Quote:

Darknight613 said:
For my part, I don't have a problem with having visa policies in place designed to keep terrorists out of the country. I just want to see a reasonable balance between keeping potential threats out without closing the gates on people who genuinely aren't threats and treating foreigners who are here for legitimate purposes like criminals.

To not have any visa policies at all leaves us vulnerable, and going to the other extreme could be seen as a demonstration of paranoia - and terrorists who want to intimidate as well as destroy could see it as a victory of sorts (and according to the article, there are other consequences as well). So a reasonable balance between the two is needed.

And also, naive as it may sound, I'm one of those people that wants to see the guilty punished without the innocents getting punished as well.



Good point, but nowhere in this article was it demonstrated that the decisions regarding the delay or denial of the visas were unreasonable. Without knowing the reasons there is no way to determine whether the decisions were reasonable or not.


Dear, sweet Harley Kwink...I'm madly in love with you. Marry me! We can go to Canadia. Or Boston or something. It'll be grand...You know the cookies are a given. They are ALWAYS a given. You could dump me tomorrow and you'd still get the cookies. Boston..shit, wherever dyke weddings were legalized. And where better to rub their little piggie noses in how bad they suck than right on their doorstep? What are they gonna do? Be jealous of you? Stare furiously at your tah-tahs? Not willingly give you cookies, but instead begrudgingly give you their cookies? Woman, time to wake up to the powers you wield - Uschi