Macaca
02-27 08:14 AM
A Republican Purge on K? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142_2.html)
John Feehery has left the Motion Picture Association of America to start his own lobbying firm, the Feehery Group. Feehery, 43, joined the movie lobby with great fanfare in 2005 to help silence sotto voce attacks by congressional Republicans, then in the majority, on the group's chief executive, former congressman Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), and on left-leaning Hollywood. Feehery had been the spokesman for then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a veteran GOP leadership aide.
But last month, the MPAA named Seth Oster, a Democrat, as executive vice president for communications, in effect taking part of Feehery's portfolio. My colleague at washingtonpost.com, Mary Ann Akers, reports that lobbyists worry that the move might presage a citywide purge of Republicans. But Feehery professes no bitterness. "It was a good time for me to start my own business," he said. "It gives me a greater range to do things I want to do." The MPAA will be one of his first clients, he added.
John Feehery has left the Motion Picture Association of America to start his own lobbying firm, the Feehery Group. Feehery, 43, joined the movie lobby with great fanfare in 2005 to help silence sotto voce attacks by congressional Republicans, then in the majority, on the group's chief executive, former congressman Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), and on left-leaning Hollywood. Feehery had been the spokesman for then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a veteran GOP leadership aide.
But last month, the MPAA named Seth Oster, a Democrat, as executive vice president for communications, in effect taking part of Feehery's portfolio. My colleague at washingtonpost.com, Mary Ann Akers, reports that lobbyists worry that the move might presage a citywide purge of Republicans. But Feehery professes no bitterness. "It was a good time for me to start my own business," he said. "It gives me a greater range to do things I want to do." The MPAA will be one of his first clients, he added.
wallpaper lindsay-lohan-natural-red-hair
dealsnet
01-07 10:14 AM
Arafat supported Sadam for a land for Palastine. He was promised Kuwait City, which can house 2 million people for them. Iraq can take the oil field of Kuwait. Sadam army driven away and killed thousands of kuwaitis and raped the women. The kids born during the period are housed in a govt. complex now with their mothers. I have seen that, when I was in a visit to Kuwait. Why the palastine people, any way most of the Arabs are nomards, want to stay in Israel, to keep fight. They can move out and end of the story.Israel come back and claim their fore father's property. If all muslims want to fight, do it and will go to hell.
Immigration voice is for immigration matters. But most people in the forum are from India, china, pakistan, srilanka etc. So we can discuss matters from our countries. Here nobody from Palastine, or Israel is here. So no need for this discussion. Only terrorists, fundamentalists wants a discussion for these unrelated matters.
Why no body discuss about 4000 tamils killed in Srilanks in 2008?. This numbers released by their govt. yesterday. Donot think tamils went to srilanka and fight for the land. They are there from thousand of years. Tamil language spoken in india also, so people think these people went there recently. The Singala people also from India, went there from Orissa. Their language is not speaking in India now. Look the script, it is similar to some indian, dravidan script and similar words.
International media give much coverage for 1 or 2 people killed in Israel or Palastine. But thosands killed in Africa, other palces every day.
My point is sivakasi rocket has the capability of killing 6 people and 7000 hamas rockets taken lesser than that. We are reacting as if they have wiped out the entire nation. How inferior these rockets are when compared to sivakasi rocket. I am not justifying the rocket attack, but pointing out their impact and the voilent reaction to that.
Every nation has right to defend itself and its people. Isreal has the same rights to protect people. That doesn't mean they can go and kill innocent civilians including elderly person, women, children, shcool children and bombing schools, hospitals, detroying infrastructure etc. After killing school kids, just dont justify your killing by saying they use kids as human shield. Dont destroy and don't lie.
Immigration voice is for immigration matters. But most people in the forum are from India, china, pakistan, srilanka etc. So we can discuss matters from our countries. Here nobody from Palastine, or Israel is here. So no need for this discussion. Only terrorists, fundamentalists wants a discussion for these unrelated matters.
Why no body discuss about 4000 tamils killed in Srilanks in 2008?. This numbers released by their govt. yesterday. Donot think tamils went to srilanka and fight for the land. They are there from thousand of years. Tamil language spoken in india also, so people think these people went there recently. The Singala people also from India, went there from Orissa. Their language is not speaking in India now. Look the script, it is similar to some indian, dravidan script and similar words.
International media give much coverage for 1 or 2 people killed in Israel or Palastine. But thosands killed in Africa, other palces every day.
My point is sivakasi rocket has the capability of killing 6 people and 7000 hamas rockets taken lesser than that. We are reacting as if they have wiped out the entire nation. How inferior these rockets are when compared to sivakasi rocket. I am not justifying the rocket attack, but pointing out their impact and the voilent reaction to that.
Every nation has right to defend itself and its people. Isreal has the same rights to protect people. That doesn't mean they can go and kill innocent civilians including elderly person, women, children, shcool children and bombing schools, hospitals, detroying infrastructure etc. After killing school kids, just dont justify your killing by saying they use kids as human shield. Dont destroy and don't lie.
dartkid31
05-31 07:28 PM
I think Lou Dobbs is mostly comic relief for most of us at this point. The only tragedy in this scenario is that he has access to idiot boxes across the country for an hour eveyday, and there are people who wholeheartedly believe the drivel he spews everyday. :( CNN should be embarrassed.
2011 Jr and Lindsay Lohan.
yagw
08-20 02:56 AM
One day Mr.X's little son was filling up an application and
asked Mr.X what to write in the "Mother Tongue:...." field.
Mr.X simply said 'write approximately 6cm'
asked Mr.X what to write in the "Mother Tongue:...." field.
Mr.X simply said 'write approximately 6cm'
more...
NKR
09-26 09:31 AM
Chandu, you have brought up an interesting topic, but frankly speaking I do not expect anything to change, for a majority of us if at all anything changes it is going to be for the worse, sorry to sound pessimistic but looking at the unfair processing of cases in the last couple of months, I have lost faith in the system�
calboy78
08-11 01:23 AM
bump ^^
more...
s_r_e_e
07-14 04:29 PM
What would happen this time before it retrogress again is, some low hanging EB2s from 2005 end & 2006 will get GC while many 2002 & 2003 EB2 are still waiting. More frustration and even more stress with tracking , soft LUDs, Hard LUDs, info pass , uscis calls!! what a mess!
2010 PALCO MP3 - Download Music
pthoko
07-10 10:07 PM
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
more...
seattleGC
02-21 11:24 AM
He is such nut job that he is not worth talking about.
hair featuring Lindsay Lohan
ilikekilo
03-25 03:15 PM
Do you disagree about Indians?
Indians are in majority. Indians do most consulting. Indians did most sub labor. Indians are the ones getting caught in raids. So there is your proof.
But the problem is USCIS and lawmakers are not interested in solving the problem. They only want to punish. Punishing is not a solution.
I disagree with UN that enough is being done against illegals or against consulting. If ICE was rounding up illegals every week, you will not be seeing so much illegal problem. Likewise if USCIS was alert on labor substitution, consulting, lawyer-employer nexus, employee abuse, we will not be seeing so much mess.
IF ICE starts raiding 'illegals' Iam sure Hispanic Caucus wont be happy and the largest minority of people in this country will see to that the incumbent wont win...its not that easy..send all illegals back, legalize all 'hard working" legal folks..Like us everyone looks for their own self interests...
Indians are in majority. Indians do most consulting. Indians did most sub labor. Indians are the ones getting caught in raids. So there is your proof.
But the problem is USCIS and lawmakers are not interested in solving the problem. They only want to punish. Punishing is not a solution.
I disagree with UN that enough is being done against illegals or against consulting. If ICE was rounding up illegals every week, you will not be seeing so much illegal problem. Likewise if USCIS was alert on labor substitution, consulting, lawyer-employer nexus, employee abuse, we will not be seeing so much mess.
IF ICE starts raiding 'illegals' Iam sure Hispanic Caucus wont be happy and the largest minority of people in this country will see to that the incumbent wont win...its not that easy..send all illegals back, legalize all 'hard working" legal folks..Like us everyone looks for their own self interests...
more...
rsdang
08-11 05:19 PM
If you don't laugh at the end of reading this then there's something wrong with you... Just imagine sitting in traffic on your way to work
and hearing this. Many Chicago folks DID hear this on the WBAM FM morning show in Chicago. The DJs play a game where they award winners great
prizes. The game is called "Mate Match." The DJs call someone at work and ask if they are married or seriously involved with someone. If the
contestant answers "yes," he or she is then asked 3 random yet highly personal questions. The person is also asked to divulge the name of
their partner (with phone number) for verification. If their partner answers those same three questions correctly, they both win the prize. One
particular game, however, several months ago made the Windy City drop to its knees with laughter and is possibly the funniest thing I've heard
yet. Anyway, here's how it all went down:
DJ: Hey! This is Edgar on WBAM. Have you ever heard of Mate Match?
Contestant: (laughing) Yes, I have.
DJ: Great! Then you know we're giving away a trip to Orlando, Florida if you win. What is your name? First only please.
Contestant: Brian.
DJ: Brian, are you married or what?
Brian: Yes.
DJ: Yes? Does that mean you're married or you're what?
Brian: (laughing nervously) Yes, I am married.
DJ: Thank you. Now, what is your wife's name? First only please.
Brian: Sarah.
DJ: Is Sarah at work, Brian?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Stay with me here, Brian! Is she at work?
Brian: (laughing) Yes, she's at work.
DJ: Okay, first question - when was the last time you had sex?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Brian! Stay with me here!
Brian: About 8 o'clock this morning.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: (laughing sheepishly) Well...
DJ: Question #2 - How long did it last?
Brian: About 10 minutes.
DJ: Wow! You really want that trip, huh? No one would ever have said that if a trip wasn't at stake.
Brian: Yeah, that trip sure would be nice.
DJ: Okay. Final question. Where did you have sex at 8 o'clock this morning?
Brian: (laughing hard) I, ummm, I, well...
DJ: This sounds good, Brian. Where was it at?
Brian: Not that it was all that great, but her mom is staying with us for a couple of weeks...
DJ: Uh huh...
Brian: .and the Mother-In-Law was in the shower at the time.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: On the kitchen table.
DJ: Not that great?? That is more adventure than the previous hundred times I've done it. Okay folks, I will put Brian on hold, get this wife's
work number and call her up. You listen to this.
(3 minutes of commercials follow)
DJ: Okay audience, let's call Sarah, shall we?
(touch tones... ringing...)
Clerk: Kinkos.
DJ: Hey, is Sarah around there somewhere?
Clerk: This is she.
DJ: Sarah, this is Edgar with WBAM. We are live on the air right now and I've been talking with Brian for a couple of hours now.
Sarah: (laughing) A couple of hours?
DJ: Well, a while now. He is on the line with us. Brian knows not to give any answers away! or you'll lose. Sooooooo... do you know the rules of
MateMatch?
Sarah: No.
DJ: Good!
Brian: (laughing)
Sarah: (laughing) Brian, what the hell are you up to?
Brian: (laughing) Just answer his questions honestly, okay? Be completely honest.
DJ: Yeah yeah yeah. Sure.. Now, I will ask you 3 questions, Sarah. ! If your answers match Brian's answers, then the both of you will be of To
Orlando, Florida for 5 ! days on us. Disney World. Sea World. Tickets to the Magic's game. The whole deal. Get it Sarah?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Alright. When did you last have sex, Sarah?
Sarah: Oh God, Brian....uh, this morning before Brian went to work.
DJ: What time?
Sarah: Around 8 this morning.
DJ: Very good. Next question. How long did it last?
Sarah: 12, 15 minutes maybe.
DJ:! Hmmmm. That's close enough. I am sure she is trying to protect his manhood. We've got one last question, Sarah. You are one question away
from a trip to Florida. Are you ready?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Where did you have it?
Sarah: OH MY GOD, BRIAN!! You didn't tell them that, did you?
Brian: Just tell him, honey.
DJ: What is bothering you so much, Sarah?
Sarah: Well, it's just that my mom is! vacationing with us and...
DJ: Come on Sarah... where did you have it?
Sarah: In the butt...
(long pause)
DJ: Folks, we need to take a station break
and hearing this. Many Chicago folks DID hear this on the WBAM FM morning show in Chicago. The DJs play a game where they award winners great
prizes. The game is called "Mate Match." The DJs call someone at work and ask if they are married or seriously involved with someone. If the
contestant answers "yes," he or she is then asked 3 random yet highly personal questions. The person is also asked to divulge the name of
their partner (with phone number) for verification. If their partner answers those same three questions correctly, they both win the prize. One
particular game, however, several months ago made the Windy City drop to its knees with laughter and is possibly the funniest thing I've heard
yet. Anyway, here's how it all went down:
DJ: Hey! This is Edgar on WBAM. Have you ever heard of Mate Match?
Contestant: (laughing) Yes, I have.
DJ: Great! Then you know we're giving away a trip to Orlando, Florida if you win. What is your name? First only please.
Contestant: Brian.
DJ: Brian, are you married or what?
Brian: Yes.
DJ: Yes? Does that mean you're married or you're what?
Brian: (laughing nervously) Yes, I am married.
DJ: Thank you. Now, what is your wife's name? First only please.
Brian: Sarah.
DJ: Is Sarah at work, Brian?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Stay with me here, Brian! Is she at work?
Brian: (laughing) Yes, she's at work.
DJ: Okay, first question - when was the last time you had sex?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Brian! Stay with me here!
Brian: About 8 o'clock this morning.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: (laughing sheepishly) Well...
DJ: Question #2 - How long did it last?
Brian: About 10 minutes.
DJ: Wow! You really want that trip, huh? No one would ever have said that if a trip wasn't at stake.
Brian: Yeah, that trip sure would be nice.
DJ: Okay. Final question. Where did you have sex at 8 o'clock this morning?
Brian: (laughing hard) I, ummm, I, well...
DJ: This sounds good, Brian. Where was it at?
Brian: Not that it was all that great, but her mom is staying with us for a couple of weeks...
DJ: Uh huh...
Brian: .and the Mother-In-Law was in the shower at the time.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: On the kitchen table.
DJ: Not that great?? That is more adventure than the previous hundred times I've done it. Okay folks, I will put Brian on hold, get this wife's
work number and call her up. You listen to this.
(3 minutes of commercials follow)
DJ: Okay audience, let's call Sarah, shall we?
(touch tones... ringing...)
Clerk: Kinkos.
DJ: Hey, is Sarah around there somewhere?
Clerk: This is she.
DJ: Sarah, this is Edgar with WBAM. We are live on the air right now and I've been talking with Brian for a couple of hours now.
Sarah: (laughing) A couple of hours?
DJ: Well, a while now. He is on the line with us. Brian knows not to give any answers away! or you'll lose. Sooooooo... do you know the rules of
MateMatch?
Sarah: No.
DJ: Good!
Brian: (laughing)
Sarah: (laughing) Brian, what the hell are you up to?
Brian: (laughing) Just answer his questions honestly, okay? Be completely honest.
DJ: Yeah yeah yeah. Sure.. Now, I will ask you 3 questions, Sarah. ! If your answers match Brian's answers, then the both of you will be of To
Orlando, Florida for 5 ! days on us. Disney World. Sea World. Tickets to the Magic's game. The whole deal. Get it Sarah?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Alright. When did you last have sex, Sarah?
Sarah: Oh God, Brian....uh, this morning before Brian went to work.
DJ: What time?
Sarah: Around 8 this morning.
DJ: Very good. Next question. How long did it last?
Sarah: 12, 15 minutes maybe.
DJ:! Hmmmm. That's close enough. I am sure she is trying to protect his manhood. We've got one last question, Sarah. You are one question away
from a trip to Florida. Are you ready?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Where did you have it?
Sarah: OH MY GOD, BRIAN!! You didn't tell them that, did you?
Brian: Just tell him, honey.
DJ: What is bothering you so much, Sarah?
Sarah: Well, it's just that my mom is! vacationing with us and...
DJ: Come on Sarah... where did you have it?
Sarah: In the butt...
(long pause)
DJ: Folks, we need to take a station break
hot MUSIC DISCOVERY MP3 DOWNLOAD
Macaca
01-20 10:11 AM
Could Congress Be Waking Up? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/19mann.html?em&ex=1200978000&en=42615f161ac4daf2&ei=5087%0A) By THOMAS E. MANN, MOLLY REYNOLDS and NIGEL HOLMES | NY Times, Jan 19
AMID the clamor of the presidential campaign, it�s sometimes easy to forget that all 435 House seats and 35 of the Senate�s seats are up for election this year, too. So how should Congress under its new Democratic leadership be judged?
The public has reached a decidedly negative conclusion, based on Congress�s inability to force a change in policy on the Iraq war and the pitched partisan battles that characterized much of the year in Washington.
But expectations for seismic change in policymaking after the 2006 midterm elections were almost certainly too high, given the deep ideological differences between the parties, the Democrats� narrow majorities, the now-routine Senate filibusters and a Republican president determined to go his own way on Iraq, the budget and domestic policy.
Based on our research, the 110th Congress does deserve some praise. In 2007, the level of energy and activity on Capitol Hill picked up markedly. This is not surprising � when the Newt Gingrich Congress, its closest analogue, took over in 1995, the pace of legislative life sped up, too.
In terms of both the number and significance of new public laws, however, last year�s Democratic majority significantly outperformed that Republican Congress. Only one item described in the Republican Contract With America was signed into law at the end of 1995, while most of the proposals the Democrats announced as their agenda were enacted.
Democrats, to be sure, aimed lower in their specific legislative promises, but they managed to overcome the many obstacles in their way. Republicans in 1995 shot for the moon and ended up frustrated by Senate inaction, presidential vetoes and a government shutdown that proved politically damaging.
The new Democratic Congress delivered on the promise of ethics and lobbying reform, and made considerable progress in reining in earmarks, which had exploded under the previous 12 years of mostly Republican rule. In fact, between the 2006 and 2008 fiscal years, the cost of appropriations earmarks appears to have dropped from $29 billion to $14.1 billion. Perhaps most important, Congress reasserted itself as a rightful check on the executive branch, significantly stepping up its oversight on a wide range of important subjects.
But a less partisan, more deliberative and productive legislative process will have to await a clearer signal from voters in the 2008 elections.
The chart below shows how the 110th Congress spent its time, and what it accomplished, in its first year under Democratic control, compared with its immediate predecessor and with the Republican Congress that took office in 1995.
AMID the clamor of the presidential campaign, it�s sometimes easy to forget that all 435 House seats and 35 of the Senate�s seats are up for election this year, too. So how should Congress under its new Democratic leadership be judged?
The public has reached a decidedly negative conclusion, based on Congress�s inability to force a change in policy on the Iraq war and the pitched partisan battles that characterized much of the year in Washington.
But expectations for seismic change in policymaking after the 2006 midterm elections were almost certainly too high, given the deep ideological differences between the parties, the Democrats� narrow majorities, the now-routine Senate filibusters and a Republican president determined to go his own way on Iraq, the budget and domestic policy.
Based on our research, the 110th Congress does deserve some praise. In 2007, the level of energy and activity on Capitol Hill picked up markedly. This is not surprising � when the Newt Gingrich Congress, its closest analogue, took over in 1995, the pace of legislative life sped up, too.
In terms of both the number and significance of new public laws, however, last year�s Democratic majority significantly outperformed that Republican Congress. Only one item described in the Republican Contract With America was signed into law at the end of 1995, while most of the proposals the Democrats announced as their agenda were enacted.
Democrats, to be sure, aimed lower in their specific legislative promises, but they managed to overcome the many obstacles in their way. Republicans in 1995 shot for the moon and ended up frustrated by Senate inaction, presidential vetoes and a government shutdown that proved politically damaging.
