[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sorry, but all of this comes off as conspiratorial nonsense. And it's been pointed out a million times that we don't have the type of democracy you imagined, because it was NEVER set up that way- it's a republic. Either take part in the process, or sulk in a bunker somewhere, make up conspiracies, and bitch about people in power that your complacency did nothing to affect. Either way, you get the government you asked for.

Wrong. I do vote in every election for every position about which I'm sufficiently informed, and it's pretty much a tossup whether I get the government I ask for.

[Shaddim]

National elections aren't much more than a beauty pageant or popularity contest. The thing is, those positions don't affect your life as much as you think. I'll hazard a guess, but I'd say that 50% of the issues that directly affect you are handled by your local government, 30% by the state, and only 20% by the feds. Again, that's only a guess, more than likely it's even more lopsided towards local and state powers.

So, you're better off getting directly involved on a local/state level, get to know your city council members, mayor, and state representatives. Those people are the ones that impact your life, not some figureheads in D.C.. They'll be much more inclined to listen to your ideas and concerns, they're your neighbors. I run into my county commissioner all the time:

"Hey Mike, what's going on with that road project on 25E? Those workers just goof off all day."
"I've heard that from other people too, I'm looking into it."
"How's Peg?"
"She's good, getting over a cold."
etc. etc.

Screw Washington, put your time into your city or county.

[besson3c]

I do like Peg...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wrong. I do vote in every election for every position about which I'm sufficiently informed, and it's pretty much a tossup whether I get the government I ask for.

Leave it to you to think that meant "you" personally.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Leave it to you to think that meant "you" personally.

Your post is wrong if I take "you" personally, but it makes no sense at all if I take it impersonally. You seem to be suggesting that complacency is the wrong approach, but if this is an impersonal "you" (meaning simply "somebody"), then it contradicts that idea. "Either way, you get the government somebody else wanted"? What kind of point are you trying to make?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: I'm talking raw cost, actual dollars and cents costs - however paid for. I'm not talking percentage of tax, or percentage of anything, but the actual total amount of money that is spent... This obviously includes tax. Capiche?

No... not really.

Population of Canada; 33,390,141
Population of US; 301,139, 947

We spend a hell of a lot more in actual dollars and cents (total amount of money that is spent) on eating out and entertainment too. So what?

[osiris]

I am not a republican or democrat, but will likely vote for Obama, even though I cringe at the thought of having to pick from this whole crappy lot (as usual).

I liked Ron Paul, but then realized he essentially wants to build a fiery moat around the US.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

National elections aren't much more than a beauty pageant or popularity contest. The thing is, those positions don't affect your life as much as you think. I'll hazard a guess, but I'd say that 50% of the issues that directly affect you are handled by your local government, 30% by the state, and only 20% by the feds. Again, that's only a guess, more than likely it's even more lopsided towards local and state powers.

So, you're better off getting directly involved on a local/state level, get to know your city council members, mayor, and state representatives. Those people are the ones that impact your life, not some figureheads in D.C.. They'll be much more inclined to listen to your ideas and concerns, they're your neighbors. I run into my county commissioner all the time:

"Hey Mike, what's going on with that road project on 25E? Those workers just goof off all day."
"I've heard that from other people too, I'm looking into it."
"How's Peg?"
"She's good, getting over a cold."
etc. etc.

Screw Washington, put your time into your city or county.

I find you surprisingly agreeable, compared to the guy who used to use your sig.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I

I liked Ron Paul, but then realized he essentially wants to build a fiery moat around the US.

followed by the torches and pointy hats in the night. *shudder*

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by chris v 

followed by the torches and pointy hats in the night. *shudder*

Which is, of course, leftie FUD.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Which is, of course, leftie FUD.

You've read the links to the articles about the magazines he published for 20 years, basically full of racist vitriol? 20 years is an awful long time to go with "no knowledge" of the content of said magazines. Either he's an insane bigot, or an utter fool -- I'm going with the former, because I have a hard time believing he's THAT much of a fool. But you can go with fool, if you'd like.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by chris v 

You've read the links to the articles about the magazines he published for 20 years, basically full of racist vitriol?

No, I haven't.

However... ...have we actually read the magazines? Or is it the authors of the articles who say it's racist stuff? From experience, I know for fact that the leftie propaganda machine tars everything it can as racist in order to shut the opposition up.

