thongd4me

I don't know what to make of this.
The guy seems to have a lot of friends but has not logged in since posting this (12:36PM yesterday).
His last logon was Yesterday, 02:08 PM and he hasn't been back since.
K has not deleted his account; there may be a moderator rule (give him some cool-off time) in play here.
He joined Feb '08 and the timeline says he has an I-130 (from July 2010)
on the stove and got as far as the NOA1 recently.
I think he can profit in his journey by staying, but it's his choice, he's a big boy.

You shouldn't feel far away via the internet.
I have 2 daughters in the US and they won't contact me or acknowledge my attempts to contact them.
My wife's adult son is doing fine in Thailand and she can contact him anytime online.
My kids are so near yet so far.
Her son is so far yet so near.

I thought that kind of stuff only happened in New York.
Obviously the great news is that the kid is healthy and will be cared for.
No need to contact the mom - others will love him as he deserves.
I would go so far as to not contact the relatives - any connection with
the birth mother should be discouraged - I know it sounds harsh but
this looks like attempted murder rather than mere neglect.

But Car Karma catches up to us all, even the mighty mighty Hummer drivers!

I do it often, outside (and in back) at the house. (I've 2 acres of very private land, nothing is visible from the street or neighbors)
But to go to a nude beach, or a nude gathering?
TO ME, much depends on the attitude of the other people there -
ie - if they are 'nudists' already, then I have no issue. If it's a 'private, members only' nude place, I have no issue, as the staff usually keep out the riff-raff.
If they are not nudists, then is some titillating factor for 'going nude' - and really, for that, I just don't see the point.

Five second google search on images alone illustrates otherwise. You want me to upload around a handful of videos on the net of Muslims beheading people? I could even go down the article route and posts the thousands of incidents in this decade involving Islam.

http://www.islamicmovement.org/index_files/qudskn07.JPG http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/amuslimrally2.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/09/article-0-02976A3F00000578-973_468x253.jpg http://images114.fotki.com/v634/photos/1/1222605/5411528/LiveLeakdotcomab9216c6cc15pal3-vi.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Uy2jpMqNnio/TIFVaQxyHRI/AAAAAAAAAh4/1N4Hv1ZvZn4/s1600/hindu-women-raped-by-muslims-bangladesh.jpg http://images54.fotki.com/v564/photos/5/1222605/7885720/BritainMuslimShariaNetherlands-vi.jpg
This one is my favorite though:

Pleeeease, someone drew a cartoon and they nearly burned a city down because of it. Sure it was their own city but hey, not exactly renowned for thought, just 'wars, atrocities and genocide'.
The Ottoman Empire used to churn people into human ground beef [while alive] or burn them alive to renounce Jesus, but hey that's nothing in comparison to this fool burning a Quran.
That's the difference with us, we can admit the wrongdoings of the past, Islam on the other hand just attempts to discredit it using other examples; like it makes it okay or something; which illustrates you have not moved on. The actions of so many over the last decade conform this.

Why is everyone getting their panties in a twist over this? In many Muslim countries, it's usually frowned upon when someone holds a religious book other than the Quran. In some cases Bibles are confiscated and destroyed by the authorities.
The reality of all this is Muslims seem to have a superiority dilemma. They truly do believe they are the greats of all people and their religion is a shining beacon for all of man kind. Unfortunately, the sad reality is Islam has failed as both a religion and a way of life, its brought with it unfathomable amounts of poverty in almost all the nations where Muslims are a majority; wars in those they are not.
Even during the time of Muhammad, the Arabian peninsular was only made rich by looting, wars, genocide and thuggery from him and his cronies. This will only get worse unless Muslims start to wake up to themselves, like most other religions did.

If it was Delhi, I'd say you have about zero chances of getting this visa approved.
You might have better luck at Chennai, though.
I certainly wouldn't rush into anything at this point.
You have numerous red flags and you need to overcome them. (Prior application abandoned, online meeting, short courtship, no family approval on your side, older black USC fiancee, past child-bearing age -- sounds horrible, I know but you know the drill).

It sucks.

Our AOS interview was very relaxed, open and non-confrontational.
Not all interviews can be like that.
Due to your past history, your interviews will all likely be stressful and adversarial.
The Immigration Officer sets the tone and calls all the shots.
Your mission is to try and change the tone of the interview
despite the fact that the IO is your sworn enemy.
If you can get him to laugh or smile and make a common,
confident and assured front while deflecting his barbs with
cheerful honest answers, you may be on your way to changing the outcome.
If in some way he actually steps outside the realm of what is ethical,
legal counsel may be able to tell you how to use that to your benefit.
If you decide to bring a case against the IO, you can't just base that on
your idea of "right or wrong" but upon established immigration regulations
and procedures.

