like that when I was a newbie. In a way, this site has become a victim of its own success. With too many posters comes too much noise, and with too much noise, anything good and helpful tends to get drowned out.
Good luck with your visajourney. Grow a thick skin, and learn to wade through the ѕhit to find the gold. It's still there, ya just gotta look harder (and longer) now than I ever did.

Wedgies are for retards, si mon.

Admiral Allen sounds like a durty God hatin' librul to me. BP is a corporation and everyone knows Jesus would have loved corporations. After all, he hung out with prostitutes himself, and what are corporations today if not the contemporary equivalent?

Wow, dumbest post so far. Congrats.
Yes, since it is next to impossible to write TOS in a manner that covers all possible infractions, it is important for moderators to let the community know which behaviors resulted in suspensions, so we all know what to do or not to do. I expect a suspension for my previous post, I've been suspended for milder 'attacks' in the recent past.

'No, man'
'Oh you have too many posts, ####### off for a month' These 'prolific posters' are part of the backbone of VJ, and many have paid their dues and are done doing so. Along the way, they/we have 'made friends' and forged relationships with others. Why the fuque would Ewok thank the backbone of VJ by banning them for a month?
My timeline isn't there because I yanked my petition a month before interview. Plus, data from 07 isn't necessarily 'new and updated' now is it? What good would a 3 year old timeline do someone now?
I always see members here try to reinvent the wheel. As an aside, Steven is notorious for it. Let's split this forum, let's install this new rule, let's do this that and the other. OT is fluid, it'll go on its own. You don't like it, speak up or report the person. No need to have all these new changes and whatnot.
And the simple fact is, drama on OT creates a lot of activity. Tons of hits on each page, spillage over to other forums (like this thread), etc. Look at the 'other site'...it's dead. No one wants VJ OT to become a ghost town, least of all Ewok.

So those trying to scam the welfare system did not become pregnant the regular way?

Nope.

That sign means: Beware US family fleeing Arizona.

See that above, BY. That are what we call "prejudice".
Furthermore you followed up by saying that the truth of the matter is....
This is ignorance. You simply don't have the evidence to form a conclusion and so have formed one out of your own prejudices.
I have shown you that your prejudices are wrong, demonstrably. But this is not enough for you. Apparently in order to prove to you that blacks are convicted of hate crimes, it's only important to you if the numbers of incidents across the different racial groups are proportional.
That is just whack.

5 minutes on Google, BY - is how I found that.
Face it, you and Paul waded into this topic with a bunch of preconceived ideas that hate crimes are a "white on XYZ" thing. Demonstrably this is not the case.

It's being asserted repeatedly that hate crimes are no more heinous than random acts of violence. The reasoning behind the greater impact of crimes that target an entire group rather than a specific individual has been described. If in the face of that reasoning it still makes no sense to people, I guess it won't.
Since it's out there and perfectly logical, it seems the resistance to the disparity in classification comes from somewhere else. Perhaps the resistance lies with the old chestnut that minorities are being given "special treatment" "again."
And again, if it remains unclear why minorities and historically persecuted and disadvantaged groups are more vulnerable that the majority, I don't know what can be said to clarify.
When people cry "reverse racism" and call out the injustice of a "double standard," they are basing this seemingly egalitarian position from the notion that all people enjoy the same status and advantages throughout society. This isn't so. To argue from a reality that doesn't exist is baffling to me. There is an extension to this stance that seems to assert that by treating everyone as if they enjoy the same benefits and powers, that reality will more readily come into being. I think this may work when you get up and you don't feel so great, but do your best to put on a happy face and hope your psyche catches up. I think it's a rather naive and ineffective way to address deeply ingrained forces extant in an entire society.
No, minorities who target whites don't have the same power and impact as whites who target minorities. To argue that they do betrays a fundamental ignorance of the social and historical fabric of America.
There are more powerful groups and less powerful groups. Groups that tend to be richer and enjoy the benefits of generations of economic and social dominance. Other groups that are still working toward a tenuous equality after starting with an unequivocally disadvantaged hand. These disparities are still alive and well. No, you can no longer lynch a black person just because he whistled at your woman.
But the influence of our history still permeates. It would be comforting to believe that this all happened so long ago that its effects are no longer felt, and that we can let go of any awareness, acknowledgment, and proactive efforts designed to mitigate this. But it's actually very recent. It's only been a few decades since blacks won the right to share space with whites, for instance.
It's a shameful history, and the desire to forget about it and "get on with it" is somewhat understandable. What I don't understand is the shrill and aggressive outcry over legislation that acknowledges imbalance of power. Maybe someone can explain it to me better, but from over here it sounds a lot like white people claiming discrimination and playing the victim when white victimhood is simply not a phenomenon that stands shoulder to shoulder with the victimhood of less advantaged groups. White people have the vast majority of the resources, positions of power, access, influence, etc. What is so scary/objectionable about making room for those who don't? What does it cost white people? Nothing much. And yet...up in arms over marginalized folks getting special protections! How dare they!! I just don't understand it at all. There's a tone of actual resentment. Why? We white people are doing just fine. If you disagree; if you actually believe that white people get the short end of the stick, there's no bridging this gap in comprehension and opinion.
What's with the personal sense of injustice when marginalized groups are given specific consideration based on thriving systemic imbalance of power? What is the source of that anger?

It illustrates that you and Paul are lazy.

Because Google is too much work for you lot:
Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias Motivation, 2004

that guy creeps me out. he looks like the guy from poltergeist

Dear Kathryn,
I would like to know why we get scolded for "mean-spirited" discussions, but certain trolls in OT get a free pass to spew their hate in very damn thread!
kthxbai

Your comments on "knocked up women" are extremely offensive. Where in the world do you get the idea that women get knocked up and want to live on welfare?? It is every sane woman's desire to provide the best for their kids, and living on welfare is not a free pass that knocked-up women seek! I have never been a single mom, nor come from a single parent household. However, most of the single moms I know work 2-3 jobs trying to put food on the table, clothes on the back, and a roof over their heads. Where do you come off accusing "knocked up women" for getting a free ride?

You know what touches a few nerves? The fact that all day you post things on VJ and that you make inflammatory statements. It seems as if you think you're better than everyone else. And you're not. You continually post things that make you look like a flat out racist and then hide behind some rationalization that you've created for yourself and claim that you're not.
Puerto Ricans are citizens, and the fact that you don't consider them 'real citizens' and that you'd would like to just throw them out of the country is irrelevant. It's unfortunate that your views of the world are so skewed.
The topic of whether or not Puerto Rico should become a state or become independent is a great debate to be had. But whenever you're involved in a debate it is no longer interesting or fun to participate in. Your posts manage to insult other members' religions, races and cultures and make this a place where many don't want to post anymore.

The "race card" card is more often thrown out by racists or apologists of racists to automatically dismiss an accusation of racism. What better way to marginalize those who seek to expose racism?

The "race card" card is more often thrown out by racists or apologists of racists to automatically dismiss an accusation of racism. What better way to marginalize those who seek to expose racism?