mmmbop1976

swing mofo .......... swing

gloating and vengeance are not admirable human qualities

good thing you didn't apply few years back when it took much longer to process a spousal visa. there are other things done by nvc other than just process your paperwork, they do background checks, security checks, etc, because let's face it, some people try to use marriage as a convenient way to get into this great country. as far as the paying of fees before paperwork is generated, well, probably if they sent it all together there would be many people that would return the paperwork w/o payment, or with the wrong type of payment, but then bother nvc to process their paperwork while they get the proper payment and send it in. this way is much less headaches and keeps the system moving more steadily. if your concerned with the processing time, learn and use james shortcuts, it will save u a little time. so relax, welcome to the club, you're not alone. the wait will be worth it

my question is how did she get matches onboard? i thought they were prohibited.

The nightmare is just beginning!

why? are you rummy?

Daniel

:energetic:

i'll tell you why, using nancy pelosi's own words in her first statement after dems were declared the majority....."we are ready to govern".....notice she didn't say "we are ready serve". her use of the word govern provides insight into the liberal mindset.....we are ready to govern, i.e. we are ready to tell you how to live your life. hopefully her tenure as majority leader is short-lived.

who gives a rat's-@ss what John Kerry said... it's not 2004, it's 2006!!!

All this blathering about Kerry said this, Kerry said that, is just Rovian-styled GOP-spinnage designed to distract us from the truth that the Bush policies are DISMAL failures.

John Kerry isn't running for SH*T, so why the hell are GeeDubya and his henchmen spending all their time blathering about Kerry. WAKE up, GOP and anyone upset about his remarks, it's 2006.

This is just pure and simple more Republican spinnage designed to distract voters from the real issues:

SIX years of FAILURE by the current administration!

-- Dan

spinning of what? john kerry said it, nobody else. and he says he was making a joke about the president, trying to imply that pres bush didn't make an effort to be smart, and so is stuck in iraq. so here's john kerry, yale educated liberal elitist trying to belittle the president, but let's look at what this supposedly intelligent man said...addressing a group of students at a college in pasadena...."“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” in this paragraph from the speech, in the 1st sentence, "you" is clearly referring to the students he is addressing. so, by default the "you" in the second sentence also refers to the same people as the "you" in the first sentence. there was nothing in between to stipulate otherwise. perhaps the senator should have made an effort to be smarter when he was in english 101 class. but since he has the attitude of being so smart, i still believe my theory that it is a freudian slip. after all he does have a history of dissing our brave men and women in uniform.

we have a right to remark on it in this political season because he was campaigning for democratic office seekers, he put himself in that position.

as far as your comment about bush policies being dismal failures......

unemployment under 5%, stock market record highs, growing economy, and let's not forget that the economy suffered the attack of 9/11 and katrina.

a freely elected government rules afghanistan where before it was the taliban. when the taliban ruled, music was not allowed, woman had to wear burkas outdoors, women couldn't go to school, etc etc

iraq has a freely elected government that the people have a voice in. are there problems there? sure. but at least now the violence isn't being perpetrated by the government on the people.

and even though you hate him, pres bush spends his day finding ways to keep you safe.

you liberal elitists with your condescending "i'm smarter than you" attitude really p*ss me off. maybe pres bush doesnt do things as you would like them to be done, but his policies are by no means a dismal failure. when we have unemployment over 10%, double digit inflation, terrorists conducting suicide bombings in our streets, dictators running iraq and afghanistan, etc, then you can say his policies are a dismal failure. but for right now, you're way off base.

oh, wait, i know why they are dismal failures...because taxes are too low, we don't have universal health care, socialism doesnt rule the day, and the whole world doesnt love us.

I found a link to the entire speach Kerry made here so you can see the entire context in which he made his remarks. It certainly could have been a "botched joke" aimed at Bush- I'll even say probably was, but you can't say it's obvious. Preceding the joke there is one joke generally poking fun of Republicans and one specifically aimed at Bush. After the joke he starts talking about Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. Love the audiences delayed reaction to the line too. I wonder if they really knew what he meant or they thought the joke was funny as it was said.

By the way Phil Angelides really didn't need this being already way down in the polls to Arnold-and it's just wierd seeing Arnold's name on my wife's Cosmo License!

botched joke? or freudian slip?

Speaking of slips...

From the mouth of George W. Bush:

"Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?" —to economic advisers discussing a second round of tax cuts, as quoted by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, Washington, D.C., Nov. 26, 2002

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." —Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002

"After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week — we will have an all-volunteer army!" —Daytona Beach, Fla., Oct. 16, 2004

"Do you have blacks, too?" —to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001

"I'm the master of low expectations." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet….I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." —President George W. Bush, after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004

only 1 or 2 of your examples could possibly qualify as a freudian slip. simply mis-speaking is not a freudian slip. second, and more importantly imo, pres bush was not trying to personally belittle anybody, as was kerry (and in the process giving some propaganda to the terrorists to use). whether kerry mis-spoke or not, why is it necessary to personally belittle someone?

