twowls

Most blacks tend to be very conservative when it comes to gay marriage, religion, and abortion. Obviously not the deciding factors when it comes time for them to vote, though.

I would say that many black communities are very religious, and those that are tend to hew closer to the conservative stance on choice and gay rights, yes. Religion, is there nothing you can't do to paralyze logic and tolerance? (Sorry tolerant religious peeps, of which there are many.)

e·quiv·o·cate

   [ih-kwiv-uh-keyt] Show IPA–verb (used without object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing. to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge: When asked directly for his position on disarmament, the candidate only equivocated.

Hi all.

I sent what I thought was a complete I-129F package to the Texas lockbox address on August 27 via UPS second day air. I received the package back today with a rejection notice. The rejection notice states that the Part B address is not completed. This is true since the address will not fit in the space provided. Instead I wrote "See Continuation Sheet" in the space provided on the I-129F and included a document titled "Continuation Sheet" with my application which contained the address. I did sign and date the continuation sheet and stated it was submitted in conjunction with my I-129F. I did re-read the I-129F instructions which clearly state that if additional space is required a continuation sheet can be used. Has anyone had a similar experience? Any advice on how to correct the problem? Is this just an oversight by the person reviewing the application? Thanks in advance for your help>

Kamal

If it will help them to have it all in the box on the form itself, just get it in there. I remember having to use my littlest tiniest writing in a few fields for addresses. If you can't manage it, have a friend do it. I think that's the simplest solution. But don't white-out the used form. Fill a new one.

Yes, I'm sure there were tens of them. I know a girl who was there for anthropological purposes, and she said she was repeatedly patted on the shoulder and back with lines like, "Good for you, honey." (Whoa.) That she was sufficiently unique to warrant specific "encouragement" tells the tale.

The question being - is why muslim VJers should be subjected to this kind of rubbish and forced to defend themselves from hate-mongers. IMO this kind of thing shouldn't be (and isn't) permitted under the site TOS.

That's a worthwhile point. What a few posters do is little more than spam the forum with bigoted propaganda about an overwhelmingly peaceful people. Allowing it to go unchecked--even protecting it in a way by creating a private "crazy person zone"--is arguably as good as condoning it. Wither the TOS?

It's embarrassing, especially in a community that is, by design, populated by people of every religion and culture. Muslims aren't an abstract concept; they are real people on this site.

There's a difference between reasoned debate and hatemongering, freedom of expression and snarling trollery. Should you be allowed to say that the Muslim religion is a hateful one, even if that statement is false? Maybe. Should you be allowed to say it fifty times in a row in different stupid ways, all day long and into the night, insulting the people of an entire religion in an interminable drumbeat of prejudice? I'm not so sure.

On a similar note - most schools today ask parents not to send their kids to school with anything containing peanuts because so many children nowadays are severely allergic to them. I'm not sure if there's any studies into why this is happening, but it's kinda scary. Thankfully, our children are not allergic to peanuts.

I read yesterday that the increase is associated with some sort of fungus situation that occurs during storage, and isn't about fresh peanuts per se. But this was an unsupported contention, and doesn't really explain why peanuts specifically would host such a pernicious fungus. Lots of people are allergic to lots of things with far less harmful results. Corn, wheat, soy...

In conclusion, hm weird. But the word certainly needs to be spread that anaphylaxis is not funny. A couple people recently have played practical jokes on friends by slipping them peanuts. That's not a practical joke; that's attempted murder with poison.

Well, they're either factual, or not. There is no real middle ground here.

In a one-dimensional way, sure. But language and context matter, and things can be both "factual" and "outrageously biased, mean-spirited, and designed to demonize." Think about opinion polls. Gauging opinion of allowing gay people to openly serve in the military, Option 1: "Would you support allowing all willing and qualified people, no matter their sexual orientation, to serve their country? Option 2: "Would you support forcing our heroic soldiers to shower and bunk with declared homosexuals?"

Language is incredibly powerful. We do not swim in a neutral sea of facts/not facts.

But MM doesn't win by default. What I'm trying to encourage is reasoned argument. Discounting the entirety of what someone wrote because you disagree with who wrote it doesn't count as reasoned argument. It's just lazy. Because when the admission is made that the facts quoted were just that, facts, it diminishes the credibility of the person who initially dismissed the article. The worst part is that just because the instances quoted by MM are factual doesn't prove her premise, it just means she did the research to get her facts right.

