Dan J

Generally speaking, if the marriage is legally recognized in the country it took place it, it will be recognized in the US and thusly make a K-1 visa invalid.

However, it may be possible to have a ceremony in the fiancee's country before traveling to the US on a K-1 visa. But this does depend on the marriage laws of the country. Often, a marriage certificate/licence must be filed before the marriage is legally recognized. Not doing so, would mean that for legal purposes you are still unmarried and could immigrate on a K-1. You would still need to have a legally recognized marriage in the US.

If anyone is considering that, you really need be very familiar with marriage laws in the country you plan to have the ceremony and make the officiant aware that he or she should not file any paperwork on your behalf.

the funny thing is the blaming either way. both parties knew what was happening would end in a crash, yet noone did anything about it. now its the other guys fault.

eta: now that it has happened & the dems are mostly in control. like it or not, the problem of fixing it is on their plate.

There is only so much government can actually do to improve the economy and they have already done quite a bit. The government cannot force buisness to hire, invest or innovate. It can create incentives to do so, but its up to businesses to take advantage of it.

The measures taken have helped. Not as quickly or as much as some people would like. The economy is growing and we are gaining jobs, albeit slowly.

We have sort of a chicken and an egg problem, business need consumer demand to hire, consumer need jobs to create demand. In previous recession, a large part of the recovery was due to the ability for consumers to go into debt to create demand. This time around, many people are tapped out.

Can the government do anything about that? Kind of, it could create jobs to boost consumer demand. But unfortunately, this time around, people are probably paying down debt instead of buying more stuff.

There are businesses that are growing, but unfortunately, not as much in the US market.

You are still judging people based on the color of their skin. Naturally, people are different one from another. Not all whites are the same. Not all blacks are the same. And not all Asians are the same. Similarly, not all blacks are the same as all whites.

This may surprise you, but I have met blacks that I agree with politically and whites that I disagree with politically.

Why, when you realize that people are different one from another, is your conclusion that people are different based on the color of their skin and that people of the same skin color are more similar that people with different skin colors?

What issues do you have in mind when you say that some issues are more important to African Americans? And why do you think that black people are so homogeneous?

I never said they were homogeneous. I did say that if you look at different demographic segments, whether it be race, religion, socioeconomic status, education attainment, age, etc. You will find that people in each group often share similar positions on certain issues. Are they going to share the same position on every issue? Hell no.

If there's a 'cultural' difference, then there's other countries for that.

So now you are saying that all Americans have one homogeneous culture.

We as AMERICANS (and I mean all skin colors) are one in the same on the Federal level and that's how things are supposed to be. "Black issues" are a non-issue on a Federal level, just as "white issues" are a non-issue. It's about AMERICAN issues. Unless blacks aren't American enough for you?

You have rather proven my point. There are African Americans who still face discrimination today, not as much as they used to, but it still happens. But since you don't experience it, discrimination is not an important issue. You might even go as far as to say it doesn't exist.

Try a retail clinic like Minuteclinic first. If its something they can treat, it will cost a fraction of a regular office visit. If its something they cant handle, they will refer you to a clinic.

Target stores and some grocery chains have retail clinics as well.

So blacks are different than whites?

Wow, and here I thought we were being taught all about how people are people....

Of course, that doesn't work for the liberal agenda goes it. Talk out your butt, but don't mean a damn word you say.

You are pretty ignorant if you think African Americans are the same as Caucasians in every way but the color of there skin. You only see a distinction in skin color, but there are other cultural and economic distinctions as well. There are definitely issues that are important to African Americans that may not get much attention from other demographic groups.

After all, Clinton worked with a Republican house/senate and managed to balance the budget! If Obama is so great, he could do it too!

Working together, Republican code word for impeachment.

I expect that a good number of republicans will want to work together on issues like Obama's birth certificate.

Forget this election or the events around it, this country is center-right.

How so?

Actually, I wanted your assessment on those "findings".

I know you think that Republicans doing well in this election is a sign that this article was false. But considering all the other factors in play with this election cycle, why would you think that?

Well of course Crist and McCain are the perfect examples of candidates the Left keep telling the Right... they need to get behind.

Is it because they are this stupid... or that Clever?