I agree.
The OP can scream and yell "entrapment" but the fact was that a lawyer (or a misinformed friend) told him to lie.
Then she's caught in a double lie by signing a statement not to lie and she denied what her husband did.
The questions about their sex life led STRAIGHT to what the IO was getting at.
Instead of saying he lied to the immigration officer they just used hearsay about a 3rd party report
(inadmissible in court maybe but fair game here because the OP went for the bait).
It was a very clever trap and the OP fell for it hook, line & sinker.
The IO didn't have to say WHO the outside party was. That someone in Romania was an immigration officer.
If challenged, he would have said "your husband made that statement to an immigration officer."
Silence.

I agree.
The OP can scream and yell "entrapment" but the fact was that a lawyer (or a misinformed friend) told him to lie.
Then she's caught in a double lie by signing a statement not to lie and she denied what her husband did.
The questions about their sex life led STRAIGHT to what the IO was getting at.
Instead of saying he lied to the immigration officer they just used hearsay about a 3rd party report
(inadmissible in court maybe but fair game here because the OP went for the bait).
It was a very clever trap and the OP fell for it hook, line & sinker.
The IO didn't have to say WHO the outside party was. That someone in Romania was an immigration officer.
If challenged, he would have said "your husband made that statement to an immigration officer."
Silence.

I agree.
The OP can scream and yell "entrapment" but the fact was that a lawyer (or a misinformed friend) told him to lie.
Then she's caught in a double lie by signing a statement not to lie and she denied what her husband did.
The questions about their sex life led STRAIGHT to what the IO was getting at.
Instead of saying he lied to the immigration officer they just used hearsay about a 3rd party report
(inadmissible in court maybe but fair game here because the OP went for the bait).
It was a very clever trap and the OP fell for it hook, line & sinker.
The IO didn't have to say WHO the outside party was. That someone in Romania was an immigration officer.
If challenged, he would have said "your husband made that statement to an immigration officer."
Silence.

From the Shakir translation:
Regarding fighting disbelievers:
Chapter 2, verse 191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter...
Chapter 2, verse 193: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah.
Chapter 4, verse 89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
Ok, this is a very small sampling. There are many other examples where Muslims are called on to fight against disbelievers, and establish Islam as the only religion on earth. There's no point digging out all of the verses. We both know they are there.
To be fair, there are just as many objectionable verses in the Bible (mostly the old testament), and extremist Christians can be just as dangerous as extremist Muslims. I think the most notable difference is that most Christians don't believe that God himself penned the Bible exactly as it is written, while Muslims believe that Allah himself is the literal author of the Quran, and Muhammed was simply a messenger. Christians have some wiggle room for interpretation (hence the many versions of the Bible), but Muslims have very little wiggle room - there is only one Quran.
The problem is with Muslims who read the Quran literally, and take each verse as a personal command to themselves to take action exactly as described. Because the new testament largely mitigates the vengeful and violent God of the old testament, most serious scholars of the Bible don't become violent extremists (with some very notable exceptions). The same doesn't happen with serious scholars of the Quran because it doesn't contain any verses to abrogate the violent verses, leaving them to conclude that the orders from Allah still stand - fight against the disbelievers, kill them if you must, and establish Islam as the only religion on earth. The Quran virtually promises that this must happen before Muhammed and Jesus can return.
My personal opinion is that both books are fairy tales, and neither of them serve mankind in a totally positive way. By the same token, I don't believe that radical Christianity is nearly as dangerous as radical Islamism, at least not when either are driven by a literal interpretation of their scriptures.

I wouldn't presume to try to change someone's mind about the religion they choose to believe in. That's their business. It doesn't become my business unless they try to shove their beliefs down my throat. As long as we can agree to leave each other alone then we'll get along just dandy.
My diatribe, for what it's worth, was meant to answer Sofiyya's simple question:
I do believe that there is extremism in the Islam, the faith. The Quran is chock full of verses like the few examples I gave. I've never heard an Islamic scholar explain these verses in a way that would satisfy a secular western mind. Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims in the world don't take these verses literally. They couldn't if they wanted to because the only 'real' Quran is written in Arabic, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims don't speak Arabic. They simply learn to recite the verses by sound. As a result, the brand of Islam practiced by most Muslims is relatively benign, and consists mostly of ritual prayer and fasting during Ramadan. They don't mean any harm to me or anyone else.
The ones who are dangerous are the 'scholars' who understand completely what the Quran describes, and take it as a personal command to carry out Allah's work at the point of a sword. If they have enough charisma, like Bin Laden, they can get a lot of people to buy into their jihadist viewpoint, and that's when things get really dangerous. It's never a good sign when charismatic intelligent people think they are getting a personal "call to arms" from the Quran, the Bible, the neighbor's dog, or the Beatle's White Album.

