twowls

There is often more debris left behind after a gathering of 2 million people versus a gathering of 80,000. Liberals often refer to this phenomenon as "math."

There is often more debris left behind after a gathering of 2 million people versus a gathering of 80,000. Liberals often refer to this phenomenon as "math."

"Doesn't have a filter"? Understatement, or misstatement. It's pretty clear to everyone here that Julian is willfully offensive, not just filterless. You're the only one who doesn't notice. Not condoning any bullsh*t that other ignorant people say; but Julian is about as far from diplomatic as an atomic bomb 30 seconds before landfall.

But you just did, punkin. You're going to keep posting, and people are going to keep replying. That's how the internettal digestive system works. People will have opinions; you'll get offended by them, and the sands of time will sift through the hourglass, as do the twenty-four hour time-spans of our existences.
*reflective, slightly antagonistic gaze*

But you just did, punkin. You're going to keep posting, and people are going to keep replying. That's how the internettal digestive system works. People will have opinions; you'll get offended by them, and the sands of time will sift through the hourglass, as do the twenty-four hour time-spans of our existences.
*reflective, slightly antagonistic gaze*

"Doesn't have a filter"? Understatement, or misstatement. It's pretty clear to everyone here that Julian is willfully offensive, not just filterless. You're the only one who doesn't notice. Not condoning any bullsh*t that other ignorant people say; but Julian is about as far from diplomatic as an atomic bomb 30 seconds before landfall.

"Doesn't have a filter"? Understatement, or misstatement. It's pretty clear to everyone here that Julian is willfully offensive, not just filterless. You're the only one who doesn't notice. Not condoning any bullsh*t that other ignorant people say; but Julian is about as far from diplomatic as an atomic bomb 30 seconds before landfall.

Pot? Really? Pot? All you people (forgive me Empress) still want to pour on the hate for marijuana? This is where, if you ever decide to wonder, people start to question your real values and wonder if you're just about general scorn and intolerance.
I know nobody actually cares, but there are several smokable herbs that help with asthma: pleurisy root, lobelia, and sativas, to name a few.
Cannabis is something that grows in the ground. It's illegal because of some profoundly tricky maneuvers that went down some decades ago, but it's one of the most harmless altering compounds you can ingest and many states are working to recognize that, both because as an intoxicant it's incredibly safe, and because it has real, major benefits for a lot of people that are legitimately suffering.
Plenty of people take advantage of this renegotiation to enjoy its recreational effects, but I don't see that as worthy of such utter contempt. Have you ever had a G&T (forgive me Empress)? It's like that. And yeah, it's illegal. I suppose you also spit on jaywalkers.
Is it a reflex to hammer on anything that seems the purview of the dirty left? Because this is nonsense, gratuitous lazy hateful nonsense. These threads where a bunch of you stand around in a circle kicking dirt on people are so ugly. Is that the point? The simple pleasure of rejecting and insulting someone? If so, fifth grade called; it wants its social ethos back.

Pot? Really? Pot? All you people (forgive me Empress) still want to pour on the hate for marijuana? This is where, if you ever decide to wonder, people start to question your real values and wonder if you're just about general scorn and intolerance.
I know nobody actually cares, but there are several smokable herbs that help with asthma: pleurisy root, lobelia, and sativas, to name a few.
Cannabis is something that grows in the ground. It's illegal because of some profoundly tricky maneuvers that went down some decades ago, but it's one of the most harmless altering compounds you can ingest and many states are working to recognize that, both because as an intoxicant it's incredibly safe, and because it has real, major benefits for a lot of people that are legitimately suffering.
Plenty of people take advantage of this renegotiation to enjoy its recreational effects, but I don't see that as worthy of such utter contempt. Have you ever had a G&T (forgive me Empress)? It's like that. And yeah, it's illegal. I suppose you also spit on jaywalkers.
Is it a reflex to hammer on anything that seems the purview of the dirty left? Because this is nonsense, gratuitous lazy hateful nonsense. These threads where a bunch of you stand around in a circle kicking dirt on people are so ugly. Is that the point? The simple pleasure of rejecting and insulting someone? If so, fifth grade called; it wants its social ethos back.

