Tahoma

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

I tend to think most historians are full of #######. What's written in history textbooks is usually BS or extremely one-sided. Want an example? I had a history textbook that spent nearly 20 pages on Women's Suffrage but only one paragraph on WWI. Far be it from me to judge some historian's take on what occurred in the past, but somehow I think WWI was a little more important in the grand scheme of things (if for no other reason, it indirectly led to WWII).

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

I'd say it depends on the mistake, but on a national or international level, I might agree. I'm just wondering if the same consideration will be given to Obama when he does screw up. And he will too. No president can go one or two terms without screwing something up.

Was that history book about American Civics/History by any chance? My though... that's quite a grand opinion you have of many historians.

I happen to know from personal experience that all history books are bad because I have read every single one of them. I am working my way through all of the American Civics books right now. So far, the first 10,000 or so have all been bad. I'll keep you posted.

Malipayon nga bag-ong tuig sa inyo nga tanan...

I have always respected the voice of Robert Fisk. This article offers some much-needed perspective on the current situation in Gaza. However, I would like to hear his take on the historical animosity between the Palestinians and the Israelis...the connection between the expropriation of Palestinian property and the current violence.

Yes they are. All human life has equal value. Unless someone named You god while I wasn't reading.

Get upset all you like, that I can respect.

That's just nonsense.

A professor's life is worth more than a child molester's.

What if the professor is a child molester?

> Do you think there are many Palestinians who believe they were rightful landowners who were forced off of their land at the barrel of a gun?

Yes, absolutely... maybe not always with a gun pointed at them, but certainly many feel they were ousted from their land.

Do you see any connection between Israeli's expropriation of Palestinian land and the current violence in Gaza?

I would not classify the 9/11 attacks as terrorism if it had been limited to the Pentagon. That was not the case (I wouldn't call the WTC towers in NY a military installation) so the label of terrorism fit.

Are you serious? Of course it was terrorism. They used CIVILIAN planes for God's sakes. Civilians who had nothing to do with the military were killed.

The act of hijacking civilian airliners was indeed terrorism. However, attacking the Pentagon itself was not.

hmmmm...that would seem a somewhat tortured logic to the casual observer. Do you really believe that Americans (and most of the world) would not have called it terrorism if the Pentagon were the only target on that fateful day?

I don't really care what "most" Americans or people from foreign nations think or believe. I consider attacks against military targets to be fair game. It's fine if someone else doesn't agree with me. I'm not asking for others to agree or even understand.

hmmmm...out of curiosity...where does the expropriation of Palestinian property (since the 1940's) fit into your "they're Jews/domino effect" theory? Would you or your family be upset if your property was expropriated?

If my family and I were squatting and the rightful owner requested to reclaim their land, I would have little choice but to accept it. I may not be happy, but then again, I had no legal justification to be there in the first place.

> It is difficult for me to believe your take on the Pentagon attack...but I will accept it at face value.

> Do you think there are many Palestinians who believe they were rightful landowners who were forced off of their land at the barrel of a gun?

I'm sure there are many who do believe they are the rightful owners. Of course... people believe a lot of things. Whether or not this belief has any basis in reality is something else entirely.

I, too, think that many Palestinians believe that they are the rightful owners of the land they lived on for countless generations. I also think that a strong case could be made that there is a basis in reality for this belief. How do you determine whether someone "owns" their land?

aw ummm i think i got lost here. what was the subject of this thread?

Mrs. Prager's frigidity.

I like the way you read between the lines.

hmmmm...that would seem a somewhat tortured logic to the casual observer. Do you really believe that Americans (and most of the world) would not have called it terrorism if the Pentagon were the only target on that fateful day?

I don't really care what "most" Americans or people from foreign nations think or believe. I consider attacks against military targets to be fair game. It's fine if someone else doesn't agree with me. I'm not asking for others to agree or even understand.

hmmmm...out of curiosity...where does the expropriation of Palestinian property (since the 1940's) fit into your "they're Jews/domino effect" theory? Would you or your family be upset if your property was expropriated?

If my family and I were squatting and the rightful owner requested to reclaim their land, I would have little choice but to accept it. I may not be happy, but then again, I had no legal justification to be there in the first place.

> It is difficult for me to believe your take on the Pentagon attack...but I will accept it at face value.

> Do you think there are many Palestinians who believe they were rightful landowners who were forced off of their land at the barrel of a gun?