I guess so. If the desire is just to mark off a checklist--fact, fact, needs more support, fact--well okay. But I don't think that qualifies as a reasoned argument either. Reasoned arguments, in my opinion, are more dynamic, inclusive, discerning, and rigorous. They involve layers of meaning.

Then the option is there not to enter a discussion. If an overwhelming bias and intolerance for a commentator's viewpoint is pre-existing, I'd suggest the best policy is to remain silent. However, there are some in this community, who appear congenitally incapable of passing up the chance for a bunfight.

I am indeed intolerant of Michelle Malkin and others that are so far to the end of the spectrum they have become mindless caricatures. I believe that Michelle Malkin is so warped, so hateful and poisonous, that she does not deserve serious debate. And as for just covering my ears and walking on by when someone slips her into the conversation as a reliable source, well, I think that's irresponsible. I will stand up to someone holding a hateful sign on the street or inciting wide scale intolerance in any way. I don't think my intolerance of Michelle Malkin is some kind of handicap to reasoned discussion. I think intolerance of Michelle Malkin and all hate-spewing ideologues is the beginning of reasoned discussion.

I thought the idea of the Politics and Religion forum was just that, to entertain serious discussion. Which is why the decent alcohol thread is buried somewhere in the UK forum.

Where is this fabled alcohol thread? Intolerance is thirsty work.

The assumption that she's necessarily wrong because she has a different point of view only speaks to your own prejudice.

You might want to try to recognize that before you start judging others.

Is what you said supposed to be a mirror of my sentence in quotes? Because it just looks like an intentional derangement of my statement as an easement into calling me prejudiced. Which is a really interesting and thought-provozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You missed the point here.

I made no judgement on the validity of MM's OP. I just challenged MAD to disprove any of the instances MM wrote. He could not, because MM, for all her faults, usually backs up what she writes with facts.

Disregarding what someone you disagree with writes, simply because you disagree with their POV, is a cheap way out of a discussion. The article MM wrote was the starting point for this thread, so the burden is most definitely on those in disagreement to disprove the premise, if they wish to take part in the discussion in any meaningful way. Because in the end, their view of the author is irrelevant, apart from providing proof of their bias, whereas their view of what the author wrote is not.

Well I'll think about it, but I'm not sure you can legitimately consider the points removed from how they are made, why they are made, what order they're made in, by whom they are made, etc. When you mention that disregarding what someone you disagree with writes simply because you disagree with their POV is a cheap tactic--I can see that. But there's also something that rings pretty cheap about demanding refutation for things that would never be posed were it not for an intolerant agenda. The next part, which you enacted, is accusing the person who refuses to refute of not being able to do so. And MM wins by default! Body slam!!

You have to understand that seeing a source article from Michelle Malkin is, for some of us, like seeing that an essay was written by Foghorn Leghorn. A complete cartoon. Mr. Leghorn might have some interesting insights, but his history as a mischief maker and Dawg abuser makes him a total joke.

If in order to enter a thread, we have to seriously debate the arguments in the OP and scrutinize nothing else/more, I'll have to check out of this one. But I think it's important to consider the agenda behind the article, just as I would the agenda of of the OP and his pattern of posts, if that agenda were less obvious. We ain't in a vacuum, you know?

Maybe a trip back to the UK?

See it with your own eyes?

Huh? I didn't address her assertions. I'm just explaining why it's not cool to present a rant made by a deeply questionable figure with an agenda almost entirely comprised of intolerance and as*holery and then demand everybody proceed as if it's just an innocent list of musings by a neutral figure. I will question the source, the motivations of the source, the prejudices of the source, before I consider the points being made. It's just your garden variety critical thinking.

It's possible for Malkin to make individual points that can be defended, I'm sure. But I don't go to her for thoughtful discussion on Muslims just as I don't go to homophobes for discussion of gay people.

Mr Owl has just this morning overcooked my eggs. As an aspiring Christian, am I obligated to kill his entire family, or will just the one murder do? I should mention that I've also been looking into Hinduism. When I do follow up on this egg incident, must I use all the weapons at my disposal, or can I just pick the one that "feels right"?