Kamala D. Harris, California Attorney General
It's an election year, and so we're accustomed to hearing typical hyperbole from politicians. But even the most jaded observers of our politics were troubled by the latest head-scratcher from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The Senate Minority Leader suggested, without irony or humor, that Congress "ought to take a look at" eliminating the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to every natural-born American. He, and others in the punditsphere, believe that the Fourteenth Amendment is a problem because illegal immigrants come to this country unlawfully and then have children who are American citizens.
A generation ago, it would have been hard to imagine writing an op-ed defending the Fourteenth Amendment. But that's how polarized and demagogic our politics have become. The Constitution, we're told, isn't human history's finest effort to codify and honor the inalienable rights of persons; it's a loophole for illegal immigrants. And the Fourteenth Amendment? It's not the product of this nation's epic war to end slavery and enfranchise African Americans; it's just another political football that we can toss around to rile up votes and dollars on the margins.
We shouldn't be so cavalier. It dishonors our Constitution and our politics.
It's especially ironic that leading Republicans need this reminder, for it was another generation of Republicans that enacted the Fourteenth Amendment. We had a war about this very question--who is an American? Our answer was, and remains, elegantly simple: any person born in America is an American. Generations before the Civil War, our forefather fled the caste-like European system that uplifted people of "noble birth" and disenfranchised the rest of us. They crossed an ocean, fought a king, and died for a nation where your rights don't depend on your parents' lineage. Catholic or Protestant, sons and daughters of fishermen or noblemen, born to parents from many nations--they called themselves, and each other, Americans. The suggestion that we do any less today dishonors them and us.
Senator McConnell was right, though, that we need immigration reform in America. But thrusting a stake in the Fourteenth Amendment won't solve that problem. Extreme proposals like this are better designed for grabbing headlines, riling up the base, and driving contributions to one's party. But they're costing us a chance to actually solve problems. Honest dialogue about solutions isn't possible in an environment like this. Bipartisanship, compromise, and finding common ground aren't possible. We need to dial it back if we're going to have a chance to solve the big problems facing us, including illegal immigration. So, here's a modest proposal: Let's have a serious discussion that doesn't include eliminating entire sections of our Constitution. We'll each put forward our best ideas, without malignant agenda, we'll debate, and whoever convinces the majority of folks on the merit of their ideas, wins. We may actually solve the problem, which is what people deserve, and we'll spare our Constitution an unneeded trim.

Quit trying to ** with the Constitution! We're not everybody else. This is America, dammit. Keep your grimy hands off the 14th Amendment!

I don't think being played like a fiddle is the exclusive purview of American men, in fact, it is not even gender specific (IMHO).

Sorry about your situation. Per your many previous posts, it seems as though your relationship with this woman has been a roller coaster ride from the day you first met in Thailand. Obviously it is ultimately your choice on what to do but I think the writing has been on the wall for awhile. Her agenda is obviously not your agenda.
She does not what to go back to Thailand because she would "lose face" with everyone she knows in her village. Because of this, she will do or say anything to you so that she will not have to go back to Thailand and face the consequences. I hope you can see through her BS when this is happening. As others have suggested, go back and read your posts. I have no doubt that you will make the right decision.
I hope you can find peace in whatever decision you make. Good luck!!

Oh, please. The man has gone thru so much hell, and now you want to be self-righteous about it?
He is going to "send her back" to her home country. She burnt him, and now he has to look out for himself.
Maybe you would change your mind if it happened to you. We hope it does not.

Uh, yeah, they've both been hung, beaten, had laws made against them to discriminate, lost jobs and opportunities due to who they are... totally different...

Because you say so? Accomplished experts on constitutional law,a ccomplished judges and accomplished litigators - such as Ted Olson who argued 56 cases before the Supreme Court and prevailed in 44 of them - conclude that the equal protection clause does cover same sex marriage.
So, how many cases have you successfully argued before the SCOTUS?

My mis-statement does not equate misunderstanding the Constitution. I was attempting to remind you that we have guaranteed rights in our Constitution, not the "right to pursue" them as you were trying to argue. I know full well that the equal protection clause is in the 14th Amendment, tyvm.
The U.S. Supreme Court's opinions do not "make" laws, but they clarify or overturn them as unconstitutional. Clarification can expand protection of a group under a law, or it could state that it does not apply to a group. It HAS made decisions on marriage before, an it CAN decide cases of this matter. It DOES matter "what's right" under the law.
Equal protection also can be considered based on the rights of people between states. When a person is considered married legally in one state and not another, that can be a foundation for an opinion by the SC. When a couple must spend $1000's to write contracts to gain the same rights as a couple allowed to marry, THAT can be considered.
I've said enough on this topic. But I think that people like you who argue against this are just as bad as those who supported segregation and opposed voting rights for women and minorities. Discriminating against gays/lesbians is equivalent and you should be ashamed for supporting discriminatory practices.

From whentocall911.com
911 is for emergency transport/situations only. I'm sure that the OP would not want to be responsible for the death of someone who was trying to get through because their relative was bleeding out from a car crash. They have seconds of life to live, whereas she is not going to die in the next few seconds.
What if while she was calling, the person with their bleeding relative was also trying to call and couldn't get through?
Having access to the internet as the OP has, she would be far better off googling local shelters. Best of luck OP, to you and your daughter.

Unlike a used car, people do not come with a money-back guarantee. It's therefore wise to establish whether or not a couple is compatible before getting engaged and filing for a fiance visa.
I feel sorry for that woman who just gave up everything at her home country to travel thousands of miles to a foreign continent to marry the love of her life, only to find out she's not as good as your petitioning husband bargained for.

