waitnwatch
08-06 02:05 PM
Ha ha ha ..................
I just got a red dot with the following comment for explaining what INA and CFR are
"Why ar eyou after BS + 5 years exp?"
To the person who served up that comment ........I'm not for or against anything or anyone. I am just trying to put a legal and logical basis on the discussion. I think everyone working hard in the US deserves to get their green card sooner than later. This discussion will not influence USCIS in anyway so we might as well try to hone our arguments and thrash out the logic instead of lambasting each other on a personal level. I guess all of us here are educated enough to do that.
I just got a red dot with the following comment for explaining what INA and CFR are
"Why ar eyou after BS + 5 years exp?"
To the person who served up that comment ........I'm not for or against anything or anyone. I am just trying to put a legal and logical basis on the discussion. I think everyone working hard in the US deserves to get their green card sooner than later. This discussion will not influence USCIS in anyway so we might as well try to hone our arguments and thrash out the logic instead of lambasting each other on a personal level. I guess all of us here are educated enough to do that.
wallpaper Emo Hairstyles and Haircuts
srkamath
07-13 02:04 PM
First off, we are here to get our GC faster so the effort is commendable. ...........
The old interpretation was too complex to be correct..... between 2000 and 2007 it resulted in EB-2 getting shortchanged. EB3 approvals were more than DOUBLE of EB2 during those years.
2000 - 2007 Average
33,000 EB2 / year
83,000 EB3 / year
There are simply too many EB3 cases compared to the visas available.
EB2 may have been less retrogressed the last 3 years if the DOS had interpreted the law correctly. Visa numbers were mean to - SPREAD OUT, THEN SPILLED OVER downwards.
Prior to April-08, i don't ever EB2 applicants complaining about getting shortchanged - they understand the pain of someone having to wait for a decade to get a GC and probably didn't mind getting shortchanged.
Again - this is not about fairness, justice, merits of the applicants. It is about giving US employers the ability to fill posts when & where Americans are not available or willing.
The old interpretation was too complex to be correct..... between 2000 and 2007 it resulted in EB-2 getting shortchanged. EB3 approvals were more than DOUBLE of EB2 during those years.
2000 - 2007 Average
33,000 EB2 / year
83,000 EB3 / year
There are simply too many EB3 cases compared to the visas available.
EB2 may have been less retrogressed the last 3 years if the DOS had interpreted the law correctly. Visa numbers were mean to - SPREAD OUT, THEN SPILLED OVER downwards.
Prior to April-08, i don't ever EB2 applicants complaining about getting shortchanged - they understand the pain of someone having to wait for a decade to get a GC and probably didn't mind getting shortchanged.
Again - this is not about fairness, justice, merits of the applicants. It is about giving US employers the ability to fill posts when & where Americans are not available or willing.
unitednations
07-08 06:10 PM
Thanks!
The outstanding questions, i guess, are:
They allotted the visa numbers prior to actual approvals. This contravened their clearly stated policy. In fact the ombudsman mentions this policy and suggests change. If they allotted the numbers prematurely, and are still in the process of approving those petitions and sending out the decisions...should the numbers have remained current UNTIL THE LAST PETITION IS APPROVED?
---------------------this is an age old problem for uscis. If when a case is filed and they allocate a visa to it; then there would be a massive amount of visas that would go unused. A 2006 visa number cannot spill over to 2007 because the carryover effect is not available. If a person is stuck in name check, didn't get fingerprints; case got denied and is in appeal then that visa would be lost forever if it didn't get approved by the end of the fiscal year; and someone else wouldn't be able to file. You would only have forward movement of visa dates until beginning of next fiscal year when they release visas and then they could move them back to let other people file who just got their labors approved or follow to join, etc.
---------------------the current administration is fond of re-defining many things in law; they have re-defined torture; geneva conventions; bill of rights; even though those laws have not changed.
----------------------now they are re-defining the visa bulletin. Look back at June 2005; when eb3 visas went unavailable for july; they still allowed people to file until end of june. When October 2005 visa bulletin came out and eb2 india went back to 1998 they had used up all the visas by september but still allowed filing. When eb2 india went unavailable in August 2006 they still allowed people to file in July 2006.
----------------------therefore, the law hasn't changed but they have re-defined it. I haven't met anyone yet who actually had their case approved on the week-end. Just knowing systems the way I know them; they probably aren't allowed to do transactions on week-ends or holidays. Therefore, whatever happens on the week-end could have happened on the friday or the following monday. It will be interesting to see how many people actually get their greencard and it says "permanent reident since.... June 29, 30 or July 1".
