Jump to content

27 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Posted

Not disappointed (but thanks for your concern). Just a little surprised. I recognized several racial stereotypes available for discussion....but no1 had jumped on any of the various options.

& Then (with a lure) came The Conciliator & TC chose = door #2. Carjacker.

(I too) Observed the carjacker part of the story - & I also noticed = "drive by"

I went to DOJ - OJP website looking for carjacking stats but they are -

image002.jpg

(but) Several "real world" sites are available for research. Carjacking is not limited to USA - it's Global & impoverished demographics have the highest rate of offense. South Africans even tried out an under the car flame thrower to combat the problem. Damn.....I want one of those & a Photon Cannon to help me thru DFW traffic. smile.png

Oh my a racial stereotyping and Obama shutting down websites on purpose thread.Ifwe can work GZ/TM into the mix it may be the mother of all threads.

We should start having liberals at work soon to get it going.

Posted

Oh my a racial stereotyping and Obama shutting down websites on purpose thread.Ifwe can work GZ/TM into the mix it may be the mother of all threads.

We should start having liberals at work soon to get it going.

It's certainly packaging nicely. Eye catching. tongue_ss.gif

Posted

I Goggled Obama protester and this popped up

Quick is he pro or against

Geezh you people

If I am a gay rights protester which side do you think I support

What shocks me is you all think you are all clever

Let's try it another way

What would an anti-gay rights protester be protesting

Gay Rights not against Gay rights protesters.

Maybe your problem is that you use Goggle?

An Obama protestor is someone who disapproves of Obama. The definition of the word "anti" is "against or opposed to". So if you are an anti Obama protestor, then by definition you are against or opposed to Obama protestors. So you are against people who disapprove of Obama. It's a double negative that equals a positive.. Perhaps you could Goggle that.

Posted

You can kill an unarmed kid, but you can't point a gun at anti-Obama protestors even though he didn't shoot or kill anyone of them.

You can kill an unarmed mother, but don't be black pointing a gun at anti-Obama protestors even though you don't shoot anyone or kill anyone.

Lesson learned, I will not let anyone know I have a gun.

Filed: IR-1/CR-1 Visa Country: India
Timeline
Posted

You can kill an unarmed kid, but you can't point a gun at anti-Obama protestors even though he didn't shoot or kill anyone of them.

You can kill an unarmed mother, but don't be black pointing a gun at anti-Obama protestors even though you don't shoot anyone or kill anyone.

Lesson learned, I will not let anyone know I have a gun.

Lib need to make up their mind… most of the time they are harping about lax gun regulation and on and on…. now this time since it was another lib threatening with gun all other libs are ok with it no one has issues about lax gun control.

Posted (edited)

Lib need to make up their mind… most of the time they are harping about lax gun regulation and on and on…. now this time since it was another lib threatening with gun all other libs are ok with it no one has issues about lax gun control.

I'm not ok with it. This is yet another case of someone having access to firearms that shouldn't. Skin color or political affiliation is irrelevant.

Edited by Teddy B
Posted

Maybe your problem is that you use Goggle?

An Obama protestor is someone who disapproves of Obama. The definition of the word "anti" is "against or opposed to". So if you are an anti Obama protestor, then by definition you are against or opposed to Obama protestors. So you are against people who disapprove of Obama. It's a double negative that equals a positive.. Perhaps you could Goggle that.

Ok I will let all these people that for over 50 years be known as civil rights protesters, know they really marched on Washington to protest against civil rights.

Geezh-Tell us again about your vastly superior intellect and how dumb us right wingers are..I think we need to hear that again.

LOL

march-on-washington1.jpg

Posted

You can kill an unarmed kid, but you can't point a gun at anti-Obama protestors even though he didn't shoot or kill anyone of them.

You can kill an unarmed mother, but don't be black pointing a gun at anti-Obama protestors even though you don't shoot anyone or kill anyone.

Lesson learned, I will not let anyone know I have a gun.

I hope you have more than a .32 ?

As for pointing guns at someone.

Just because you did not like the TM/GZ verdict does not mean it's ok to point weapons at people that do not share your opinion

He will have his day in court just like GZ did. If I were the judge I would cut him lot's of slack. In fact if i was the cop, I might have turned a blind eye. That ol' coot isn't going to cause any harm more than likely. Still he was wrong

As for calling for impeachment. I don't like Obama's policies but Impeachment is absurd.He is the elected head of our constitutional government and has not committed a high crime or misdemeanor. i support the Constitution no matter if I support the person or not

.

Posted

Ok I will let all these people that for over 50 years be known as civil rights protesters, know they really marched on Washington to protest against civil rights.

Geezh-Tell us again about your vastly superior intellect and how dumb us right wingers are..I think we need to hear that again.

LOL

Civil rights protestors are not the same thing as anti-civil rights protestors. When you put the word anti in front of it, it changes the meaning.

English

In standard written English, when two negatives are used in one sentence, the negatives are understood to cancel one another and produce a weakened affirmative. However, in many dialects, the second negative is employed as an intensifier and should be understood as strengthening the negation rather than removing it.

Two negatives resolving to a positive

In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a positive. This rule was observed as early as 1762, when Bishop Robert Lowth wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar with Critical Notes.[1] For instance, "I do not disagree" could mean "I certainly agree". Further statements may be necessary to resolve which particular meaning was intended.

Because of this ambiguity, double negatives are frequently employed when making back-handed compliments. The phrase "Mr. Jones was not incompetent." will seldom mean "Mr. Jones was very competent" since the speaker would have found a more flattering way to say so. Instead, some kind of problem is implied, though Mr. Jones possesses basic competence at his tasks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted

I couldn't disagree with you less, si man... er, no man... er...

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...