If the magazines themselves are actually racist, I'll remove my sig text (since I don't support racist scumbags). Show me. Until then, it's FUD.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, I haven't.

However... ...have we actually read the magazines? Or is it the authors of the articles who say it's racist stuff? From experience, I know for fact that the leftie propaganda machine tars everything it can as racist in order to shut the opposition up.

If the magazines themselves are actually racist, I'll remove my sig text (since I don't support racist scumbags). Show me. Until then, it's FUD.

Start reading (and following links) about here in the "Ron Paul is an Idiot" thread.

[paul w]

They're easily found. A taste:

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays - CNN.com

edit: chris beat me!

[osiris]

Originally Posted by chris v 

followed by the torches and pointy hats in the night. *shudder*

This rascist twist is news to me, and I've been following him for a couple of years.

My dislike of him started with the excessive border building he envisions (and withdrawing from international treaties/agreements) and the cutting of every government program except the military budget (which I think should be quartered).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Start reading (and following links) about here in the "Ron Paul is an Idiot" thread.

Right then. I haven't got the time to pick them all apart at the moment, but let's take a single example:

Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

What it actually says is:

If you heard a certain behavior of yours caused a deadly disease, wouldn't you immediately cease and desist? Well, gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense. They have stopped practicing "safe sex". The rate of AIDS infection is on the increase again. From the gay point of view, the reasons seems quite sensible, as the New York Times explained.
First, these men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one's older years the happiest. Second, because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.

(http://www.tnr.com/downloads/january1994.pdf)

As far as I can tell, the bit which I've put in italics is simply repeated from the NYT. Anyone going after the NYT for this?
The first part simply seems to be objective reporting with a little "they're a bit mad, aren't they" thrown in. And of course, every sane person hearing about bug parties and the like is prone to think "WTF? That's crazy!".

I've seen the 1992 one about "blacks being criminally inclined", but a little digging shows that this was written by a staffer who was promptly fired.

As far as I can make out from a quick skimming, most of the other incidents (like the one about gays above) are simply leftie FUD, misquotes and hyperbole. I see it every day and this appears to be no different - lefties are extremely good at this kind of thing, since next to no lefties actually go to the source and usually prefer to get their info from the nearest available comrade, who's probably also misinformed.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, I haven't.

However... ...have we actually read the magazines? Or is it the authors of the articles who say it's racist stuff? From experience, I know for fact that the leftie propaganda machine tars everything it can as racist in order to shut the opposition up.

If the magazines themselves are actually racist, I'll remove my sig text (since I don't support racist scumbags). Show me. Until then, it's FUD.

It's not FUD.

The text of the newsletters themselves is indefensible. It's not as if there was an isolated incident. Instead, there's a volume of history to look at.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/january1994.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf


The answer Paul keeps giving about the newsletters is different. He wrote them. He didn't write them. He takes responsibility for them. He won't tell anyone who the authors were.

Reason Magazine - Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? -- and Reason is a libertarian magazine, ostensibly it should be the kindest to Paul. They are hardly a "lefty" rag.

They end the article by saying "Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life."

And he hasn't made that acknowledgment.

This stuff isn't ancient history, it's the 1990s. If Lew Rockwell wrote it (as many people suggest), then Rockwell is a bigot. Rockwell is still close to Paul, appearing with him frequently. If Paul hasn't disassociated himself from Rockwell, it's fair to say Rockwell will continue advising him into a Presidency. If Paul himself isn't a bigot, but allows bigotry to be published under his name and takes advice from bigots, is Paul the President we want?

And this isn't even my biggest problem with Paul. I've detailed that in this post here:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...t/#post3383457

I had written another post on the matter, here http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...t/#post3383468

which also discusses why he's an unsuitable candidate.

[osiris]

Good digging guys.

[nonhuman]

I believe I've said it before (years ago...), but: vmarks for president!

[besson3c]

vmarks: will you appoint me as your Secretary of Awesomeness? I don't think you'll even need to see my resumé...

[Big Mac]

That's very unfortunate. I was considering voting for Paul in the primary if this name were on the ballot, but I won't be doing that now. His notions on foreign policy are laughable, his views on Israel unsettling, and what was released in his name concerning race is disgusting.

[besson3c]

John Edwards just quit the race. I think this will help out Obama a great deal...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It's not FUD.