----------------------the stakes were big enough for uscis that they were willing to re-define how they look at things. Hundreds of millions or billions of dollars would have been a big enough stake for uscis/dos to re-define the relevant laws/regulations and long standing process. Interesting thing is how would things have changed if the actual fee strcture went into affect on July 2. Maybe uscis wouldn't have been so overzealous in approving cases at lightning speeds.
One could argue that per USCIS policy and stated process the visa numbers are still available till that day- a petition could be rejected at the last moment- sending a number back to the pool....
the other question is- did they allot >81% of the numbers (27% per quarter) even before the fourth quarter began? Can they allot numbers on sunday while not accepting applications that day because they are "closed" thus denying petitioners from getting in while the numbers are current?
i would be surprised if they went over the country cap- they have treated that as religion of late.
===============they definitely went over the country cap. EB1 ROW and EB2 row have never been retrogressed and eb3 row was retrogressed in June itself.
the dates for india/china will only move after EB3 ROW becomes current. any ideas how far that is?
===============I was surpirsed myself in the perm labor filings. There is actually a very high number of cases filed by ROW people. ROW people will always get preference. 2007 ROW priority date in eb3 would get preference over the 2,802 person from india even if that person's date is 2003.
see answers within text.
The outstanding questions, i guess, are:
They allotted the visa numbers prior to actual approvals. This contravened their clearly stated policy. In fact the ombudsman mentions this policy and suggests change. If they allotted the numbers prematurely, and are still in the process of approving those petitions and sending out the decisions...should the numbers have remained current UNTIL THE LAST PETITION IS APPROVED?
---------------------this is an age old problem for uscis. If when a case is filed and they allocate a visa to it; then there would be a massive amount of visas that would go unused. A 2006 visa number cannot spill over to 2007 because the carryover effect is not available. If a person is stuck in name check, didn't get fingerprints; case got denied and is in appeal then that visa would be lost forever if it didn't get approved by the end of the fiscal year; and someone else wouldn't be able to file. You would only have forward movement of visa dates until beginning of next fiscal year when they release visas and then they could move them back to let other people file who just got their labors approved or follow to join, etc.
---------------------the current administration is fond of re-defining many things in law; they have re-defined torture; geneva conventions; bill of rights; even though those laws have not changed.
----------------------now they are re-defining the visa bulletin. Look back at June 2005; when eb3 visas went unavailable for july; they still allowed people to file until end of june. When October 2005 visa bulletin came out and eb2 india went back to 1998 they had used up all the visas by september but still allowed filing. When eb2 india went unavailable in August 2006 they still allowed people to file in July 2006.
----------------------therefore, the law hasn't changed but they have re-defined it. I haven't met anyone yet who actually had their case approved on the week-end. Just knowing systems the way I know them; they probably aren't allowed to do transactions on week-ends or holidays. Therefore, whatever happens on the week-end could have happened on the friday or the following monday. It will be interesting to see how many people actually get their greencard and it says "permanent reident since.... June 29, 30 or July 1".
----------------------the stakes were big enough for uscis that they were willing to re-define how they look at things. Hundreds of millions or billions of dollars would have been a big enough stake for uscis/dos to re-define the relevant laws/regulations and long standing process. Interesting thing is how would things have changed if the actual fee strcture went into affect on July 2. Maybe uscis wouldn't have been so overzealous in approving cases at lightning speeds.
One could argue that per USCIS policy and stated process the visa numbers are still available till that day- a petition could be rejected at the last moment- sending a number back to the pool....
the other question is- did they allot >81% of the numbers (27% per quarter) even before the fourth quarter began? Can they allot numbers on sunday while not accepting applications that day because they are "closed" thus denying petitioners from getting in while the numbers are current?
i would be surprised if they went over the country cap- they have treated that as religion of late.
===============they definitely went over the country cap. EB1 ROW and EB2 row have never been retrogressed and eb3 row was retrogressed in June itself.
the dates for india/china will only move after EB3 ROW becomes current. any ideas how far that is?
===============I was surpirsed myself in the perm labor filings. There is actually a very high number of cases filed by ROW people. ROW people will always get preference. 2007 ROW priority date in eb3 would get preference over the 2,802 person from india even if that person's date is 2003.
see answers within text.
2011 hairstyles with angs for
satishku_2000
05-16 02:56 PM
I know where Senator Durbin stands on illegal immigration issue , he is totally for amnesty/legalization of illegal/undocumented people in the country. According to him its ok if someone is totally undocumented and stays here but its not ok if someone does consulting and documented and pays taxes while working and waiting for the green card to be approved. Isn't it height of hypocrosy?