I found a link to the entire speach Kerry made here so you can see the entire context in which he made his remarks. It certainly could have been a "botched joke" aimed at Bush- I'll even say probably was, but you can't say it's obvious. Preceding the joke there is one joke generally poking fun of Republicans and one specifically aimed at Bush. After the joke he starts talking about Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. Love the audiences delayed reaction to the line too. I wonder if they really knew what he meant or they thought the joke was funny as it was said.

By the way Phil Angelides really didn't need this being already way down in the polls to Arnold-and it's just wierd seeing Arnold's name on my wife's Cosmo License!

botched joke? or freudian slip?

Kerry's joke:

"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting stuck in a war in Iraq."

What he meant to say:

"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

really, that's what he meant to say?? hmmm, from the senators own office...

Kerry told the students that if they studied hard they could do well, but if they didn't "you get stuck in Iraq." His office said he neglected to add the punch line: "Just ask President Bush."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061101/ts_nm/...ctions_kerry_dc

you dems just can't ever stick to the facts can you. why is it so hard for you libs to say that kerry f*cked up on this? why are you trying to defend something so reprehensible. instead you just keep trying to spin it so it won't sound as if he was dissing the troops. whatever he meant to say is irrelevant at this point, he should still apologize to our troops for what he did say, and then explain what he meant to say. but he just can't do that for some reason, wonder why.....could it be he really meant what he said?????

i am sorry, did i not write that he FOUGHT for this country? or are you claiming that he did not fight for this country?

Benedict Arnold fought for this country too...

Now, I wonder why this video clip is only 10 seconds long. Could it possibly be because whoever edited the video wanted Kerry to be taken out of context? Surely not!

it's not taken out of context. read the whole transcript. just because something is edited doesn't mean it was done to show something in a different context than it was originally intended (although this happens quite a bit in the political arena), sometimes it's done because what was said immediately prior or after was a different topic, or had nothing to do with the context. this is the case here. and why anybody would try to cover for kerry on this is beyond me......what's that song.......i see your true colors shining through...

You've not answered the question - a "legitimate" government in Kandahar has apparently done nothing (or does not have the power to do anything) about the massive heroin production operation in Afghanistan. That's a bit more than a "problem" for a fledgling democracy - this is a core source of funding for terrorism and organised crime. How can you have a legitimate government (and freedom) when this is going on?

Similarly how can you have a legitimate government in Iraq when military and law enforcment officials in that government are participating in sectarian killings?

i have not seen anything about iraq military and law enforcement participating in the sectarian killings. i see them taking over more and more of the countries security. i have found articles about militia doing those killings but not police or military. that's not to say that they don't, but i don't think you could call it widespread or sanctioned by the leaders. as far as afghanistan goes, i just heard a nato commander interviewed the other day, don't remember his name, but he says they are developing a plan to help the farmers move from an opium crop to legal crops that they can sell on the free market. personally i think things will turn the corner in iraq soon, and from what i see, the afghan government is functioning in that country, although i will admit, mostly just around kabul. but as the populace gets educated, as they get more experience governing, they will get control of their entire country. it will take time, but they are much better off than iraq imo.

Immigration should not be about "the immigrant". It is not about bestowing masses of immigrants (legal or otherwise) "a better life" to the detriment of the America and a majority American citizens. It is about the benefit the immigrant brings to the host nation as a whole. And it is not about the benefit that the immigrant brings to themselves or a select few at the expense of current citizens or for narrow self-serving interests.

this is exactly the kind of discrimination that i am talking about in our current system. ANY law abiding immigrant is a benefit to the nation as a whole! We are the nation of freedom, yet we are so stingy with it.

my opinion only...1st of all, why is there so many illegal immigrants in the USA? because the path to legal immigration is very discriminatory and long for some people. so, for example, if you are a doctor from india with a PH.D. degree, you will have no problem getting a visa to come here in relatively short time. but,if you are a migrant worker from mexico, forget it, you'll be waiting over ten years or much longer. but that mexican worker want freedom and opportunity just as much as anybody does, maybe more. so he must illegally cross into the USA for his chance at living the life he dreams for himself and his family. now, I am not for amnesty, but what i am for is a complete overhaul of the US immigration process so that it is fast, fair, and non-discriminatory. we have room in this country for everyone that wants to come here legally. it should be apply, do a background check, visa issued, welcome to the USA! with the computers and databases they have nowadays it should not take anyone more than 6 months to get a visa of any category. just my opinion. i am very pro-immigration