Once you get your NOA1 there will be a number on it that you register at USCIS for email and text messages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONdz41xH4NM&feature=related

It's so incredibly disingenuous for you to try to say you're all for gay people having equal rights, except that gay people shouldn't have this particular equal right, and to try to parse your way there with the kind of white noise that you seem to actually believe might distract from your obvious prejudice. You'd get more respect if you just said that buttsecks squicks you out. Really.
The Constitution doesn't allow states to put things into their constitutions that violate it. The U.S. Constitution preempts states' whack-#### notions, no matter how many yokels in those states want gay people to be invisible or slavery to make a super awesome comeback.
Follow along: People have rights, and your interpretation doesn't matter. California, with the help of the Mormons, homophobes, and a counterintuitive, deeply confusing proposition tried to enshrine right for Some in its constitution. But they don't get to do that, and your opinion matters not a whit. I'll let Judge Walker take it from here:
"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Protecting the rights of the minority is not up to the majority, not up for a vote, not subject to your subtle and elegant legal daydreams. The courts are here for that, for making sure the U.S. Constitution, which is very much about individual rights, is upheld no matter what any ignorant fools want. And there's been a ruling. This is how it works--not how you say it should work, but how it works.
It doesn't matter how you think things *should* be, what you think a "right" is or what marriage is or how you get to the part where opposite sex people can marry but same sex people can't or how you think this notion of equal protection doesn't apply here. Stop thinking it matters, at all. It's getting more and more embarrassing the longer you try to make everything subordinate to your dubious armchair scholarship. There's been a ruling. If you want your opinion on the matter to hold water, become a judge on the 9th Circuit. We'll wait.
If you want to use your time more wisely, use it to examine the clumsily-obscured roots of your stance and think about how you want to feel in 20 years when bigots who still oppose gay marriage are no longer humored but pitied and laughed out of class for their sick, hateful perspectives and failure to evolve, as people that disapprove of interracial marriage are viewed today by all but the most demented. Sucks to be on the wrong side of history at any point when liberty and civil rights are on the line, but it will only be that much more painful and sad when your attitude becomes as isolated and lonely as it will soon be.

It's so incredibly disingenuous for you to try to say you're all for gay people having equal rights, except that gay people shouldn't have this particular equal right, and to try to parse your way there with the kind of white noise that you seem to actually believe might distract from your obvious prejudice. You'd get more respect if you just said that buttsecks squicks you out. Really.
The Constitution doesn't allow states to put things into their constitutions that violate it. The U.S. Constitution preempts states' whack-#### notions, no matter how many yokels in those states want gay people to be invisible or slavery to make a super awesome comeback.
Follow along: People have rights, and your interpretation doesn't matter. California, with the help of the Mormons, homophobes, and a counterintuitive, deeply confusing proposition tried to enshrine right for Some in its constitution. But they don't get to do that, and your opinion matters not a whit. I'll let Judge Walker take it from here:
"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Protecting the rights of the minority is not up to the majority, not up for a vote, not subject to your subtle and elegant legal daydreams. The courts are here for that, for making sure the U.S. Constitution, which is very much about individual rights, is upheld no matter what any ignorant fools want. And there's been a ruling. This is how it works--not how you say it should work, but how it works.
It doesn't matter how you think things *should* be, what you think a "right" is or what marriage is or how you get to the part where opposite sex people can marry but same sex people can't or how you think this notion of equal protection doesn't apply here. Stop thinking it matters, at all. It's getting more and more embarrassing the longer you try to make everything subordinate to your dubious armchair scholarship. There's been a ruling. If you want your opinion on the matter to hold water, become a judge on the 9th Circuit. We'll wait.
If you want to use your time more wisely, use it to examine the clumsily-obscured roots of your stance and think about how you want to feel in 20 years when bigots who still oppose gay marriage are no longer humored but pitied and laughed out of class for their sick, hateful perspectives and failure to evolve, as people that disapprove of interracial marriage are viewed today by all but the most demented. Sucks to be on the wrong side of history at any point when liberty and civil rights are on the line, but it will only be that much more painful and sad when your attitude becomes as isolated and lonely as it will soon be.

You clearly don't understand the law or our Constitution. Half-quoting the Declaration of Independence is no basis for your ridiculous attempt at an argument.
We have a Bill of Rights. In it there is a thing called the equal protection clause. This is the very basis for which Prop 8 was overturned. Read about it. Understand it. Your definitions of what you think are "rights" versus "wants" are not the same as those defined by the laws of the U.S. and the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Marriage is considered a right according to the past opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court (see Loving v. Virginia) and protected citizens from discrimination regarding the right to marry. "Conditions" must fall within reason under the law and allow for equal protection under the law. A federal judge overturned Prop 8 based on the fact that it denied equal protection based on religious beliefs (which the government cannot discriminate by). It will now likely go to the Supreme Court, if they accept the case.

Yeam meant, welcome to