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
more...
pappu
04-07 05:35 AM
Guys,
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
Infact, this affects everyone.
Students looking for new H1B
Students on OPT
H1Bs getting extensions
H4s transferring to H1Bs
and all H1Bs indirectly and directly
Because now ALL employers will be hesitant to hire an H1B in ANY field due to such tough laws and lot of paperwork and lot of restrictions.
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
Infact, this affects everyone.
Students looking for new H1B
Students on OPT
H1Bs getting extensions
H4s transferring to H1Bs
and all H1Bs indirectly and directly
Because now ALL employers will be hesitant to hire an H1B in ANY field due to such tough laws and lot of paperwork and lot of restrictions.
chanduv23
05-16 09:16 AM
Cool down.....
I am not saying Infy and others are doing it right. If US asking more explanation that is fine with me, they should have used their brain before approving cases, not after. My point is consulting is not new to H1, even so called big company also do that via "permanent job".
All big companies including google,, yahoo, msft use tons of h1b consultants from Infy etc....
So if Infy gets affected, literally these firms get affected.
It is all a power game, where the fittest will survive. it may only be the weaker and smaller firrms that will find it difficult to adapt to such situations.
I am not saying Infy and others are doing it right. If US asking more explanation that is fine with me, they should have used their brain before approving cases, not after. My point is consulting is not new to H1, even so called big company also do that via "permanent job".
All big companies including google,, yahoo, msft use tons of h1b consultants from Infy etc....
So if Infy gets affected, literally these firms get affected.
It is all a power game, where the fittest will survive. it may only be the weaker and smaller firrms that will find it difficult to adapt to such situations.
more...
DallasBlue
07-08 09:48 PM
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
2010 medium hairstyles bangs.
satishku_2000
08-03 05:05 PM
What exactly is the difference between current and future employments in the context of Perm labor certification and 485. I have seen people using two things interchangeably to suit their arguments. In context of finding ability to pay is there a difference in the way adjudicator looks at two things?
more...
akred
04-07 01:35 PM
Research institutes hiring employees for research are already exempt from H1 quota. So are non-profits and universities.
What are you talking about?
I am talking about using a different standard for defining R&D. A standard similar to the one used for determining the R&D tax credit. A whole lot of companies other than pure research institutes are eligible for R&D tax credits. And there appears to be broad support for such a definition of R&D.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
What are you talking about?
I am talking about using a different standard for defining R&D. A standard similar to the one used for determining the R&D tax credit. A whole lot of companies other than pure research institutes are eligible for R&D tax credits. And there appears to be broad support for such a definition of R&D.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
hair hairstyles for girls with
gcwait2007
06-26 11:31 PM
Pandey ji / Valid IV
o.k..I will explain it slowly ..I can understand that those who are homeowners will justify their home purchase. some maybe in denial and have their head in sand.
honestly, few months back, even I would have purchased a house . if I had, I would still admit -- that home is not necessarily good investment but a place to stay. even after I buy, I would still say that renting in an apartment has its advantages. here are 2 links in english.
Why rent? To get richer - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/WhyRentToGetRicher.aspx)
Why Your Mortgage Won't Make You Rich - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124352291846962809.html)
--------------
now you need to read this carefully else you won't understand what the authors are trying to say ..since it is bit unclear but it has good points (not trying to make fun here :)) ..do read since they are superb articles
but here is even simpler explanation and hopefully that will explain what I am trying to say ..if you still don't understand ..u will need to find someone else to explain.
first renting gives you flexibility ...so say, u get better job offer or lose job - you don't lose lot of money compared to house if you have to move.
for 250K house, you pay around 300 property tax, 60 HOA fees, 150 - 200 in maintenance (recurring like lawn plus once in long term like roof, painting etc) , 100 - 150 extra in utilities. you pay downpayment of 50 k ..if you were to invest that money in better investments (mutual funds, stocks, high CDs. bonds) ..you would make 250 - 300 per month. plus add fees when you have to sell the house, insurance, termite protection etc etc ..
plus in many cases, you end up buying a house further away than if you were to rent (since many want brand new house ) ..this means extra 250 - 300 in gas + vehicle degradation per month.
(ALSO SAY U WERE IN MICHIGAN OR IN CALIFORtNIA -- you could get away from the state after making money easily if you were renting. .home means you could end up stuck there).