Good point.

oh no, steven is agreeing with me, what the heck is going on here? ok, i'll probably wake up from this dream soon

my opinion only...1st of all, why is there so many illegal immigrants in the USA? because the path to legal immigration is very discriminatory and long for some people. so, for example, if you are a doctor from india with a PH.D. degree, you will have no problem getting a visa to come here in relatively short time. but,if you are a migrant worker from mexico, forget it, you'll be waiting over ten years or much longer. but that mexican worker want freedom and opportunity just as much as anybody does, maybe more. so he must illegally cross into the USA for his chance at living the life he dreams for himself and his family. now, I am not for amnesty, but what i am for is a complete overhaul of the US immigration process so that it is fast, fair, and non-discriminatory. we have room in this country for everyone that wants to come here legally. it should be apply, do a background check, visa issued, welcome to the USA! with the computers and databases they have nowadays it should not take anyone more than 6 months to get a visa of any category. just my opinion. i am very pro-immigration

I'm so tired of seeing 9/11 politicized, and used for political gain. It makes me sick. And now as many Americans have been killed in the "War on Terror" as died in 9/11. I don't think it does any service to those who died that day to send more people to die in their name.

What happened after the fact w/ Afghanistan & Iraq is a disgrace. After 9/11 Americans acted all 'shocked' that we had enemies who actually wanted to hurt us! That ignorance astounded me.

If my fiance didn't want to move here so badly I would've gladly stayed in England.

bringing freedom to oppressed people is a disgrace? i don't think so. ask the women in afghanistan that had to wear burkas everywhere if they think it's a disgrace

Freedom sure sounds great - but considering that the US has pulled troops out of front line with insurgents to quell ongoing chaos and sectarian violence in the capital - you have to ask what it means in a practical sense. If we are fighting to secure freedom, the decision not to deploy more troops (initially and now) is a rather questionable one IMO.

Similarly if Afghanistan is so free and stable, why is it still the worlds largest supplier of heroin. If the government aren't in control of that, who is?

freedom doesn't sound great, it is great. you confuse freedom with utopia. the people of iraq and afghanistan now have elected governments that the people can now approach with their concerns. our government is in control of this country, yet we still have drug producers, murders, and many other crimes, doesn't mean we don't have freedom.

Afghanistan and Iraq aren't utopia - no, but neither are they "free". If they are free why are Iraqi military and law enforcement officials participating in the sectarian violence. If they are "free" why are busloads of people turning up dead?

I'm not so sure you can compare the US' drug problem to that of Afghanistan, which is as I said is the world's largest heroin exporter. Either the govt are not in anything like full control of the country - or this is going on with their blessing.

they are free in the sense that the people have a say in their government now, with elections they can participate in. are their big problems there? yes, of course their is, but these are fledgeling democracies and it will take time for the people of those countries to fully figure out how to make their government more responsive to the peoples needs etc, etc...definetely a step in the right direction from what they had before. can you imagine what would happen to an iraqi if they had tried to openly protest against saddam when he was in power? or what would happen to a man in afghanistan if he shaved his beard against taliban law, or a woman if she went out without wearing a burka? what the united states is doing in that region is a good and noble thing, and as bad as the press may make things look over there right now, in the future we will look back on this time as a turning point to peace and democracy in that region.

okay, i take back everything i said and replace it with

why can very few of us look at this objectively?

so the standard is if we don't agree with what is depicted in this video we didn't look at it objectively? who died and made you the arbiter of objectivity?

rather presumptuous aren't we? I was referring to the level of emotional response we are getting whenever someone talks (for and against) about conspiracy.

was the sarcasm really necessary?

so the standard is that if you perceive we displayed too much of an emotional response we didn't look at it objectively? i'm not the one being presumptious here. my point stands, who died and made you the arbiter of objectivity?

there are some things that are too clearly obvious. who died and made you the arbitrer of VJ?

really, so you can tell by a persons emotional reaction whether or not they looked at it objectively? give me a break

I'm so tired of seeing 9/11 politicized, and used for political gain. It makes me sick. And now as many Americans have been killed in the "War on Terror" as died in 9/11. I don't think it does any service to those who died that day to send more people to die in their name.

What happened after the fact w/ Afghanistan & Iraq is a disgrace. After 9/11 Americans acted all 'shocked' that we had enemies who actually wanted to hurt us! That ignorance astounded me.

If my fiance didn't want to move here so badly I would've gladly stayed in England.

bringing freedom to oppressed people is a disgrace? i don't think so. ask the women in afghanistan that had to wear burkas everywhere if they think it's a disgrace

Freedom sure sounds great - but considering that the US has pulled troops out of front line with insurgents to quell ongoing chaos and sectarian violence in the capital - you have to ask what it means in a practical sense. If we are fighting to secure freedom, the decision not to deploy more troops (initially and now) is a rather questionable one IMO.