The text of the newsletters themselves is indefensible. It's not as if there was an isolated incident. Instead, there's a volume of history to look at.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf

Looks like a report on how political correctness fuelled the LA riots.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf

Simple reporting. Nowhere does it support Duke.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf

So, it's evil to ask questions about Saint Luther King?
Why do you guys have MLK day? Why not Rosa Parks day? Do y'all have something against women or something?

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf

So, was he a socialist or not? Are we not allowed to ask that question or something?

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf

If true, this outs MLK as a hypocrite.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf

Insulting NYC, not black folks.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf

I expect you'll be banning that little pink smiley with the fluttering limp hand then. Again, black folks only mentioned when quoting what a reporter says someone has said.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf

I know a few gays folk who've expressed the very same sentiment.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/january1994.pdf

Done that one.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

So, politicians aren't allowed to make money now?
Love how the line about the IRS agent with the AK47 is highlighted, like it's some kind of a heinous crime to take the piss out of the taxman.

The answer Paul keeps giving about the newsletters is different. He wrote them. He didn't write them. He takes responsibility for them. He won't tell anyone who the authors were.

Yeah. I'd be messing with their heads if they kept asking me the same questions over and over and over again too.

I'm not really seeing anything wrong there at all. Sure, whoever wrote those pieces is a little blunt but I'm not seeing racism. Attacking MLK or Sharpton does not equal racism - it simply means one does not like MLK or Sharpton. Talking about the social circumstances which led to the LA riots is not racism - it's social analysis.

If Paul himself isn't a bigot, but allows bigotry to be published under his name and takes advice from bigots, is Paul the President we want?

Got news for ya - every candidate out there is a bigot. If they weren't secure in their convictions, they'd hardly be suitable president material, would they?

This is still looking like leftie-style FUD to me. I can spot racism a mile off, and this isn't it.

[Big Mac]

You're a much more forgiving person than I, Doofy. And I'm very confident in my positions but do not consider myself a bigot.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're a much more forgiving person than I, Doofy. And I'm very confident in my positions but do not consider myself a bigot.

"Bigotry" is simply extreme confidence in your opinions. Period.
Nothing to do with race at all.

If I were to say "Macs are the best personal computers and anyone running anything else through choice is an idiot", that'd be me being a bigot. It'd also be me being correct (hey, I'm not going to choose a computer which isn't the best, am I?).

The left have simply hijacked the word because it suits their cancerous promotional methodology.

[Big Mac]

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. " (Wiki definition)

You're the first person I've ever come across who defines bigot positively.

[vmarks]

Smearing MLK as a pedophile isn't smearing all blacks, but it is smearing a dead man who can't defend himself, and isn't very politically smart considering the hero status that MLK holds.

Reporting on Duke's campaign results is one thing. Supporting Duke's positions and saying 'just wait until we have a Duke-like candidate who doesn't have Duke's baggage' is suggesting that he wants a candidate who holds Duke's positions. Duke is indisputably a bigot.

The bit about fleet-footed black men and their predilection for crime is not an observation or reporting - it's bigotry. When he said 95% of the black men in Washington DC were criminals, if it wasn't bigotry, what do you call it? Do black men commit crime in a higher proportion than their population? Perhaps. 95%? That's more of a racist smear.


Rev. Al Sharpton is a bigot of the first order (see Tawana Brawley) and Jesse Jackson is no better (Hymietown?) but in the context of Al wanting to name change New York to MLK city for the black population there, calling it welfaria, zooville, or lazyopolis, is applying that not to New York, but to the group Rev. Al claims to represent, blacks. Bigotry from both sides. Way to take the high road, Dr. Paul.

Sure, you can fundraise, but when you do so by appealing to the militia survivalist nutballs who believe that the US courts lack authority to render judgements, or that the IRS lacks the authority to collect taxes, don't be surprised that people consider you to be a bit of a nutcase yourself.

It's also worth questioning why the Aryan Nation and Stormfront folks find him so attractive. They believe he thinks as they do. He's done nothing to really dispute it other than to say he would take their campaign contributions, but that the money wouldn't buy their influence.

When he rattles on about the Israel lobby in Washington, "which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," it's not far from the "Jews run the country" or other walt-mearshimer garbage. It's a shame that Americans can band together to lobby Congress with some success. Oh wait, no it isn't. That's freedom of speech. If he doesn't like it, he should speak out against what they've lobbied for, not the fact that they are petitioning their government for a desired result.