I agree in apartment you get less space and hence I mentioned - u need to ask - do you really need extra space at this time in life - if yes, then home is better. (but renting a home is even better esp if prices are still falling in your area in this case).
btw - as of now rents are going down -- you just need to negotiate.
now you don't get the money back in rents..but neither do you get money paid in the expenses listed above.
(in other words - you don't get money back that you pay in rent yr apt BUT you get a place to stay ..this is not India where you can sleep on foot path - so you need a place. apartment property owner will make a small profit - but that is the system)
before you jump - house is good when it appreciates by atleast 1 -2 percent above inflation and I am not saying that you should never buy a house.
there are many other points and I will post it in IV WIKI ...and I hope this helps newcomers ...this is my last personal post ...and do watch the movie :) ..once again I did mention in plain english that it is worst case scenario (the movie "pacific heights")..but best case scenario is not good either if you are a landlord with property in US while you are in India (or vice versa).
hope that answers your question ..please note: the above is for normal cases ..but if you get a good deal or short sale or foreclosed home for 50K --- then yes, buying makes sense !!
Hello Hiralalji,
Excellent post. Salute to you!
Thank you once again
o.k..I will explain it slowly ..I can understand that those who are homeowners will justify their home purchase. some maybe in denial and have their head in sand.
honestly, few months back, even I would have purchased a house . if I had, I would still admit -- that home is not necessarily good investment but a place to stay. even after I buy, I would still say that renting in an apartment has its advantages. here are 2 links in english.
Why rent? To get richer - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/WhyRentToGetRicher.aspx)
Why Your Mortgage Won't Make You Rich - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124352291846962809.html)
--------------
now you need to read this carefully else you won't understand what the authors are trying to say ..since it is bit unclear but it has good points (not trying to make fun here :)) ..do read since they are superb articles
but here is even simpler explanation and hopefully that will explain what I am trying to say ..if you still don't understand ..u will need to find someone else to explain.
first renting gives you flexibility ...so say, u get better job offer or lose job - you don't lose lot of money compared to house if you have to move.
for 250K house, you pay around 300 property tax, 60 HOA fees, 150 - 200 in maintenance (recurring like lawn plus once in long term like roof, painting etc) , 100 - 150 extra in utilities. you pay downpayment of 50 k ..if you were to invest that money in better investments (mutual funds, stocks, high CDs. bonds) ..you would make 250 - 300 per month. plus add fees when you have to sell the house, insurance, termite protection etc etc ..
plus in many cases, you end up buying a house further away than if you were to rent (since many want brand new house ) ..this means extra 250 - 300 in gas + vehicle degradation per month.
(ALSO SAY U WERE IN MICHIGAN OR IN CALIFORtNIA -- you could get away from the state after making money easily if you were renting. .home means you could end up stuck there).
I agree in apartment you get less space and hence I mentioned - u need to ask - do you really need extra space at this time in life - if yes, then home is better. (but renting a home is even better esp if prices are still falling in your area in this case).
btw - as of now rents are going down -- you just need to negotiate.
now you don't get the money back in rents..but neither do you get money paid in the expenses listed above.
(in other words - you don't get money back that you pay in rent yr apt BUT you get a place to stay ..this is not India where you can sleep on foot path - so you need a place. apartment property owner will make a small profit - but that is the system)
before you jump - house is good when it appreciates by atleast 1 -2 percent above inflation and I am not saying that you should never buy a house.
there are many other points and I will post it in IV WIKI ...and I hope this helps newcomers ...this is my last personal post ...and do watch the movie :) ..once again I did mention in plain english that it is worst case scenario (the movie "pacific heights")..but best case scenario is not good either if you are a landlord with property in US while you are in India (or vice versa).
hope that answers your question ..please note: the above is for normal cases ..but if you get a good deal or short sale or foreclosed home for 50K --- then yes, buying makes sense !!
Hello Hiralalji,
Excellent post. Salute to you!
Thank you once again
more...
gcisadawg
12-27 01:44 AM
Alisa,
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
hot Long Emo Girls Hairstyles
gc28262
12-19 10:31 PM
sriramkalyan,
I find it irritating that every now and then, some tom dick and harry comes to these forms and say - "time to close down" whenever you see something that you don't like. Frankly, this shallow view and negative attitude is irritating.
Sanju,
Your posts are definitely interesting. Please start a blog. We all will be happy to read it there. We should not post non-immigration related stuff on IV (especially those that are controversial). As for IV, unity is more important than freedom of speech.
So I agree with sriramkalyan, threads such as these should be closed.
I find it irritating that every now and then, some tom dick and harry comes to these forms and say - "time to close down" whenever you see something that you don't like. Frankly, this shallow view and negative attitude is irritating.
