SMR

How come drivers in Omaha, Nebraska, haven't started driving more so that there is as much congestion in Omaha as there is in Los Angeles? If it were really true that drivers just drive more or less depending on how many roads are available and how much congestion there is, then every road everywhere would have exactly the same amount of congestion. People don't just drive because it's fun and don't stop driving just because it sucks. They drive because they need to get somewhere.
Now, of course there is a fair bit of hysteresis, which is what the article is showing. When traffic is bad, people who can avoid driving will. If traffic is tolerable, the people who want to get somewhere but don't absolutely need to will come out of the woodwork. But that doesn't mean we should start getting rid of roads. At the end of the day, people need to get places.

This girl should just move to Vermont...

This girl should just move to Vermont...

This is just trash talking because you beat somebody. Gaucho is similar to cowboy and is more regional than racial, as far as I know. It is possible to criticize or even mock someone without it being racist, even if that person is of another race.

This is just trash talking because you beat somebody. Gaucho is similar to cowboy and is more regional than racial, as far as I know. It is possible to criticize or even mock someone without it being racist, even if that person is of another race.

This is just trash talking because you beat somebody. Gaucho is similar to cowboy and is more regional than racial, as far as I know. It is possible to criticize or even mock someone without it being racist, even if that person is of another race.

This is just trash talking because you beat somebody. Gaucho is similar to cowboy and is more regional than racial, as far as I know. It is possible to criticize or even mock someone without it being racist, even if that person is of another race.

I know I will be beat down for this but,
I think when you drink a lot, and go home with a man and get in his bed, and then wake up the next day and figure out you had sex then cry rape. well that's BS. If you are sober enough to walk in, and get in the bed.
Now if he drugged you, or used force that's different.

First off, there technically is no such thing as sponsoring a tourist visa. Your future MIL has to apply for a visa on her own.
That said, you can write a letter. The letter is just a piece of paper that they can take to the interview that the officer may or may not look at. My wife's mother and brother came to our wedding. Both applied for visas while she was waiting for the K-1. I wrote letters for both of them and they both got the visas. Honestly, I don't think that writing the letter can possibly hurt. It doesn't really make it more likely that she will stay in the US. If anything, trying to cover it up may make things suspicious depending on how good your cover story is.
However, it probably also doesn't help very much. A common misconception about the tourist visa process is that you need to demonstrate that you have a good reason to come. They actually don't care about that. They theoretically care about making sure the tourist won't run out of money and get stuck, but in practice that doesn't get much focus. What they care about is making sure that the visitor will go home afterwards. The invitation letter about a wedding etc. does help insofar as it helps to create a believable story. It's a piece of the picture that you are trying to paint.
So in summary, I would write the letter. However, focus on making sure that your fiancee's mother has other ties to home and is not a risk of staying. Those are the most important.

I'm pretty sure my dad told me the exact same thing, word for word.

If you have the drive and an idea to be a successful entrepreneur, college is four years for your idea to get preempted or stale while you gain skills that you could have hired someone to do if you really needed them. If you haven't got an idea and entrepreneurial drive, college won't give it to you.
Admittedly, not all entrepreneurship is based on completely innovative ideas. But even then you're better off either studying business or something that directly relates to the field where you want a business. Take a class in entrepreneurship if needed. An entire major is insane.

Probably just insurance fraud. She needed someone to blame it on and the racists that we hear so much about were a good target.

Probably just insurance fraud. She needed someone to blame it on and the racists that we hear so much about were a good target.

Well, the people of Crimea did just see a government that they supported strongly get thrown out of power through violent means. Imagine if liberals took over Washington DC through violent means and threw out all of the conservatives. Don't you think that the Texas succession movement would suddenly get stronger? When people see that a government no longer represents them, they tend to not want it to represent them (especially when they think that government is illegitimate).