Similarly if Afghanistan is so free and stable, why is it still the worlds largest supplier of heroin. If the government aren't in control of that, who is?

freedom doesn't sound great, it is great. you confuse freedom with utopia. the people of iraq and afghanistan now have elected governments that the people can now approach with their concerns. our government is in control of this country, yet we still have drug producers, murders, and many other crimes, doesn't mean we don't have freedom.

why can very few of us look at this objectively?

so the standard is if we don't agree with what is depicted in this video we didn't look at it objectively? who died and made you the arbiter of objectivity?

rather presumptuous aren't we? I was referring to the level of emotional response we are getting whenever someone talks (for and against) about conspiracy.

was the sarcasm really necessary?

so the standard is that if you perceive we displayed too much of an emotional response we didn't look at it objectively? i'm not the one being presumptious here. my point stands, who died and made you the arbiter of objectivity?

I'm so tired of seeing 9/11 politicized, and used for political gain. It makes me sick. And now as many Americans have been killed in the "War on Terror" as died in 9/11. I don't think it does any service to those who died that day to send more people to die in their name.

What happened after the fact w/ Afghanistan & Iraq is a disgrace. After 9/11 Americans acted all 'shocked' that we had enemies who actually wanted to hurt us! That ignorance astounded me.

If my fiance didn't want to move here so badly I would've gladly stayed in England.

bringing freedom to oppressed people is a disgrace? i don't think so. ask the women in afghanistan that had to wear burkas everywhere if they think it's a disgrace

why can very few of us look at this objectively?

so the standard is if we don't agree with what is depicted in this video we didn't look at it objectively? who died and made you the arbiter of objectivity?

yep, it is easy to see when people haven't watched the video too before posting:-).

Do you honestly think you're the first person to provide links to half-cocked conspiracy theories about 9/11?

Do you REALLY think we haven't heard these arguments before?

It's bullshit.

once again the bush bashers with their willing accomplices at nyt and wp try to use a leak of classified information for political gain without regard for the harm it may do to national security. funny how they only choose 1 small part of the report and use it out of context for their political gain. here's more from the NIE....

"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

and from reuters news...

But the declassified section, which contained 10 judgments about global terrorism including one on Iraq, reached no sweeping conclusion about the war's ultimate effect on global terrorism.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=16&t=33696

I don't think they meant that we should deny our social ties or influences, but that we make ourselves aware of them and how they influence our perceptions. It's easy to become fixed to a perception of something and callous about exploring a different perception. Same thing with egocentrism - everyone has their own perception of reality - a version of reality. The human tendency is to mistake that version of reality for being 'The Reality'.

in reference to becoming fixed to a perception and callous about exploring a different perception..you mean something like how you're so sure that the economy sucks, that even though almost all economic indicators are positive, even though the average poverty rate under pres bush is lower than the average poverty rate under pres clinton, still you're not able to entertain the thought that maybe the economy is not so bad after all, you are fixed to the perception that the economy sucks and callous about exploring a different perception.

Must be related to godsavethefukcingqueen

Hehehe, they do sound very similar. I think my friend's problem is that he's a pretty bitter old dude. Maybe they should have deported him when he racked up a DUI. They didn't, tho; they let him go to AA instead. Softies. But he still hates us. We're still 'f*cking stupid' to him. He doesn't think I'm stupid, but I'm the exception apparently because I vote Democrat, I don't eat very much beef, I drive a fuel efficient car, and I speak four languages. Puh-LEEZE. I do sometimes wonder why I'm friends with the dude...he annoys the ####### out of me sometimes.

maybe you're friends with him for the entertainment value?

Wait wait wait....people still take what Clinton says as truth???

We all know Clinton was too busy golfing to catch terrorists.

I'd still believe Clinton over BUSH any faking day. BUSH is corrupt. Clinton was just foolish enough to get his #######-out not such a #######-up really.

And was BUSH not cowering in some deep underground bunker post 9/11 to make an appearance in NY for nearly a week?? Bush ain't trying to catch Terrorists really he's trying to mess the middle-east up for good. Then China will take over the dominator game. He's stirred up the world big time .

My my aren't you one opinionated individual. Did you sit over in the UK your whole life pondering politics in the US, and then take a special interest in the Clinton and Bush presidencies to form these totally unsubstantiated notions of yours? I just find it a little hard to swallow when someone moves here (or is trying to immigrate) to the US and then starts to bash it relentlessly. I certainly don't go to someone elses country and slam it, and I don't appreciate it when someone from another countrly does it to the US.

everybody wants to slam the usa but they all want to live here