Sanju,
Your posts are definitely interesting. Please start a blog. We all will be happy to read it there. We should not post non-immigration related stuff on IV (especially those that are controversial). As for IV, unity is more important than freedom of speech.
So I agree with sriramkalyan, threads such as these should be closed.
more...
house Long Layered Hairstyles
kshitijnt
06-25 10:22 PM
I am not foreclosed and neither is anyone I know. Who do you know is foreclosed? Were they smart or stupid in their investment? How much did they put down? Did they crunch the numbers and do the math?
You do not invest without a plan to cover all scenarios and you definitely do not invest beyond your means. The people that caused the meltdown and caused foreclosures couldnt afford the property to begin with. Is that you? Do you fit into that category? If so, do not buy.
ValidIV, Based on your quote, we should be prepared for prices going down further and I485 getting rejected as being the worst case scenario.
Also when I rent, I rent a 2-3 bedroom house, but I would want to buy a larger house say 5 bedroom (because I am planning long term).
Hence my rent is 1500 whereas with mortgage payment its going to be 3000.
I could save extra 15000 each year for down payment. So lets say I have 30K cash on hand, I can save 30K more in next 2 years and either go for a bigger house or hedge against rate increase. We all know that prices are not going to go up until 2011. Speculate or don't.
Even Suze Orman will tell you that more the mortgage , more you pay in the end.
Although your theory of buying 3 properties with 800 K is ambitious, it is riddled with risks and with biggest assumption that rents will not go down and property prices will go up. If this assumption falls apart, your investment starts making loss.
My last landlord had victorian homes and she had trouble renting them because they needed constant upgrades to keep up with newly constructed communities. So she took out a equity loan and then the house prices dropped.
And she still had trouble finding renters. This was in a community where I found hard to find a rental home. What will you
And lets say they do go up defying expectations, you can watch trend for 3-4 months and then jump in at any time. Whats the hurry? We build up piles of cash waiting for the right opportunity and jump in at the right time.
Do you agree even though interest rates are going up, house prices are not for the next 3 years? At this moment all Rent vs Buy calculators are saying its going to take me 11 years with 1% price increase to break even on my investment. Who knows where I will be in 11 years?
How can we decide when we do not know what future holds for us beyond next 2-3-5 years?
I am from same school as SauveSandeep.
There are risk profiles of investors, I believe you have more tolerance than we do.
My parents back in India, rented till the kids were 10 yr olds, then they bought a house at 58 my dad is retired with abundant financial security.
:) I want to live life like that.
You do not invest without a plan to cover all scenarios and you definitely do not invest beyond your means. The people that caused the meltdown and caused foreclosures couldnt afford the property to begin with. Is that you? Do you fit into that category? If so, do not buy.
ValidIV, Based on your quote, we should be prepared for prices going down further and I485 getting rejected as being the worst case scenario.
Also when I rent, I rent a 2-3 bedroom house, but I would want to buy a larger house say 5 bedroom (because I am planning long term).
Hence my rent is 1500 whereas with mortgage payment its going to be 3000.
I could save extra 15000 each year for down payment. So lets say I have 30K cash on hand, I can save 30K more in next 2 years and either go for a bigger house or hedge against rate increase. We all know that prices are not going to go up until 2011. Speculate or don't.
Even Suze Orman will tell you that more the mortgage , more you pay in the end.
Although your theory of buying 3 properties with 800 K is ambitious, it is riddled with risks and with biggest assumption that rents will not go down and property prices will go up. If this assumption falls apart, your investment starts making loss.
My last landlord had victorian homes and she had trouble renting them because they needed constant upgrades to keep up with newly constructed communities. So she took out a equity loan and then the house prices dropped.
And she still had trouble finding renters. This was in a community where I found hard to find a rental home. What will you
And lets say they do go up defying expectations, you can watch trend for 3-4 months and then jump in at any time. Whats the hurry? We build up piles of cash waiting for the right opportunity and jump in at the right time.
Do you agree even though interest rates are going up, house prices are not for the next 3 years? At this moment all Rent vs Buy calculators are saying its going to take me 11 years with 1% price increase to break even on my investment. Who knows where I will be in 11 years?
How can we decide when we do not know what future holds for us beyond next 2-3-5 years?
I am from same school as SauveSandeep.
There are risk profiles of investors, I believe you have more tolerance than we do.
My parents back in India, rented till the kids were 10 yr olds, then they bought a house at 58 my dad is retired with abundant financial security.