This probably isn't relevant but it thought it was funny. My sister found it in an old book she had. She thought it a funny joke so gave it to my daughter on her wedding day

Instruction and advice for the young Bride:

Printed by Spiritual Guidance press in 1884

To the young woman who has had the benefits of a proper upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and the most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrifible experience of sex.

At this point, dear reader, let me concede one shocking truth. Some young women actually anticipate the wedding night ordeal with curiosity and pleasure. Beware such an attitude! One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust. On the other hand, the bride’s terror need not be extreme. While sex, at best, is revolting and, at worst, painful, it has to be endured, and has been endured by women since the beginning of time.

Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly during the first months of marriage. As time goes by, she should make every effort to reduce this frequency.

Feigned illness, sleepiness and headaches are among the bride’s best friends. Arguments, nagging, scolding and bickering also prove effective, if used about an hour before the husband would normally commence his seduction. A good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to once a week at the end of the first year and to once a month by the end of the fifth year of marriage. By their tenth anniversary many wives have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual contacts with the husband. She can depend upon his love for the children and social pressures to hold the husband in the home.

Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced clothed and only in total darkness. Once the bride has donned her gown and turned off the lights, she should lie quietly upon the bead and await her groom. When he comes groping into the room she should make no sound to guide him. She should let him grope in the dark. When he finds her, the wife should lie as still as possible.

As soon as the husband has completed the act, the wise wife will start nagging him about various minor tasks she wishes him to perform on the morrow. Many men obtain a major portion of their satisfaction from the peaceful exhaustion immediately after the act is over. Thus the wife must ensure that there is no peace for him to enjoy.

One heartening factor is the fact that the husband’s home, school, church and social environment have been working together all through his life to instill in him a deep sense of guilt in regards to his sexual feelings. The wife seizes upon this advantage and relentlessly pursues her goal first to limit, later to annihilate completely her husband'’ desire for sexual expression.

Sorry about the double posting...I was laughing so hard that I hit the "Proceed" button.

This article is hilarious...I can't stop laughing...a BIG thanks for posting it...it's a classic!!!

> "Thus the wife must ensure that there is no peace (piece?) for him to enjoy".......too funny......!!!

This probably isn't relevant but it thought it was funny. My sister found it in an old book she had. She thought it a funny joke so gave it to my daughter on her wedding day

Instruction and advice for the young Bride:

Printed by Spiritual Guidance press in 1884

To the young woman who has had the benefits of a proper upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and the most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrifible experience of sex.

At this point, dear reader, let me concede one shocking truth. Some young women actually anticipate the wedding night ordeal with curiosity and pleasure. Beware such an attitude! One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust. On the other hand, the bride’s terror need not be extreme. While sex, at best, is revolting and, at worst, painful, it has to be endured, and has been endured by women since the beginning of time.

Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly during the first months of marriage. As time goes by, she should make every effort to reduce this frequency.

Feigned illness, sleepiness and headaches are among the bride’s best friends. Arguments, nagging, scolding and bickering also prove effective, if used about an hour before the husband would normally commence his seduction. A good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to once a week at the end of the first year and to once a month by the end of the fifth year of marriage. By their tenth anniversary many wives have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual contacts with the husband. She can depend upon his love for the children and social pressures to hold the husband in the home.

Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced clothed and only in total darkness. Once the bride has donned her gown and turned off the lights, she should lie quietly upon the bead and await her groom. When he comes groping into the room she should make no sound to guide him. She should let him grope in the dark. When he finds her, the wife should lie as still as possible.

As soon as the husband has completed the act, the wise wife will start nagging him about various minor tasks she wishes him to perform on the morrow. Many men obtain a major portion of their satisfaction from the peaceful exhaustion immediately after the act is over. Thus the wife must ensure that there is no peace for him to enjoy.

One heartening factor is the fact that the husband’s home, school, church and social environment have been working together all through his life to instill in him a deep sense of guilt in regards to his sexual feelings. The wife seizes upon this advantage and relentlessly pursues her goal first to limit, later to annihilate completely her husband'’ desire for sexual expression.

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

Israel is, more or less, a cover for what the Arab nations want. They use the Palestinians to do their dirty work and hide behind them as "victims of Israeli aggression." If fighting were to cease there still wouldn't be peace. The Palestinians (and other Arab countries) want the Israelis dead for one very important reason -- they are Jewish.

People all over the world haven't needed a better reason to kill. In fact, that's part of the reason so many -- both outside the Middle East and inside it -- despise Israel. They're Jews who defend themselves and fight for their people, instead of allowing themselves to be beaten or killed off by whatever power is in-charge at the moment.