Now, he can think what he wishes. He can believe in whatever crackpot discriminatory view he wishes. But he won't be my candidate.

And this is not the biggest problem with him as a candidate - as I detailed in the other posts, his foreign policy positions are untenable.

He's reasonably good in principle on taxation and firearm ownership. That's about it. I can only say that I require more of a candidate than two positions. I need a functional approach to foreign policy. I need responsible positions on the circumstances that an incoming President would find himself in.

When Paul's former senior aide, who helped him get elected in 1996 says "I have spent the early morning scanning the major political blogs, and news sites. It's unanimous. Ron Paul got slammed by Rudy Giuliani last night for suggesting that we - the United States of America - are to blame for the attacks on 9/11. He even had the audacity to cite Osama bin Laden.
While everyone is hailing this as a "Great moment" for Rudy Giuliani, I think just as importantly, it was a horrible moment for Ron Paul. My former boss looked like a complete nutcase. He looked frail. His hands shaked. He showed his age. He was completely unprepared for Giuliani's romping response." It is clear to me that he cannot be President. Citing and agreeing with Bin Ladin is political suicide, as it should be. I just don't need anything close to resembling an apologist policy that will embolden those who've already shown a willingness to commit attacks, especially when Bin Ladin has said it was the US leaving Somalia that showed US weakness. An apologist policy in a vacuum would show weakness.

I cannot support Dr. Ron Paul. He is not my candidate.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Looks like a report on how political correctness fuelled the LA riots.

I knew I'd regret reading your asinine remarks. So here's what I found just skimming it:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

We now know, if we did not before, that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it. ... But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Welfare has transferred $2.5 trillion from white middle-class taxpayers to welfare programs in the last 30 years.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

... only black people riot.

Then it concludes with a bunch of factually inaccurate statistics regarding black people. I'm not going to read the others because I've had enough of the hate speech from the first one. It reads like a Neo-Nazi newsletter, except they throw in a Korean or Japanese in there as to claim it's not racist.

[Doofy]

Well Ole...

The first example is obviously about commies.

The second example depends on context.

The last two can be construed as racist. Again, I'd have to see the originals and we'd have to be sure that they weren't quoting other sources.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Your post is wrong if I take "you" personally, but it makes no sense at all if I take it impersonally. You seem to be suggesting that complacency is the wrong approach, but if this is an impersonal "you" (meaning simply "somebody"), then it contradicts that idea. "Either way, you get the government somebody else wanted"? What kind of point are you trying to make?

YOU (and everyone else) have an effect on government whether you like it or not. If you're complacent, and communicate that by not voting, not participating, not giving a damn one way or another what happens, then as I said, politicians consider that.

Lower turnout says to government: "we can probably get away with more, abuse our power more, because large numbers of dimbulbs don't even care enough to be involved in the simplest way."

So yes, we all get the government we ask for, either by being part of the process, or by signaling that we don't really give a rip. That means YOU, and it means the person I was responding to, and it means everyone else.

[Big Mac]

Sorry Doofy, we're usually on the same page, but this material is pretty indefensible.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Sorry Doofy, we're usually on the same page, but this material is pretty indefensible.

Some of it is, on the surface of it. A lot of it is FUD generated from out-of-context quotations. I hope you can see that, because this is a perfect example of how the lefties operate. Don't let them do it - always go to source and read it for yourself.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

speaking of voting, another vote for indefensible. I didn't really know much about Ron Paul anyway, but he sure doesn't sound like Presidential material if he's not even bright enough to know writing stupid **** like that wouldn't fly if he ever wanted to run for President.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Some of it is, on the surface of it. A lot of it is FUD generated from out-of-context quotations. I hope you can see that, because this is a perfect example of how the lefties operate. Don't let them do it - always go to source and read it for yourself.

Somehow, the "well, some of it is, but the rest is the fault of the lefties" doesn't quite pass the Presidential candidate smell test.

It's the "some of it is" part that's the problem.

[Doofy]

OK guys. Until further notice, you win. I retain a few reservations.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. " (Wiki definition)

You're the first person I've ever come across who defines bigot positively.

Well, you can look at it like this:

Walter Williams says he practices discrimination. Everytime he goes home to Mrs. Williams, he's discriminating against the millions of other women in the world.

But I think we both know that these positive uses aren't common at all, and we shouldn't pretend that they are.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

But I think we both know that these positive uses aren't common at all, and we shouldn't pretend that they are.