:) I want to live life like that.
tattoo Girls Hairstyles Bangs
dontcareanymore
08-05 01:58 PM
Why, what is difference? Why was labor substitution bad. It was perfectly legal after all.
Yes IT WAS. You either have not seen through the issue or can't distinguish the cases.
Yes IT WAS. You either have not seen through the issue or can't distinguish the cases.
more...
pictures Bangs Hairstyle For Girls
willwin
07-14 08:09 AM
willwin - What we are essentially saying is to artificially retrogress EB2 than it otherwise would have so that an EB3 who is waiting for 7 years gets his GC first - thats really what the spillover break up will do. Similarly an argument can be made to artificially retrogress EB1 so that an EB2 who is waiting for 4 years gets his GC first.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
fine, then why are we working so hard to remove the per country limit? That was set by law too!!!
We can't pick only those options that would favor us. Sometimes changes bring hard-luck.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
fine, then why are we working so hard to remove the per country limit? That was set by law too!!!
We can't pick only those options that would favor us. Sometimes changes bring hard-luck.
dresses of Girls Hairstyles With
hiralal
06-25 10:48 PM
Just as an example, this may be an anomaly, but I know this Australian Indian citizen, who has recently bought 2 houses in the LA Valley and is having no issues filling them with contractors so far (1 my friend), even in this economy. He works on SAP projects traveling on H1 , but is in Aussie land most of the time, with his family. The rent more than pays off his mortgage.
I have only one sentence to say ..watch the movie "pacific heights" ..I was watching it now and that is a perfect movie for those who intend to rent their homes.
(ofcourse it is just a movie ..but very interesting, worth watching for everyone and gives you some knowledge too. what you have mentioned is the best case scenario ..the movie is the worst case scenario. as always, reality is somewhere in between).
personally there are better ways to make money ..for me diversify is the key word ..(rather than everything in real estate or everything in stock ...and yes, you need to watch the money you have like a hawk (and that is difficult when you give your house on rent ..for eg how do you find out if only the tenant's family is living there - or whether he has sub leased to 2-3 families etc etc)
I have only one sentence to say ..watch the movie "pacific heights" ..I was watching it now and that is a perfect movie for those who intend to rent their homes.
(ofcourse it is just a movie ..but very interesting, worth watching for everyone and gives you some knowledge too. what you have mentioned is the best case scenario ..the movie is the worst case scenario. as always, reality is somewhere in between).
personally there are better ways to make money ..for me diversify is the key word ..(rather than everything in real estate or everything in stock ...and yes, you need to watch the money you have like a hawk (and that is difficult when you give your house on rent ..for eg how do you find out if only the tenant's family is living there - or whether he has sub leased to 2-3 families etc etc)
more...
makeup side fringe hairstyles for
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
girlfriend side fringe hairstyles
alterego
07-14 01:12 PM
Well, why is there 33% quota for EB1,2 and 3 in the first place. They could have very well made it 100% for Eb1 and if there was any spill over, EB2 gets them and then finally EB3! Because, US needs people from all categories.
Now all that I am saying is there should be some % on the spill over that comes from EB1.
If there are 300,000 applicants in EB2 and if the spill over from EB1 is 30K every year, you think it is fair that EB2 gets that for over 6-7 years without EB3 getting anything? That is not fair and if that's what the law says, it has to be revisited. I am saying give 75% or even 90% to EB2 and make sure you clear EB3 with PD as old 2001 and 2002. That is being human. They deserve a GC as much as an EB2 with 2007 (and I am not saying that EB3 2007 deserves as much as an EB2 2007).
Bottom line, EB3 (or for that matter any category) can't be asked to wait endlessly just because there are some smart kids in another queue! We can come up with a better format of the letter; we can change our strategy to address this issue; we do not have to talk about EB2 and mention only our problems. We want EB3 queue to move.
"Should" has no place in this. That is your opinion. A lot of things should happen in my view, that does not mean they are the law. It would be rather presumptous of us to tell the US legislators or Gov't how things "should" be.
The laws are made the way they are for a reason, that is what US lawmakers consider to be in the best interest of their country. As for the spillover question, what is clear is that the real shaft was on Eb2I for the past 2 yrs, when all the spillover was erroneously going to EB3ROW. Eb3I was nor is in contention for those numbers. Sadly for EB3I, the country is oversubscribed and that too in a lesser priority category.
Write this letter if you must, but it will cause the EB3 community to lose credibility with a lot of people, including the executive branch. They do not respond well to illogical letters and those that second guess their right to set the laws as they wish. It will turn out to be a massive distraction and turn into a joke.