I also find it amusing that so many believe if Israel was gone, the aggression the West feels from the Middle East would dissipate. Israel is a westernized nation. The Palestinians and other Arab nations there hate the West and everything it stands for today. If Israel were destroyed, the terrorist groups would simply find another outlet. I'd say North America and most of Europe would then be targeted (even more so than they are today). If anything, Israel provides a convenient buffer for the West. So long as it exists, their Middle Eastern aggressors will aim at them first.

hmmmm...out of curiosity...where does the expropriation of Palestinian property (since the 1940's) fit into your "they're Jews/domino effect" theory? Would you or your family be upset if your property was expropriated?

The difference I see here is that terrorism against a military target is not terrorism at all. The military is fair game while civilians are not.

Then you just proved that Israel is a terrorist state.

I did no such thing. Hamas is both using Palestinians as shields and recruiting them to do perform suicide bombings against Israel. A civilian is no longer a civilian when they take up arms.

I would respectfully disagree. Whether the target is civilian or military, any violence perpetrated by an organisation which does not constitute a nation's or state's military, can be defined as an act of terrorism. If the act is carried by a nation's military, it is an act of war.

The whole of the "troubles", when British soldiers were murdered in Ulster, were terrorist acts. The attack on the USS Cole was a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party was not so much an act of terrorism, as this is a more modern-day expression, than an act of rebellion. As was the storming of the Bastille in France.

And to be fair also, 15 of the 91 dead in the King David Hotel bombing were Jews. Later on, when the Irgun offered to join with the Hagganah, with a boatload of weapons and ammunition, the Hagganah sank the boat, with the loss of more Jewish lives. Leader of the Hagganah at the time? One Yitzhak Rabin, also future Prime Minister of Israel. Hamas and Fatah, anyone?

Yes, some Jews were killed in the King David Hotel bombing. They were all warned of the impending strike. If no one bothered to listen, then that's their fault.

As I said before, attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism. Whether or not a country has condoned the acts (which the Palestinians have done and so do other Arab nations) is irrelevant. The military is designed to fight and therefore recognizes the risk of being attacked at any time.

I'm wondering where the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon fits into your definition of terrorism...("attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism").

I would not classify the 9/11 attacks as terrorism if it had been limited to the Pentagon. That was not the case (I wouldn't call the WTC towers in NY a military installation) so the label of terrorism fit.

hmmmm...that would seem a somewhat tortured logic to the casual observer. Do you really believe that Americans (and most of the world) would not have called it terrorism if the Pentagon were the only target on that fateful day?

The difference I see here is that terrorism against a military target is not terrorism at all. The military is fair game while civilians are not.

Then you just proved that Israel is a terrorist state.

I did no such thing. Hamas is both using Palestinians as shields and recruiting them to do perform suicide bombings against Israel. A civilian is no longer a civilian when they take up arms.

I would respectfully disagree. Whether the target is civilian or military, any violence perpetrated by an organisation which does not constitute a nation's or state's military, can be defined as an act of terrorism. If the act is carried by a nation's military, it is an act of war.

The whole of the "troubles", when British soldiers were murdered in Ulster, were terrorist acts. The attack on the USS Cole was a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party was not so much an act of terrorism, as this is a more modern-day expression, than an act of rebellion. As was the storming of the Bastille in France.

And to be fair also, 15 of the 91 dead in the King David Hotel bombing were Jews. Later on, when the Irgun offered to join with the Hagganah, with a boatload of weapons and ammunition, the Hagganah sank the boat, with the loss of more Jewish lives. Leader of the Hagganah at the time? One Yitzhak Rabin, also future Prime Minister of Israel. Hamas and Fatah, anyone?

Yes, some Jews were killed in the King David Hotel bombing. They were all warned of the impending strike. If no one bothered to listen, then that's their fault.

As I said before, attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism. Whether or not a country has condoned the acts (which the Palestinians have done and so do other Arab nations) is irrelevant. The military is designed to fight and therefore recognizes the risk of being attacked at any time.

I'm wondering where the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon fits into your definition of terrorism...("attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism").

Wow!!! Congratulations to all of you September filers who received your NOA2!!! There are more and more of you every day. I imagine that you are having a very happy holiday season!!! A NOA2 is one of the best gifts ever. I am happy for all of you.

I am also excited to see that the approvals are moving faster than they appear to on Igor's List. I hope this is not just my imagination. I think all of our September applications arrived at the California Service Center at just the right time. They are processing applications a lot faster than earlier in the year. I saw one September filer who received their NOA2 in 107 days. Wow!!!

Questions for all of you you September K-1 filers who received your NOA2...

> How many days was it from the time the CSC received your K-1 until the time you received your NOA2?

> Do any of you September K-1 filers have a medical appointment yet?

> Do any of you September K-1 filers have an interview appointment yet?

I have a very good feeling that 2009 is going to be a wonderful year for all of us...

Good luck everyone!!!

I dont think that the ladies here are whining. Most of them are still on their adjustment period considering the big change that happens when they move to the U.S., and one thing that can help them cope with their boredom and homesickness is through interaction with the people who have the same experiences that they have.

Me and my fiance had a great time discussing what you post here. I tried my best to translate everything to him so he will understand it. I dont speak Bisaya but I can understand some Bisayan words because of the similarity to some Ilonggo words. He thinks that speaking in your local dialect is a good way of expressing yourself and I agree with him.

He always encourage me to post in Tagalog but I told him that sometimes, I have difficulty posting in complete Tagalog sentence for the reason that we seldom speak Tagalog here in my city. I enjoyed reading Bisaya...I am learning little by little. Maybe, someday I will be fluent on it too. haha.

Anyway, dont get discouraged by others telling you not to post in your local dialect. They can always ask their partner to translate it for them.

-Baby

Happy new year....

Manigong Bagong Taon...

Malipayon nga bag-ong tuig sa aton tanan.

This has been a wonderful year for me and my fiance and we are looking forward to year 2009.

We wish all of you a blessed and prosperous new year too.

please make sure this will be the last part

Agree. Lots of inconsistencies on her post.

Consider delusions of grandeur and flight of ideas.

Better to close this thread.

-Baby

Cauliflower mystery revealed...curious minds want to know...

The cauliflower she is talking about can be either one of these...

> hemorrhoids

> genital warts

(my fiancee is a Registered Nurse).

Hmmmm...isn't the OP supposed to be a Registered Nurse!

Just wondering...

Has anyone found any love in this "Love Affair"?

all the details were VERY unecessary. very very unecessary. especially how you met guys, or how guys were attracted to you, etc. and who they were and what they did for a living.

sounds very cuckoo to me for posting that. and right even from the first part of this whack internet love affair story.

why did you even post this? making VJ your virtual diary. dont you have friends to talk to?

this type of story was meant for coffeetables or a day out with the girls. not on VJ.

you should have spared the details and went up straight to the synopsis of the whole thing. i mean... #######. did we have to know everything?

and you say people have been judgmental... well sweetums you put yourself out there. and by posting your story you were asking for opinions and sure enough, you got it.

next time (i hope there wont be) do not post your drama if you do not want to judged by it. as you say, not all men are perfect - that also means not all men will think of you the way you want them to. save your drama for real conversations.

if you dont want to be judged then dont let it happen.

keep the drama to yourself.

this whole post sounds like a whiny girl seeking for attention and sympathy.

USC fiance

AMEN.

omfg that is long...someone give me an outline. it hurts my head trying to read it all

Condensed version: met a lot of guys, first k1 cancelled, second k1 denied bc first not properly canceled, married, divorced, all internet friends, meet guys in bars, all guys love her, met new guy, lots of female friends meet guys on internet, everyone makes mistakes, going for 3rd K1, just got NOA2.

And the cauliflower thing is hemorrhoids.

Thank you!

Cauliflower mystery revealed...curious minds want to know...

The cauliflower she is talking about can be one of two things...

> hemorrhoids

> genital warts

(my fiancee is a Registered Nurse)

Hey everyone...

If you want to save yourself a lot of time...first read Post #5 (at the end of "My Internet Love Affair Part 3").

It is the condensed version of this mess.

Hey everyone...

If you want to save yourself a lot of time...read Post #5 in Part III of this internet love affair.

Yes, Bush is teh suXor. Get over it already.

They won't. Not anytime soon, anyway.

When Obama does something good, they'll say: "Obama's the greatest! Look at him clean up after Bush!"

When Obama does something bad, they'll also say: "Obama's not to blame. He's had a hell of a time dealing with the mess Bush left him."

Amazing, isn't it? If one wanted to talk about psychological issues, the messianic ideals given Obama would definitely qualify.

you hit the nail on the head.

Hit the nail on the head? I hardly think so. The whole "Obama is a Messiah" angle is nothing more than a feeble attempt to take attention away from the fact that Bush is an awful president and his decisions will be felt long after he leaves office. I love how the right wingers still blame Clinton for everything, yet take zero responsibility for Bush's antics.

Apparently, Charles does not want to talk about it. No surprises there.