When less than 1% of the population of Ukraine takes to the streets and drives out a democratically elected government under threat of violence, the American media and government tells us that it is democracy at work. When 95% of a region votes to become part of Russia because it disagrees with the government of the 1% in Kiev, that's clearly the illegal intervention of a totalitarian regime.
The American definition of democracy is increasingly tending toward just being when people agree with us. Anytime a government disagrees with the US, it's totalitarianism, and any elections that may have taken place were either coerced or outright faked. Anytime a government agrees with the US, it's clearly democracy at work, even if that government is simply an autocrat and tank barrels are the only thing making sure that the people agree with us.
Putin has won this interaction by a mile and it's not because he isn't an autocratic megalomaniac. He is. It's because in contrast to the US position his argument is intellectually consistent. Two years ago as the presidential elections in Russia loomed, Putin was on the verge on not getting 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff. He didn't carry a majority of the vote in Moscow. Now he's a strong as he has ever been because the US decided to push an inconsistent position with neither the moral capital nor the physical might to back it up.

When less than 1% of the population of Ukraine takes to the streets and drives out a democratically elected government under threat of violence, the American media and government tells us that it is democracy at work. When 95% of a region votes to become part of Russia because it disagrees with the government of the 1% in Kiev, that's clearly the illegal intervention of a totalitarian regime.
The American definition of democracy is increasingly tending toward just being when people agree with us. Anytime a government disagrees with the US, it's totalitarianism, and any elections that may have taken place were either coerced or outright faked. Anytime a government agrees with the US, it's clearly democracy at work, even if that government is simply an autocrat and tank barrels are the only thing making sure that the people agree with us.
Putin has won this interaction by a mile and it's not because he isn't an autocratic megalomaniac. He is. It's because in contrast to the US position his argument is intellectually consistent. Two years ago as the presidential elections in Russia loomed, Putin was on the verge on not getting 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff. He didn't carry a majority of the vote in Moscow. Now he's a strong as he has ever been because the US decided to push an inconsistent position with neither the moral capital nor the physical might to back it up.

When less than 1% of the population of Ukraine takes to the streets and drives out a democratically elected government under threat of violence, the American media and government tells us that it is democracy at work. When 95% of a region votes to become part of Russia because it disagrees with the government of the 1% in Kiev, that's clearly the illegal intervention of a totalitarian regime.
The American definition of democracy is increasingly tending toward just being when people agree with us. Anytime a government disagrees with the US, it's totalitarianism, and any elections that may have taken place were either coerced or outright faked. Anytime a government agrees with the US, it's clearly democracy at work, even if that government is simply an autocrat and tank barrels are the only thing making sure that the people agree with us.
Putin has won this interaction by a mile and it's not because he isn't an autocratic megalomaniac. He is. It's because in contrast to the US position his argument is intellectually consistent. Two years ago as the presidential elections in Russia loomed, Putin was on the verge on not getting 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff. He didn't carry a majority of the vote in Moscow. Now he's a strong as he has ever been because the US decided to push an inconsistent position with neither the moral capital nor the physical might to back it up.

Until men starting getting pregnant...

My first piece of advice on the subject is that you need to take this seriously. As an American, it's easy to see the Russian system as a non-sequitur since we don't have anything analogous (at least not for citizens). You really need to dig into what the options are and what the consequences will be. In particular, if you ever decide you want to live in Russia, you would want to make sure that this is all in order.
That said, you do have options. It is possible for a Russian to register at the consulate as living abroad. This effectively removes the requirement to be registered in Russia. However, this can make returning more difficult as you become a sort of transient if you can't purchase an apartment for yourself. Additionally, if you wanted to own property in Russia, register potential children, or otherwise use government services in Russia, not being registered in Russia would be a barrier. Also, it would become more difficult for your wife to register you as a foreigner when you come to visit (of course, her parents could likely register you with just as much ease).
If you don't think that you will want to live in Russia in the future, moving her registration to the consulate might be a good idea. It will make things easier, but will close some doors (or at least make those doors more difficult to open in the future). I'm not an expert on the process and haven't done it myself, so it would behoove you to find someone who has or at least make sure you understand all of the consequences. Depending on the relationship with her parents, you may have to consider how they will view things.
Good luck.

