UncleBeer

Yup. Interesting the folks jumping right on the "yeah, that's *racist*" wagon with Pelosi, without realizing that Nancy's just slinging mud as usual; no substantiation of her claim. It's all just 'chin music'.

Yup. Interesting the folks jumping right on the "yeah, that's *racist*" wagon with Pelosi, without realizing that Nancy's just slinging mud as usual; no substantiation of her claim. It's all just 'chin music'.

If they care enough to vote (hopefully informing themselves on the issues, etc.), it's not unreasonable to think they'd avail themselves of the many programs aimed specifically at these individuals. (sorry for the blue squiggly bits that seem to flummox some forum readers), or simply vote absentee by mail. Not awfully difficult, eh?
Considering just how easy it is to vote, even with VoterID rules in place, your concerns seem paranoid. A more realistic fear than 'precluding' folks from voting are 'over-including'; the actual facts of voter fraud:


Or the Obama campaign allowing foreign money to fund his 2008 and 2012 election campaigns.

Plus, VoterID has a popular mandate:




Surely you'd like the people to have their say ... ?

Again, read up-thread. The IRS has admitted to wrongdoing. They simply don't feel like releasing subpoenaed documents revealing how high this goes. I can't imagine why . . .

Since they didn't exercise the same scrutiny on progressive groups, they absolutely broke the law. Now you're just trolling.


Poorly-written ravings. Maybe try re-reading what you've written before posting?


How exactly can one be "guilty of rhetoric"?

Again, re-read up thread so you don't sound foolish. The tea party's only concerned with profligate spending. The rest you've conjured out of your fevered imagination.

That's strictly against the law. That's why 90 year old nuns have to be thoroughly frisked by the TSA, but Muhamed Ahkbar can waltz right on the plane. Welcome to the PC present.
Certainly not in this IRS case. You're just blabbering.
Please read up-thread before you start writing stupid stuff.
Apparently "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't ring any bells for you . . .
You mistake conservatives for anarchists; not even close to being comparable. "Tea party", apart from it's historical allusion, spells out Taxed Enough Already. Its members feel that in an economic environment of a $17,541,268,000,000 national debt (almost half of which Obama caused all by his lonesome, despite his double-talk),that it's worth discussing whether we all really need to pay for tax breaks for brothel workers' breast implants, or whether spending a billion dollars on a dysfunctional healthcare website is prudent, or whether we need to spend $175,587 to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior. Seriously.
The US government is meant to function in an adversarial fashion, and the Tea Party is only exercising their right to speak their minds. That the 'other side' (aided illegally by official institutions such as the IRS) seek only to silence opposition is nothing short of treason.

Voter ID laws are r a c i s t ! Having to adequately prove your identity should be reserved for important stuff, like going on an airplane, opening a bank account, cashing a check, entering a federal building, purchasing antihistamines, attend an NAACP rally to protest voter ID laws, take the SAT, have utilities connected, register a motor vehicle, buy alcohol, buy a bus ticket, get a library card, drive a car; you know: the important stuff.
"Nice nice", but wrong. See post #22. You're welcome.

Why yes; he looks delighted.

Put the blame where it rightly belongs: Obama, and his executive order forcing DACA on the American people, even though Congress had roundly rejected identical legislation numerous times. He's power-drunk and not awfully interested in the will of the people.

Put the blame where it rightly belongs: Obama, and his executive order forcing DACA on the American people, even though Congress had roundly rejected identical legislation numerous times. He's power-drunk and not awfully interested in the will of the people.

That was my point though: except for "officially approved line-jumpers": illegal aliens & folks from the Philippines. While I'm the first to say that the typhoon that happened waaaay back in November was dreadful, current USCIS approval times of zero days for Philippino beneficiaries do not lessen our feelings of unfairness in this process. Time the administration and USCIS go back to following their own rules.

And my contention remains that the president swears to uphold the laws of the land, and that means not ignoring the constitutional "advise & consent" role of the legislature just because he's got some whack notion of "fundamentally transforming America".
Don't forget: You've been bumped back 500,000 places in the visa line because of his unwillingness to live up to his oath of office.

Or they could have not rolled out DACA, and we would have all been approved by now.
Seriously: this unilateral, partisan, end-run around Congress strategy to aid illegals is simply outrageous.

Gosh. A month to get through the I-130. Makes me wish I lived in typhoon-stricken Philippines.

This only happened because of his diktat to fast-track illegals though. Regardless of how efficient USCIS is or isn't, this situation was thrust upon them by Obama, so blaming them makes no sense. As the NYTimes article rightly points out, if this had gone through regular legislative channels, there would have been funding to deal with the extra workload.

Here's what you need to know: https://www.msu.edu/~bitsch/Driving%20in%20Michigan%20with%20your%20foreign%20driver's%20license_English.pdf

Or they could have not rolled out DACA, and we would have all been approved by now.
Seriously: this unilateral, partisan, end-run around Congress strategy to aid illegals is simply outrageous.

This only happened because of his diktat to fast-track illegals though. Regardless of how efficient USCIS is or isn't, this situation was thrust upon them by Obama, so blaming them makes no sense. As the NYTimes article rightly points out, if this had gone through regular legislative channels, there would have been funding to deal with the extra workload.

Can this question in the visa timeline settings be changed to something more like "Is the I-130 petition being filed direct with the local consulate abroad (DCF)?" Yes/No.
I've come across a couple of people who have this field incorrectly selected, as they are living abroad but are still filing via the USA (so are not DCF, but their timelines become identified as such due to the confusion over the meaning of this question).
If you want to hold data on whether they are filing from abroad, but sending to the USA, perhaps break that out to a different question?
Thanks.

And from what I read here, the K3 & K4 visas may take longer than the I-130 to get approved. Far easier to just swim the Rio Grande . . .