Gagging is part of the auto erotics repertoire, allegedly.

Why an orange specifically, I have no idea. Someone versed in the dark arts of auto eroticism might speak up?

You rang?

It was supposed to be a lemon. In the event that you lose consciousness during your ill-advised solo shenanigans, you will bite down. The acid from the lemon should perk you right up so you don't, you know, die. The orange was about as effective as a cucumber sandwich. This is why you always read the manual, folks.

Then find some evidence that what she wrote is untrue.

This is like an insane person producing some insane rant, having someone disagree with those insane rantings, and then putting the burden on them to disprove all that insanity. No such obligation exists. You (not you, Pooky, but You/One) can assert anything you want in as twisted and myopic and manipulative a way as you want, but nobody is required to begin at a premise of legitimacy and work backward.

Michelle Malkin is widely regarded as a hateful lunatic. Let's disprove that first and then we can talk about her frothings.

Lulz, embedding is disabled on those videos. Too lazy to click again.

I understand. I'll bring my internet over later and click it for you. But can you exhale this breath I just took for me first? I think I'm turning blue. Don't let me die Rob.

Timothy "Speed" Levitch and The Cruise.

This is horrible, but why hike on the border of Iran? I feel like I sound like the conservatives on this board, but honestly. I'm not going for tea around the North Korean border. #######*ckingF? What am I missing? Why would you do that?

There are some straight barbaric countries. Steer the #### clear. There are other mountains.

Omg!

Have I ever mentioned that I am LIBERTARIAN...NOT Republican.

Giggle! That's what all the embarrassed republicans say. Sorry dude. We're not taking him.

the guy has arrived in NYC. apparently he's going to be on the Today show tomorrow morning?

Famewhore circle nearly complete. All he has to do now is stuff some contraband up his snatch and go to Ibiza. Although Korans have a lot of corners--that won't be comfortable.

We ARE an educated civilized country after all.

Citation please.

Should male nudists who commit crimes be sentenced to a penile institution, si man?

That was below the belt, man.

I'm not a mental giant nor a mental midget, but the instruction packet(3) my finacee received was very confusing.

1) Should the checklist be for what is checked on the list or is that a check list for what should be returned?

2) The bottom of the form says to sign and return for your interview date. With or with out the checked or non-checked information?

3) On that list is an affidavit of support form. Should that have come to the pettioner and not the beneficary, or am I just spitting into the wind? Maybe that's proof of a relationship that my fiancee should ask me for that? If it is universal why not part of the I-129F application?

4) Police records for everywhere she has ever lived for 6 months for the past 24 years??? (she's 40 now, don't tell her I told you that)She went to Singapore to escape a per-arranged marriage. But that was many years ago (still after she was 16). I guess, find a Singapore Embassy to confirm the police record??? I hope there are lots of them.

5) Confusing DS form asks for a spouse then parents. Are those the spouses parents??? (not clear).

6) Question about who will come with you or folow you? I assume this is for the married and with children people. Not the relatives coming for the wedding people.

Some questions may be obvious others not so. Just want to make sure I direct my gal correctly.

Thanks

1.The checked things are the things to complete.

2.Send your checked things in with your signed form.

3.Affidavit of support should be filled out by petitioner and included in sent forms.

4.If they want all the records, get all the records.

5.Your spouse, your parents

6,That's about kids. Nevermind.

Please don't carry on until someone has come by to confirm or clarify my responses. I think they're good but wish to have a more experienced person validate or add detail.

The obvious joy and good nature in your post makes me think it doesn't belong in Politics and Religion.

Have you had a Nathan's hot dog?

I have. I'm also a fan of competitive eating. I was born without the football gene though. I know there's artistry there somewhere, but for the life of me I cannot find it. For me it's a series of go, topple over, wait too long, go, topple over again.

My best (girl) friend is obsessed with football. Do. Not. Want. Seems like you get three minutes of interesting action for hours of bored frustration. There's no percentage in it. But I'm not here to jack your football happy. I'll come back if you want to talk about poker or something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d51QNlxGbWs

Gets really good after the 1:20.

Oh I missed this post. That video cracked me the #### up--especially the point where he announced his Masters in Communication. I was crying real tears, and all I could think of was Matt Foley and his VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER.