In the UK, "partner" is the generic term for both couples of all sexualities, married or not.

@raphjd

Your better chance, if either you or your husband's industries are on the needed skills list, or you're management, is to find a UK company with US offices. There is an inter-office visa that allows the company to transfer you to the US without running a lottery.

This is the L1 visa for the employee and the L2 for the spouse. You cannot do this for the express purpose of becoming a citizen or permanent immigration (meaning you can't make that statement of fact, it's just for the job man!)

Caveat: You do not build time for citizenship. You can apply for a green card eventually.

….Continue? ... I Didn't support them in the first place and I REFUSE to support them. Trump is a lying, narcissistic, climate change denying,  ego maniac who thinks he's right and everyone else is wrong.

It's just a saying here in the US when you're not good with words.

I'm more concerned, that part of his speech were direct quotes from Bane, the villain in the last Batman movie.

Take that however you like.  😞  And his children may run his company but he did not divest himself, that's a huge problem and conflict of interest. Theoretically, he could trigger his removal or impeachment if he's caught using Presidential influence to promote his business. The phrase "Constitutional Crisis" has been used but it's not really a crisis, there's a clause that Mike Pence becomes President in that event, and he's incredibly anti-LGBTQ but possibly better with diplomacy internationally than Trump.

She's said she is going to sue Tommy over their Twitter fight.    :blownose:

@alibix:

@raphjd:

You are too limiting on what an SJW is.

SJWs include feminists, BLM, "Just Believe", the "Slut Walk", "Take Back the Night" and many, many others.

It's Norweign male politicians who apologize to their muslim rapist.

It's Swedish feminist Left Party politicians that claims being raped by Swedish men is worse than being raped by muslims.

It's the people that defend muslim "refugees" who rape 10yo boys because they had a "sexual emergency".

It's the people who demand the media de-muslim/de-refugee media articles, like the Paris McDonald's killer story.

So anyone who disagrees with you?

said the person disagreeing with with someone that doesn't like abuse and really horrible shit.

that's you, that's what sjws are all about. it's not that they want to be right, they want to be loud so much that a little tiny disagreement is called violence and anyone that disagrees with them is called a racist because it feels good to bully other people and try to justify defending
being an abuse apologist. yes, let's lie about rape statistics so that the resources get allocated away from actual victims. let's create fear because the ends justify the means. let's beat our chests and rip our clothes in the streets and be self-righteous instead of actually righteous.

who cares if you make problems worse, you were just fighting for justice and anti racism… by being fucking bigoted fascists and worse than the religious right ever was.  so long as you can get very powerful positions in the wasteful beuracracies and institutions you own make, and use to rape any dissent.

@raphjd:

http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/crime/227116738-story

4 blacks knidnap a mentally disabled white guy, yelling FUCK TRUMP and FUCK WHITE PEOPLE.    Oh yeah, the police aren't sure if it's a hate crime, despite the video evidence.

YouTube and Facebook keep removing the video.   I guess because it makes blacks look bad or something.

It make you wonder why no left leaning "news" outlet is talking about this.   Could this be the reason why so many SJWs claim they don't know things like this are happening?

it certainly doesn't help that it's being called the BLM kidnapping because it's not that.

you have a very good point but everyone on the internet is going to act like they know everything that happened and bullshit isnt' fixed with more bullshit.

@Eridanos:

Well, at least it shows that there are women who actually advocate for true equality. (And I'm refering to the author, since she actually pointed out stuff in the most neutral way possible)

So…male-only groups have to actually admit women, while women-only groups just need to accept applications and then throw them into the recycle bin without facing administrative consequences. And even got the permission to do that?!

Yeah because admitting males to female only groups would be akin to open the door of a barn full of lambs to big bad wolves.  Is funny how supposed these women who claim are 'liberated' and 'empowered' call the 'weak, helpless victim' card whenever they see fit.

Gender-only groups already polarize the sexes (though there might be gender-specific groups that actually have a reason of being if their cause is related to issues pertaining one gender exclusively)

If college is teaching students how to move in the real world, I'm afraid they got it wrong when it comes to work and live with others.

yep, and now they're saying that gays are misogynistic. the plot has been lost.

@pornofan:

The only "ist" in MY comment was "extremists," and when you consider lifelong racists like Jeff Sessions and the Biggest Loser threatening (promising?) a new nuclear arms race, that description seems inarguable. As for lo-info voters, when very substantial chunks of one party's supporters claim their candidate won by a majority of the popular vote, increased unemployment, had declining job numbers during the longest continuous period of job growth, and otherwise live in some fact-free alternate universe where Russian cyber intrusion is A. disputed and B. welcomed and defended, their mirror world seems indisputable too.

Obama was far from perfect, but accomplished more than his detractors give him credit for and, to the extent there is any history left for most of us, will be well regarded for running a productive, scandal-free administration that pulled the world economy back from a precipice despite unprecedented obstruction from before he was even sworn in.

Certainly what Obama has done to normalize gay rights, including open military service, marriage, spousal benefits, and gay families is impressive in its own right and should be more highly regarded on a site like this one without a lot of bogus both-siderism to muddy the waters.

I'm taking a wait and see approach myself. If Trump/Pence do not try to reinstate DADT or introduce legislation to undermine same-sex marriage and/or the benefits that come with marriage, then I think they should be applauded for not going the typical Republican route on that issue. However, if they do decide to go that route then they'll be known as bigots and there is no other way of putting it; especially for  Trump because it would've meant he flat-out lied about his support for the LGBTQ community simply to get enough of the community to vote for him. They have the opportunity to continue the progress President Obama began by changing the rules surrounding gays serving in the military and same-sex couples receiving the benefits that opposite-sex couples have always received.

@alibix:

@raphjd:

Vocal Minority? To be honest, the only time I EVER hear about SJWs is when other people on the internet complain about them.

And you still deny what that says.    :blink:

WOW, just WOW.  :crazy2:

Anyway, as I have repeatedly said, you don't notice SJWs because they fit perfectly in your echo chamber and match your confirmation bias.

You see black people forcing white to walk through a creek to get to class and you think; too fucking right, crackers need to learn to obey black people, nuttin' wrong wit dat.

What the fuck? I REPEATED that quote to you. When did I deny it?

Now you spout some bullshit I never said. Jesus fucking christ.

I'm just explaining why you never see anything as SJW, because you agree with their antics.

I rarely watched the show when it aired but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this. It would interesting to see what a new Will and Grace would be like without the network restrictions of the 1990s and 2000s.

He is ugly and apparently unable to find someone his own age who will agree to fuck him.

yenni-768x477[1].jpg

@kinky4play:

So much misinformation as usual. Where to begin.

A large number of the "anti-trump" protesters were actually the local anarchist who are very common in the NW region. They joined the protest strictly to cause damage and had nothing to do with the actual protest. The one story about this (all the rest were just repeats of the original story) stated that "they didn't vote.. in Oregon". Many of the protesters were from Washington State, the border being a 10 minute drive from Portland. A large number of protesters were college age and therefore vote in their permanent state of residence, not the one they may be attending school in. 3rd party fact checking sites view the original claim as "unproven" at best

It's also interesting that the vast majority of damage and harassment since the election has been towards the minority communities including many attacks on LGBT people. I still can't understand why an LGBT person could support a Neo-Nazi group, but then I remember there were actually gay men in the upper ranks of the Nazi regime of Hitler.

1.  Ok, so how do you explain the other riots that weren't in the NW?

2.  HUH?  Are you saying the links talking about other cities with riots were actually talking about Portland?  If Portland was part of the article, it doesn't mean the entire article was only about Portland.

3.  You need to prove this, because you can register in either.  At least that was the case back when I was in the Marine Corps and college.

4.  I hope you aren't claiming Snopes as a fact checking source.

@alibix:

@Loki100:

@raphjd:

:police:  You are violating our forum rules, by repeatedly calling me a troll.   :police:

Care to show me where, considering it isn't in your posted rules? It also seems quite a little self serving, might I ask just how often you are accused of trolling?

@raphjd:

Those are my posts, whether you like it or not.     And like I said before, you can't debunk what I said, so you are only left with name calling.