The focus of the EB3 community should be squarely on visa recapture. Technically that will help EB3I the most. Those affected most stand to gain the most as well. Failing this, I am not sure anything you guys do will make an iota of difference.
Now all that I am saying is there should be some % on the spill over that comes from EB1.
If there are 300,000 applicants in EB2 and if the spill over from EB1 is 30K every year, you think it is fair that EB2 gets that for over 6-7 years without EB3 getting anything? That is not fair and if that's what the law says, it has to be revisited. I am saying give 75% or even 90% to EB2 and make sure you clear EB3 with PD as old 2001 and 2002. That is being human. They deserve a GC as much as an EB2 with 2007 (and I am not saying that EB3 2007 deserves as much as an EB2 2007).
Bottom line, EB3 (or for that matter any category) can't be asked to wait endlessly just because there are some smart kids in another queue! We can come up with a better format of the letter; we can change our strategy to address this issue; we do not have to talk about EB2 and mention only our problems. We want EB3 queue to move.
"Should" has no place in this. That is your opinion. A lot of things should happen in my view, that does not mean they are the law. It would be rather presumptous of us to tell the US legislators or Gov't how things "should" be.
The laws are made the way they are for a reason, that is what US lawmakers consider to be in the best interest of their country. As for the spillover question, what is clear is that the real shaft was on Eb2I for the past 2 yrs, when all the spillover was erroneously going to EB3ROW. Eb3I was nor is in contention for those numbers. Sadly for EB3I, the country is oversubscribed and that too in a lesser priority category.
Write this letter if you must, but it will cause the EB3 community to lose credibility with a lot of people, including the executive branch. They do not respond well to illogical letters and those that second guess their right to set the laws as they wish. It will turn out to be a massive distraction and turn into a joke.
The focus of the EB3 community should be squarely on visa recapture. Technically that will help EB3I the most. Those affected most stand to gain the most as well. Failing this, I am not sure anything you guys do will make an iota of difference.
hairstyles Posted by datuxs. Short Side
ArkBird
01-09 05:05 PM
so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11?
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
American Army was not hiding in World Trade Center and launching rockets on the civilians in Saudi from there. There was absolutely no target of military importance in WTC. Civilians got killed in Gaza because terrorist were hiding among them.
Quit hiding among women and children and fight like man on battlefield.
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
American Army was not hiding in World Trade Center and launching rockets on the civilians in Saudi from there. There was absolutely no target of military importance in WTC. Civilians got killed in Gaza because terrorist were hiding among them.
Quit hiding among women and children and fight like man on battlefield.
Macaca
12-16 09:22 PM
Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
sanju
12-18 12:46 PM
Guys..
If you believe in Science, you wont tend to believe in any religion or for that matter any God..
God was created by man..
Imagine this :
Take for ex : God is human.. How can a human being be supreme or whatever and manage other humans.. For ex if 1000 people commit crime how can a God being a instance of human being watch them.. Even if he watch them how can he punish them.. all not humanly possible.. so God cannot be human..
So let us take like what Islam says.. God is not human nor he is physically presence.. In that case how an Supreme being again watch all of our deeds when even a human kind of thing is not possible.. So God cannot be supremely supreme to watch us..
Earth all happened by itself and it evolved by itself.. It will destroy itself and it will retransform itself.. this is the absolute truth.. believe it or not..
Everyone has some kind of inner consciensus.. you be afraid to that and answerable to that.. (You can call it as God if you want..)
Other than that start believing in Science and be answerable to yourself.. Nothing else matters...
You are saying all this out of sheer ignorance and you yourself dont know what you are speaking about your own creator. If you know little science you will go away from religion, if you know more science, you will come towards religion. You are a victim of the former.
All through out the history, Religion has been in competition with science. Why? Because Religions want to be the answer to every question -why do we have day and night, earth is flat,...? Then came science, providing valid reasoning to these questions. So there was competition. In earlier years, as we all know, people who said that earth was round were executed by the religious people who felt thretened. That close mindedness did not end there, it still flows in everyone still praticing some form of oraganzied religion.
Human behavior is such that we try to make up reasons to explain everything around us. And for the things we don't understand, we go to our religion to find answers for the unknown. Religions always comes up with some answer, which is proved wrong 100% of the times as science progresses. It would be ok to believe religious view that earth is flat and "GOD" is spinning the earth on his/her fingers. But you see, we no longer live in medival period, and know better than that. Although, we have gained knowledge and we continue to find out more things, but the religious leader still wants mankind behave as if we are living in medivial period. Based on what the so called religious leaders tell us, people still follow these books litterally and blindly, because mankind continue to look towards religions whenever we are not able to find answers to our questions. And this bahvior pattern has gotten embrossed into our genes during 100s of generations.