Nobody has any doubt that Russia is working on things like this. The question is only how far from completion is it. I'd say it's decades away.

I found question 44 particularly confusing as it's asking me to choose agree or disagree but asserting two completely different things. It asserts that
--Eugenics is tantamount to Nazism.
--Both are bad, or some such language.
I agree that both are bad, but they aren't at all really the same as both can be practiced independently.

I get that. However, a couple thoughts.
First, I don't think that the fifth amendment is a fundamental right in all cases. I understand where it comes from as far as coerced confessions, torture, etc. However, a police interrogation is quite different from a court room. In open court, the defendant has a lawyer, there are limitations on the questions that can be asked, intimidation and threats should be minimized, and the basis of questions presented is limited to evidence that has been introduced into the court through proper means. Having said that I don't think that our court system has progressed to the level where I would feel comfortable without the fifth amendment.
On the other hand, I don't think that what I have suggested as far as self defense really qualifies as forcing someone to incriminate themselves or even forcing them to testify. Precedent shows that if a defendant chooses to testify, he or she must answer all questions and stand for cross-examination. The step I am taking is just that asserting a self defense claim is effectively waiving your right to remain silent. A defendant cannot choose to take the stand, relate his side of the story, and then refuse to answer questions under cross-examination. Similarly, a defendant should not be allowed to make a vague assertion of, "I killed him in self defense," and then refuse to answer questions under cross-examination.

--Drug Testing: Trayvon Martin's body was probably tested for drugs because GZ asserted he acted like he was on drugs. If the cops didn't think that GZ was acting like he was on drugs, they probably didn't feel the need to test him. I honestly don't see this as something that changes with race.
--Assuming a case where both were white got the same media attention, I'm fairly confident a defense fund would have still materialized. GZ was financially supported mainly based on the gun rights angle. Race isn't a factor there.
--This isn't a question.
--Yes. People that can't keep their emotions in check usually don't end up in juries on high profile murder cases.
--Which specific reactions are you talking about? I assume we're not talking about the tape that NBC doctored, which is really the only thing that suggests GZ was racially motivated. Maybe we're talking about TM calling GZ a cracker, but I thought the claim was that cracker wasn't a racial slur in this case.
--That's another case where it appears the facts will end up speaking for themselves.
As far as the bullet wound, at least one expert stated that the bullet wound could have been point blank and didn't contradict GZ's story.
I understand where you're coming from with the holster. It doesn't sound absolutely conclusive to me (lots of weird situations happen in a grapple), but it might have helped. The main problem here is that GZ didn't testify. Without that, there is no way to introduce into court the way in which the holster was worn or the exact position in which he was being pinned.
I went ahead and answered your points for you (I didn't see any bullets).
I'm not saying it's okay for the law to treat people differently. I'm saying that the focus should be on cases where the system failed. For instance, the 'black baby killers' is a case where the police investigated poorly and appear to have persecuted the innocent. That's something that shows bias and flaws in the system. I can understand the outrage. Going after GZ even though the evidence wasn't there is basically saying that you'd prefer that the system persecute everyone unjustly.

I've said it before, but since it clearly is beyond some here it bears repeating. The George Zimmerman trial came down to whether it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. That doesn't actually have anything to do with race. It's a simple question of whether or not you believe that innocent until proven guilty is a good basis for a legal system.
There are some good points made in the article, but until the author can divorce himself from the massteria surrounding Trayvon Martin, which is based in either a misunderstanding or disregard for the basis of our legal system, I can't see his perspective as reasonable or objective.

I've said it before, but since it clearly is beyond some here it bears repeating. The George Zimmerman trial came down to whether it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. That doesn't actually have anything to do with race. It's a simple question of whether or not you believe that innocent until proven guilty is a good basis for a legal system.
There are some good points made in the article, but until the author can divorce himself from the massteria surrounding Trayvon Martin, which is based in either a misunderstanding or disregard for the basis of our legal system, I can't see his perspective as reasonable or objective.