If Rand Paul gets more votes than McCain did in one of the most Republican of states, you have a point. But so far, he has been polling lower than McCain the entire season.

It's only unfair or unethical if a party other than the dummycrats are doing it.

My party is better than yours, Neener-neener-neener!

Nate Silver (remember him from the 2008 prez race?) gives Angle a 77.2% chance of victory.

And this is what he posted 2 days ago:

Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate in Nevada, has been improving her position in our forecast in recent days, and for the first time since the spring has better than a three-in-four chance to win her race against Harry Reid, according to the FiveThirtyEight model.

Ms. Angle’s odds improved today on the strength of a CNN poll showing her 4 points ahead of Mr. Reid. The lead, while slight, is her largest since January in a poll from a firm other than Rasmussen Reports. Moreover, CNN’s poll, unlike some others, included Nevada’s unique option for none-of-these-candidates in their poll, as well as the name of Scott Ashijan, who is running under the banner of the Tea Party on the Nevada ballot, although he lacks the support of most Tea Party affiliated groups. A separate version of CNN’s poll, which tested solely Ms. Angle and Mr. Reid, found the Republican with a slightly larger lead of 6 points, and with over 50 percent of the vote.

...

On the basis of the public polling, it is reasonable to consider the race as leaning toward Ms. Angle.

If Reid loses, the people in line to replace him as the majority leader would not be as timid.

Not so much for a big chunk of the workforce in this country - jobs that unfortunately, cannot be outsourced - service sector jobs. Should we tell them, tough sh!t?

Just give it time. I expect Walmart to be the first completely robot operated store.

A shift in the workplace has been happening for years and it will continue to happen. Any job that can be outsourced globally or automated will be. The remaining jobs will be skilled positions often requiring a 4 year collage degree.

The jobs that we have lost in the last few recessions are the types of jobs that have not been recreated once the economy recovers. Thats going to leave a lot of people who are middle aged and approaching retirement unable to save for retirement and dependent on social security.

You can no longer make it by just working hard anymore. Now you will need to work hard, have good education and a bit of luck.

Do you have any idea how many people are tied to their jobs solely because of health care coverage offered by the employer?

Without that tie binding employees to their jobs, many will feel free to choose employers that they like rather than those who over the best coverage. Which will force employers to complete on other benefits and compensation.

Additionally, more people will be willing to take the risk of innovating and starting new businesses if they are not concerned how they will be able to get affordable health care coverage.

There are people who take advantage of the siltation, but there are many more who are bound by the health care system as it has been.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/280260-why-the-right-really-hates-npr-with-or-without-juan-williams/page__st__15

Elmcitymaven says it get 6% from Uncle Sugar. Which is it...1.5% or 6%?

In any event, tax loopholes are open for anyone to exploit...FOX or Lefty pinko liberal media alike. It's not the same as direct government tax dollars targeting one specific entity.

O'Reily just stated tonight on The Factor that public broadcast is getting close to $1/2 billion ($400+ million) from Uncle Sugar. That's quite a big discrepancy from the $2 million you are claiming. One of you needs to get your facts straight or at least clarify where these figures come from.

Something doesn't jive here.

NPR itself only gets 1.5%. Some of its member stations, which are individual non-profits (Not managed by NPR), may get grants directly from CPB or from state/local governments.

Conservatives tend to bundle up American Public Media, Public Radio International, All the regional station networks, and NPR as NPR. However, each regional network of public radio stations has control what they put on the air, they licence programming from NPR, APM, PRI or produce their own programming.

NPR gets about 1.5% of its revenue from government grants. Out of its total revenue, this equals about $2 million per year.

News Corp, which owns the Fox, has taken a number of government subsidies in different parts of its business over the years. Not only that, they have taken advantage of Tax havens to escape being a good corporate citizen.

So its taken years for Republicans to figure out that voting machines might be a problem?

In 2004, CBS News reported that a Diebold executive, Wally Odell, had stated in a fund raising letter that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president” when George W. Bush was running for his second term. Whether or not Odell had the ability to do that is unknown.

Ohio did at the time have voting machines made by Diebold. (Not really sure if they still do)

These potential problems have been known for awhile. Pretty much all voting machines are closed source, and the companies will not reveal the source code to anyone to verify. Its been demonstrated time and again that machines can be tampered with without leaving a trace. There is often design issues which lead to selections that the voter does not intend.

