Restrictions on visas and intro agencies?

boomer says on Jan 3, 2006, 10:46:

Naaa........................................... that won't change a thing.............except the price of the introduction service. They'll pay it. Besides, just look at the boost for the Romance Tour business.

orgullo_de_colombia

0 funny, 0 helpful.

rocinante says on Jan 3, 2006, 11:03:

THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED! We're not allowed to discuss marriage agencies Tinto will be deleting this shortly.


"As someone once ever-so-elegantly said: PBH is not a sausage convention. While it's OK to talk about your own relationships, the generalizations about Colombian women and the pluses and minuses of matrimonial agencies are better suited for other sites. Thank you. -Tinto

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Not that the US president actually runs the US." Feb 5, 2008

0 funny, 0 helpful.

chazzmot says on Jan 3, 2006, 11:05:

at boomer you are probably right on that! my problem is the big brother part of it. big brother already knows more about us than needed. probably knows more about us then we know about ourself. just more tighting of the screws, more red tape and something else to pay for. please do not tell me it is the price of living in a free counrty. i will be dissappointed. in the country yes; way out in the sticks, but free?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

chazzmot says on Jan 3, 2006, 11:29:

i did not intend for this to be about marriage agencies! i heard about it and it bothered me. so i was asking if it was true. thats all. i could care less about the agencies. my problem is alls more and more paper work, nose in personal biz. i mean what is next.blood and dna samples everytime you go to visit. or a 10,000 bond posted and refunded; when you return and investigated about your trip. or maybe they will want to keep our first born for 5 years at a cost of 40,000 a year until they decide that we might actually stay together.WHT???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Jan 3, 2006, 11:37:

From the Net... The Michigan State Senate is considering legislation that would require Internet dating companies serving Michigan residents to disclose on their Web sites whether they have conducted criminal background checks on users, based solely on the names provided.

Dating services also would have to disclose the limitations of background checks and urge members to adhere to safe dating practices.

Backers say just posting the background-check disclosure would go a long way toward boosting awareness of the possible dangers of meeting people online. Learning that other users are not known criminals would provide a sense of security. They say knowing that checks have not been done would arm users with valuable information.

But critics — including most online sites — say any feeling of security would be deceptive because there is no way to ensure people give their real names.

Similar legislation has been proposed in five other states: California, Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Texas.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Crazy4Cali says on Jan 3, 2006, 14:23:

Just dating sites? Do you mean picking someone up in a bar is any safer than on-line? Safe dating practices should be adhered to regardless of the venue. Are they going to require background checks on people entering a "meet-market?"

What kind of background check? A credit report? Past addresses? Police report? Testimonials from your ex-lovers?

That might make sense before getting hitched, but for dating or introductions? That's TMI. Gimmeabreak.

Who does this legislation REALLY benefit?

The people dating? If they are over 18 (and especially if they are over 40) they should know better and ask for this if it really concerns them. There are already places that specialize in this sort of thing.

BTW, Do the men get a copy from the women to eliminate gold-diggers, jealous spouses, and other potnentially troublesome types?

The dating agencies? Naaah.. just another form for them to fill out.

So then, who?

To me it just looks like a case of protectionism aimed at keeping gringo men from looking outside the country.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

heybobozo says on Jan 3, 2006, 15:14:

Looks to me like another case of U.S. ultra femenism, I'm sure this had to concocted by a woman. But, there again it may not be that bad. May keep out bad gringos.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Jan 3, 2006, 18:26:

You got that right, Crazy4Cali.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

DayTripper says on Jan 4, 2006, 11:53:

Don't Congres and Bush have better things to do? Would be nice if Congres and Bush started doing something inteligent in Iraq instead of interfering in other peoples lives.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Jan 4, 2006, 16:41:

Even nicer Would be nice if Congres and Bush started doing something inteligent in Iraq instead of interfering in other peoples lives.

It would be nice if you learned how to write and spell.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.