They're not common because you've been conditioned to think the other way.

Let's have a look:

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. "

OK, so purely on definition, a person who marches against the KKK is actually just as bigoted as a person who marches for the KKK.

There ya go - positive bigotry.

Technically, the only people not bigoted are those who're so feeble minded that they don't have any opinions to call their own.

[besson3c]

Doofy: do you not have hate crimes laws in your country?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Doofy: do you not have hate crimes laws in your country?

Yep. Brought in by the marxists running the place.

But what's that got to do with anything?

[vmarks]

To be very clear:

I don't have a problem with Dr. Paul believing in such virulent crap. He can believe whatever he wishes.

However, his racism, or his taking advice and not distancing himself from racists while running for President disqualify him from being my candidate.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. Brought in by the marxists running the place.

But what's that got to do with anything?

Well, while we have the freedom to believe what we want, but within a KKK rally you will hear calls to either directly or implicitly discriminate against blacks, the inferior race, right? What they are calling upon people to do, in many cases, is illegal, and destabilizing to our societies. Therefore, couldn't you make the argument that an anti-KKK rally is not bigoted, but simply an attempt to protect ourselves from the detrimental effects of carrying out the orders of the KKK?

[Shaddim]

At a Klan rally you also hear blacks making racist comments against whites too.

I went with friends to protest such an event and it was ugly on both sides.

[besson3c]

I've never had the pleasure/displeasure of being at one, so I have no idea what happens there typically...

In fact, I have no idea what their agenda or strategy is these days, and I've never really been inspired to know.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, while we have the freedom to believe what we want, but within a KKK rally you will hear calls to either directly or implicitly discriminate against blacks, the inferior race, right? What they are calling upon people to do, in many cases, is illegal, and destabilizing to our societies. Therefore, couldn't you make the argument that an anti-KKK rally is not bigoted, but simply an attempt to protect ourselves from the detrimental effects of carrying out the orders of the KKK?

I'm not arguing the validity of anti-Klan rallies - they're obviously a good thing.

But it's still bigotry - intolerance of opinions, lifestyles and identities of the Klanners. This is in no way a defence for the Klanners, who're obviously all racist assholes who should be beaten with a mace - I'm merely attempting to point out that "the left" tend to hijack words and concepts in a very subtle manner and use them to gain their foothold.

Anyways, I'll butt out and let you guys get back on topic. You'll get the government you deserve, when all is said and done.

[Shaddim]

From the look of things, it seems it'll be a Clinton vs. McCain election.

Problem is, I can't stand either one of them. Guess I'll just have to hold my nose and flip the switch next to McCain. The thought of 4 years of Shrillary is far more disturbing.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've never had the pleasure/displeasure of being at one, so I have no idea what happens there typically...

About 10 dumbasses in sheets get yelled at by about 5,000 people who don't have the good sense to ignore their rallies. (These days -- the klan is a shadow of its former self, thankfully.) We shouldn't ignore their activities, but I think they get something out of all the hatred they generate by trying to march these days, so we should really all turn our backs when they go attention-getting.

[ApeInTheShell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hope to have my citizenship by the general election. I've heard that the test is pretty easy, it's just a matter of getting it done.

So what prevented you from applying from United States citizenship before? Are you from another country or an illegal alien. Curious minds want to know.

[macforray]

I won't be voting for Obama, but will vote Republican. I do hope that Obama wins the Democratic Primary, not because he may be easier to beat by the Republican candidate, but because if the country wants a Democrat as President, I would prefer him any day to Hillary. He is the best of the Democrat contenders.

I want the best two candidates running against each other. Let the people choose.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ApeInTheShell 

So what prevented you from applying from United States citizenship before? Are you from another country or an illegal alien. Curious minds want to know.

I'm married to an American and am a permanent resident of the US. My permanent resident status is just that. The only thing that I cannot do is vote or run for office myself.

In order to become legal, there are several different paths you can take, and there are several different steps which require time. I was originally here under a student VISA, then I got married and had that changed to a conditional permanent resident status which was good for 3 years (likely to screen out people who marry out of convenience). After my 3 years I applied to have my conditional status removed. After this point, I had to wait for another x number of years (can't remember) before I could apply for citizenship. I've been able to apply for a while now, I've just been too lazy and unmotivated.

I am an alien though!

[vmarks]

filed your n-400 yet?