Conservatives seem to have more issue with people voting multiple times, which is not all that easy to hide, especially in a large scale. Rather than tampering with voting machines made often by companies that support the Republican party which can be very easy to hide.

I suppose as long as the tampering is benefiting the Republicans, its not really a problem. When it doesn't the sky is falling.

Trying to make a big story out of nothing.

The real story is, is that the guy was already here illegally and they're looking for any excuse to keep him here now....

The story doesn't get into his immigration status except for saying that he is in deportation.

It could be as simple as an overstay which is forgiven for a heterosexual couple if they get married and file for adjustment of status.

It aint HYPE its a fact!

Keep telling yourself that, maybe someday Republican Jesus will make it happen.

Problem is, even if the Republicans win, they lose. Wednesday morning after the election, the lame duck session starts. Obama will willingly sign anything put in front of him before New Years Eve, and veto anything put in front of him after New Years Day. That is, of course, unless the new Congress throws themselves on a few hand grenades first, like raising the debt ceiling early next year.

Assuming that the Republicans take control of congress, which would disappointing of they did not with all the hype behind them. They would then need to try to do what they actually promised.

Cutting taxes is easy to do, but also cutting deficits at the same time without any plans of going after the big 3 is a non-starter. With a strong defense department being part of the party platform, no Republican who values his job is going to want to make any cuts there. With a large percentage of the Republican constituency relying on Medicare and Social Security, significant cuts there would guarantee huge losses in 2012, not to mention Obama would never sign it.

Republicans will gain some seats, which is expected considering historical trends. But in the end, its not really going to matter. Obama has already pushed through the most significant parts of his platform. Republicans will get pretty much nothing through Obama. In the meantime the economy will improve and people will be less angry. In 2012, my prediction is that many of the seats gained by the Republicans will be lost. Unless they can find some way to keep the anger alive for the next two years.

surely you remeber the 'learn to speak tea bag' cartoon. how about terri gross calling many conservatives opinion 'not worth more than a pitcher full of warm spit'? no balls? you ever turned down a paycheck? yah me neither. don't blame fox or jaun for npr being fucktards or cashing in on it. blame npr for boosting fox's viewership & filling jaun's pockets...dumbasses.

News organizations have for a long time invited writers and cartoonists to provide commentary in the opinion section of the newspaper or website for a very long time. Buts clearly marked as opinion and not passed off as news. Most often journalists working for the news organization are now allowed to write opinion pieces.

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the demarcation between opinion and news is clear.

I'm not sure why Terri Gross is even coming into this. She hosts an art and entertainment program and not involved in news. Nor is she directly employed by NPR, her program is distributed by NPR.

cmon say it, you can do it. you're so close to the truth. NPR has become another far left smear network & jaun was fired because he works at FOXNEWS. this was nothing more than an excuse & soros pulled the trigger.

Considering is generally more on the liberal end of the spectrum, how do you figure?

I think he sold out, but didn't have the balls to resign. But then if you buy the any publicity is good publicity argument, getting fired as dramatically as he did gets you a ton of publicity. Without that, would Fox have offered him a $2 million dollar contract?

Congress went majority Democrat in '06.....PRECISELY in what year did it "all begin"? I mean in which exact year can we pin the blame? I am assuming you believe it is "Bush's fault" so is the current recession because of what occurred in '02, '03, '04, '05, '06 (Dem Congress), '07 (DC), or '08 (DC), or '09 (DC), or '10 (DC)?

The American citizen is as much to blame, as the large corporations, and I'd say Congress/President had little to do to with thwarting off the recession. Here is how I would point the blame:

Large Investment Firms/Banks > American citizen > Congress > President

Housing market which was one of the largest components of this recession, peaked in 2005. We are still feeling the effect of that bubble 5 years later.

I don't think he was fired for the comment. Although it may have been the last straw as it could be and has been taken out of context.

The real reason i think has to do with a conflict between the aspirations of Juan Williams and journalism values of NPR. Juan Williams wants to be an opinion based media personality. As someone becomes a recognized personality you are recognizable for your organization on or off the job. NPR has a certain set of journalistic values it tries to maintain, and having your news analysts on opinion based talk shows conflicts with those values.