And scientist do not have answers for everything, yet. And for the things they don't have answers, because of their genes and their lack of ability to answer every question, they look upon religion for answers to questions that they cannot explain. But great scientist have never relied on "a religion" to explain GOD, although most have acknowledged their believe in the existance of GOD. But that in itself is not enough for us to take the word of the book each religion preaches litterally, and call people from other faiths as non-believers, evil, kafirs or every other synonym out there. That's the same kind of ingorance and disease as demonstrated and abetted by people who killed scientist in the middle period for saying that earth is round. Its the same kind of behavior that tells others to riot because some newspaper published a cartoon in some part of the world and that cartoon offended my GOD. I mean, how shallow is that God or show narrow minded is that religion which gets offeneded by a cartoon. And that doesn't applies to one religion, it applies to evey organized religion out there. Just think ....
Following an organzied religion doesn't mean that you acknowledge the existance of GOD or you "believe" in GOD. It just means that you believe in the religion in which you were born, and inspite of everything you learned, you fall short of finding answers to your questions, and hence the narrow world view.
If you believe in Science, you wont tend to believe in any religion or for that matter any God..
God was created by man..
Imagine this :
Take for ex : God is human.. How can a human being be supreme or whatever and manage other humans.. For ex if 1000 people commit crime how can a God being a instance of human being watch them.. Even if he watch them how can he punish them.. all not humanly possible.. so God cannot be human..
So let us take like what Islam says.. God is not human nor he is physically presence.. In that case how an Supreme being again watch all of our deeds when even a human kind of thing is not possible.. So God cannot be supremely supreme to watch us..
Earth all happened by itself and it evolved by itself.. It will destroy itself and it will retransform itself.. this is the absolute truth.. believe it or not..
Everyone has some kind of inner consciensus.. you be afraid to that and answerable to that.. (You can call it as God if you want..)
Other than that start believing in Science and be answerable to yourself.. Nothing else matters...
You are saying all this out of sheer ignorance and you yourself dont know what you are speaking about your own creator. If you know little science you will go away from religion, if you know more science, you will come towards religion. You are a victim of the former.
All through out the history, Religion has been in competition with science. Why? Because Religions want to be the answer to every question -why do we have day and night, earth is flat,...? Then came science, providing valid reasoning to these questions. So there was competition. In earlier years, as we all know, people who said that earth was round were executed by the religious people who felt thretened. That close mindedness did not end there, it still flows in everyone still praticing some form of oraganzied religion.
Human behavior is such that we try to make up reasons to explain everything around us. And for the things we don't understand, we go to our religion to find answers for the unknown. Religions always comes up with some answer, which is proved wrong 100% of the times as science progresses. It would be ok to believe religious view that earth is flat and "GOD" is spinning the earth on his/her fingers. But you see, we no longer live in medival period, and know better than that. Although, we have gained knowledge and we continue to find out more things, but the religious leader still wants mankind behave as if we are living in medivial period. Based on what the so called religious leaders tell us, people still follow these books litterally and blindly, because mankind continue to look towards religions whenever we are not able to find answers to our questions. And this bahvior pattern has gotten embrossed into our genes during 100s of generations.
And scientist do not have answers for everything, yet. And for the things they don't have answers, because of their genes and their lack of ability to answer every question, they look upon religion for answers to questions that they cannot explain. But great scientist have never relied on "a religion" to explain GOD, although most have acknowledged their believe in the existance of GOD. But that in itself is not enough for us to take the word of the book each religion preaches litterally, and call people from other faiths as non-believers, evil, kafirs or every other synonym out there. That's the same kind of ingorance and disease as demonstrated and abetted by people who killed scientist in the middle period for saying that earth is round. Its the same kind of behavior that tells others to riot because some newspaper published a cartoon in some part of the world and that cartoon offended my GOD. I mean, how shallow is that God or show narrow minded is that religion which gets offeneded by a cartoon. And that doesn't applies to one religion, it applies to evey organized religion out there. Just think ....
Following an organzied religion doesn't mean that you acknowledge the existance of GOD or you "believe" in GOD. It just means that you believe in the religion in which you were born, and inspite of everything you learned, you fall short of finding answers to your questions, and hence the narrow world view.
Find out how THOUSAND of individuals like YOU are making a LIVING online and are living their dreams right NOW.
ReplyDeleteCLICK HERE TO FIND OUT