Okay fine. Let's play the debunk game. You said, "Feminists have taken Due Process away from men when accused of sexual assault on college campuses." Due process is fairly specific to the US, and pertains to US laws. College campuses don't pass laws, so they can't actually infringe upon due process. What college campuses do is have policies, which are enacted through various bureaucratic processes. Of course then you have to acknowledge that each college is its own unique institution with its own unique set of policies, and massive variation between them. And since you didn't actually name a college, we can't actually look up what its policies actually are. So what you actually mean is, "Some college boards/presidents/administrators have enacted policies that _feel are unfairly biased in favor of the victims of sexual assault." Which is a very, very, very long way from your initial statement.

@raphjd:

I responded to your comments by posting my rebuttal with facts.    If you are not willing to have a proper respectful conversation, then do not reply.

:police:  You can disagree with me and have a civil discussion and there is no problem.  If all you have is name calling, then you are risking being muted on the forums.   :police:

Actually you didn't. Note again that you didn't actually name a college. And if you at everything else you have posted, it is similarly long on claims, short of facts to actually examine.

These people are professional victims. There's no use trying to reason with them. They jack themselves sore to crazy feminists on tumblr each night to confirm their worldview. There's nothing you can do to help.

LOL.  How sad are you?

Again, another feminist who can't debunk a single thing I said so it's the well worn name calling. _

@Bearloch:

I see a new Adolf Hitler coming within the decade.White people will only be pushed so far.

It won't go that far, but whites will be pushed further and further to the right.

I do love the "Suck It Up, Buttercup" bill in Iowa.  I think it should be a federal law.

@Loki100:

@raphjd:

AGAIN, if you people really think what you are doing is so good, then why do you need to hide your faces?!   Why do you need to assault the media who is covering what you are doing in a public space?!

And this is the perfect example of exactly what I was talking about (in fact, I noticed it earlier, but felt the sheer hypocrisy of someone in the LGBT community being anti-rioting was more important to point out). Literally no one was talking about this. You brought it up out of no where, it doesn't apply to anyone here (nor to the conversation). You don't even proffer a context to make sense of it. Just an accusation hurled around, because you picked it up in the comments section on a right-wing website.

This is textbook troll behavior.

@raphjd:

Stonewall was completely different from an election.   And as you seem to ignore, the Stonewall rioters didn't cover their faces.  Nor did they use "injustice" as a reason to loot.

Wow. You really are ignorant.

Just because you weren't talking about it doesn't mean it can't be talked about or that it has no relavence on this topic.

It does fit here because they are SJWs just like you.  You guys claim you are the good guys yet you need to cover your faces, while looting in the name of injustice.

There are countless videos on the internet to show exactly what I'm talking about.

If you want to talk about "ignorance", then we need to talk about SJWs who can't provide any evidence to support their claims and just name call or physically abuse people, like pouring a bottle of piss on a reporter's head and then running away.

The prime minister of luxembourg

He is a fake libertarian and a dope.

@TheNewt:

How are Hillary and Bill viewed in Mexico and Central America?

Do people there realize how they are racist and do not like immigrants from Mexico and Central America and how even Hillary wanted to build a wall or fence between the United States southwest border and Mexico?

NAFTA is a bad thing for pretty much everyone, even here in the United States.

When the Lewinsky scandal broke up Bill was regarded as a dirty man and some regarded Hillary as a subservient wife, willing to suffer the shame due to political power.

Of course, this is Mexico so when you find someone worse, the others practically become 'angels' to the masses.

I don't know if the Clintons are racists or not but I can get why they don't like immigrants (illegal immigrants) after all, they suck part of the state funds and give nothing in return since they don't pay taxes.

Mexico actually needs the NAFTA because USA is the main consumer of mexican goods and the governments never tried to build relationships as strong with other countries.

Right now there's a Trump-hate bandwagon in Mexico, and honestly I'm fed up with it.  And honestly in most mexican eyes the illegal immigrants are traitors for leaving the country but now they think of them as martyrs due to the Trump agenda (and because Mexico gets a huge income from their money transfers in yummy green dollars)

I guess it was too much work to fact-check that HE did have a faulty microphone, huh?