I have, in fact, read every chapter of the Quran in the four different translations. I prefer Shakir because it's easier to read (without all of the flowery "thee" and "thou" stuff in Yusuf Ali, for example). I haven't read the Arabic original because I don't speak Arabic. I don't pretend to be an Islamic scholar, but I CAN read and understand what I've read. I've heard Muslims say it's ok to study the translations for informational purposes, but any serious study must be done in Arabic. According to Islamic belief, Allah wrote the Quran in Arabic, relayed the verses to Jabreel in Arabic, who relayed the verses to Muhammad in Arabic, who delivered the verses to his followers in Arabic. Any translation or interpretation would not be the word of Allah. Call it Arab chauvinism if you like.
The so-called "sword verses" are the ones that Bin Laden and his ilk use as justification for their jihad. It's impossible to take them out of context because the Quran provides no context for them. This is as opposed to the verses regarding Jesus, Moses, and Abraham, which are clearly historical (though most Christians would argue they are wildly inaccurate). Yes, anyone who knows their history knows that the verses I quoted were delivered immediately after Allah told Muhammad to break off the treaty with the Meccans, but the Quran doesn't explain this in the context of a historical story. These verses were delivered at the time the events were actually happening, and the verses take the form of a command from Allah to all Muslims. Nowhere does the Quran say that these verses are no longer applicable to modern day Muslims. This opens the door for any 'scholar' to use these verses as justification to do just about anything to 'fight in the cause of Allah'. The Bible contains the new testament, which basically absolves Christians from having to follow the violent directives in the old testament. This can't happen in Islam. The Quran declares that Muhammad is the final prophet - there will be no amendments to soften the "sword verses".
Yes, most Muslims believe those commands are situational, but this is based on an interpretation of the meaning, and not a literal reading of the verses. A literal reading of the verses would make it appear that Bin Laden is correct, and there are a great many Muslims who believe as he does. I say there is extremism in Islam because the Quran provides all the justification needed for extremism. I believe the Bible does also, but to a lesser extent. The only religions where you will find no extremism are those that teach there is never a justification for killing.

can someone post a link to an ebonics dictionary?
it's important so there is no discrimination in the hiring process ....

Then why dont set an example of how peaceful and loving islam is, set an example of other human irrespective of their faith, belief or religion.
Unfortunately that never happens, its just followers of islam keep on repeating we are peace loving and there is no room for bloodbath in islam.

If you're looking for a religion of peace Christianity is among the most un-peaceful if you take a look at European history.
Un-peaceful to both domestic folks (the inquisition) and foreigners (Crusades).
Lots of meddling in politics.
Look at the history of the Catholic church.
I like to think that Buddhism is among the most peaceful, but look at the bloody
wars fought between Burma & Thailand (both Buddhist). Nobody is exempt.
Among the major world religions, I don't see any of them that didn't go to war for the sake of religion.
Yes they all claim that they were attacked or offended first.
That's a given.

If you're looking for a religion of peace Christianity is among the most un-peaceful if you take a look at European history.
Un-peaceful to both domestic folks (the inquisition) and foreigners (Crusades).
Lots of meddling in politics.
Look at the history of the Catholic church.
I like to think that Buddhism is among the most peaceful, but look at the bloody
wars fought between Burma & Thailand (both Buddhist). Nobody is exempt.
Among the major world religions, I don't see any of them that didn't go to war for the sake of religion.
Yes they all claim that they were attacked or offended first.
That's a given.

Today is one person, then tomm there will be another and later another.
If you read the whole article you will see the Disney even offered her some other internal position where she could wear her scarf with same pay and she refused it.
She was hell bent upon the same position and in her way, that is the problem.
Disney did everything to accomodate her religious belief, yet she was pushing Disney to change their ways of working which is wrong.
If Disney accomodates her on scarf then tomm she will say I will not serve this dish and that dish (assuming in working in one of hotel)its against my religion.
So she wants to work too, and that too with her condition, she is clearly forcing her employeer to adopt to her way and its wrong.
Unfortunately some ppl even support her when she is clearly wrong.

WELCOME TO VJ

It is not about her being muslim, it is about her not wanting to wear the required COSTUME. The hijab is not part of the costume so she cannot do this job since it is against her religion to take off the hijab in public. She was offered another job at the same pay and a job is a job is a job. If she doesn't like it she should open her own business, take the other job they offered, or go work somewhere that a costume is not required since she is not allowed remove her hijab in public. This has nothing to do with her constitutional rights, she was not fired for wearing hijab or being muslim, they simply offered her another job where a costume was not the requirement and she is throwing a hissy fit and making a scene for not having it 100 percent her way.

You are not seeing the point, a company also has the right under federal law to require employees to wear a costume. They did not fire the woman they offered her another job because she couldn't wear the costume due to her religious beliefs. I am muslim, so maybe I should go apply for a job at a winery or brewery then sue them because I don't want to touch the product, maybe I can win and sit in a corner and get paid for doing nothing. It doesn't work that way and the law goes both ways, I have to agree with disney on this one since they didn't fire her, they tried to accommodate her but she wants it all or none. She has the right to wear hijab anywhere she wants to in this country, maybe she should try france from what I understand they can't even wear it to school even if they pay to go to that school. If she got a job in an office, hospital, or anywhere else they would let her wear it because wearing a costume is not required. There isn't anyone who told her you can't wear hijab or you can't be muslim. Maybe she should just go work in Saudi Arabia as a maid and get molested by her master and slapped around by her Saudi mistress.....really she should quit complaining and look for better options, she is just after money and publicity and I hope she loses.