The new Democratic Congress delivered on the promise of ethics and lobbying reform, and made considerable progress in reining in earmarks, which had exploded under the previous 12 years of mostly Republican rule. In fact, between the 2006 and 2008 fiscal years, the cost of appropriations earmarks appears to have dropped from $29 billion to $14.1 billion. Perhaps most important, Congress reasserted itself as a rightful check on the executive branch, significantly stepping up its oversight on a wide range of important subjects.
But a less partisan, more deliberative and productive legislative process will have to await a clearer signal from voters in the 2008 elections.
The chart below shows how the 110th Congress spent its time, and what it accomplished, in its first year under Democratic control, compared with its immediate predecessor and with the Republican Congress that took office in 1995.
more...
house FREE MP3 Download – #39;Lose You#39;
qplearn
11-15 11:09 AM
This guy changes sides based on the audience, check out his latest rhetoric, looks like he is feeling the heat from the results of the current elections:
...Zakaria refers to "CNN's Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes" and Jonathan Alter describes those who agree with me as "nativist Lou Dobbsians." But Alter and Zakaria are far too bright to not know better. I've never once called for a restriction on legal immigration -- in fact, I've called for an increase, if it can be demonstrated that as a matter of public policy the nation requires more than the one million people we bring into this country legally each year.....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html
Actually Lou Dobbs is attempting to paint a picture in which Dems who have won support his stand. Fact is that Dems have won, thanks to Lou Dobbs, because they were OPPOSED to his stand. Perhaps a desperate attempt to save his job at CNN :)
...Zakaria refers to "CNN's Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes" and Jonathan Alter describes those who agree with me as "nativist Lou Dobbsians." But Alter and Zakaria are far too bright to not know better. I've never once called for a restriction on legal immigration -- in fact, I've called for an increase, if it can be demonstrated that as a matter of public policy the nation requires more than the one million people we bring into this country legally each year.....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html
Actually Lou Dobbs is attempting to paint a picture in which Dems who have won support his stand. Fact is that Dems have won, thanks to Lou Dobbs, because they were OPPOSED to his stand. Perhaps a desperate attempt to save his job at CNN :)
tattoo Was+lindsay+lohan+anorexic
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:19 AM
Mirage, in my own small way, i was also involved in the fight against Labor Sub. Cannot discuss it here as i do not think this is an appropriate forum.
However, i do understand your point of view. But, you have to realize that EB-1,2 and 3 are DISTINCT paths. "Time benefits" should not cascade across these different categories, and that is what i intend to fight legally.
I can provide more details in a week or so, when i have my final draft plan ready.
In your example the EB-3 guy was in the green card line before the EB-2 guy. Why on earth should he be asked to come in line after EB-2 guy if he decides to file a new one under EB-2. Why did not you wake up when Labor Substitution was going on. that was something which was utter non sense. People deciding to go for Green card in 2007 stood ahead of people from 2002 by substittuting a 2001 labor. Thank God it's gone.
However, i do understand your point of view. But, you have to realize that EB-1,2 and 3 are DISTINCT paths. "Time benefits" should not cascade across these different categories, and that is what i intend to fight legally.
I can provide more details in a week or so, when i have my final draft plan ready.
In your example the EB-3 guy was in the green card line before the EB-2 guy. Why on earth should he be asked to come in line after EB-2 guy if he decides to file a new one under EB-2. Why did not you wake up when Labor Substitution was going on. that was something which was utter non sense. People deciding to go for Green card in 2007 stood ahead of people from 2002 by substittuting a 2001 labor. Thank God it's gone.
more...
pictures **DOWNLOAD** tinyurl.com To
2008FebEb2
08-05 01:35 PM
I a EB2-I with PD 2008 Feb.
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
dresses FREE MP3 Download – #39;If I
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
more...
makeup Click here to download!
nogc_noproblem
08-28 10:09 PM
Pray for Wisdom:
A PRAYER Dear Lord,
I pray for Wisdom to understand my man;
Love to forgive him;
And Patience for his moods.
Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength,
I'll beat him to death.
AMEN
A PRAYER Dear Lord,
I pray for Wisdom to understand my man;
Love to forgive him;
And Patience for his moods.
Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength,
I'll beat him to death.
AMEN
girlfriend Lindsay Lohan - Confessions Of
mirage
08-06 09:19 AM
I'm impressed, How about posting your resume here. So everybody can clap on your achievements....
Pappu,
As usual, if the EB3 (i.e. majority) folks here do not like a subject, it gets banned. If something is unpopular, it gets swept under the carpet.
Go ahead and close the thread, it's in your nature. Plus i already know which members to contact to make this go forward. I said before and i will say it again, i was NOT looking for monetary contributions.
I was just reading all the posts which i did not get to read since morning when i left for work.
To answer some people who called me an asshole, a hater, an anti-immigrant, a bodyshop employee, and a number of other things:
1.) I graduated from one of the IITs in India, came to pursue my Masters in the same field in the 4th ranked university (for that field) in the US.
2.) Finished my Masters in 1.5 years and got 2 jobs through on-campus placements (one in my field, one not).
3.) Took the job that pertained to my field of study, been here ever since, company is the number 2 company in its area, and is a US establishment.
4.) I never paid a dime for my H1-B or my GC processing till date, it was all paid by the company.
5.) My company is very strict regarding the letter of the law, and so my GC processing was by the rule book, each and every detail (no fake resumes here).
6.) I get paid the same (actually about 2% more) compared to a US citizen at the same level/position in my organization.
7.) I have exactly the same medical/vacation/retirement benefits as a US citizen.
I did not get a chance to read my PMs but will do that shortly after supper. Yes, i am EB2, but a VALID one. I hope, in moments of clarity, people who are shouting and abusing can see that.
Yes, i do have an attorney and a paralegal i am talking to, and i will file this case in the proper arena. I am fed up and will do what i think is right. Meanwhile, for those who think porting is right, you are welcome to it. No one stopped you from challenging the law either.
You can talk here all you like, but i pray that your "bring it on" attitude survives till the point where this porting mess is banned by law.
Thanks for your attention (or the lack thereof).
Pappu,
As usual, if the EB3 (i.e. majority) folks here do not like a subject, it gets banned. If something is unpopular, it gets swept under the carpet.
Go ahead and close the thread, it's in your nature. Plus i already know which members to contact to make this go forward. I said before and i will say it again, i was NOT looking for monetary contributions.
I was just reading all the posts which i did not get to read since morning when i left for work.
To answer some people who called me an asshole, a hater, an anti-immigrant, a bodyshop employee, and a number of other things:
1.) I graduated from one of the IITs in India, came to pursue my Masters in the same field in the 4th ranked university (for that field) in the US.
2.) Finished my Masters in 1.5 years and got 2 jobs through on-campus placements (one in my field, one not).
3.) Took the job that pertained to my field of study, been here ever since, company is the number 2 company in its area, and is a US establishment.
4.) I never paid a dime for my H1-B or my GC processing till date, it was all paid by the company.
5.) My company is very strict regarding the letter of the law, and so my GC processing was by the rule book, each and every detail (no fake resumes here).
6.) I get paid the same (actually about 2% more) compared to a US citizen at the same level/position in my organization.
7.) I have exactly the same medical/vacation/retirement benefits as a US citizen.
I did not get a chance to read my PMs but will do that shortly after supper. Yes, i am EB2, but a VALID one. I hope, in moments of clarity, people who are shouting and abusing can see that.
Yes, i do have an attorney and a paralegal i am talking to, and i will file this case in the proper arena. I am fed up and will do what i think is right. Meanwhile, for those who think porting is right, you are welcome to it. No one stopped you from challenging the law either.
You can talk here all you like, but i pray that your "bring it on" attitude survives till the point where this porting mess is banned by law.
Thanks for your attention (or the lack thereof).
hairstyles Why MP3? The reason is simple:
redcard
03-24 04:28 PM
You know its very true that the whole problem around H1-B and Green Card scrutiny has a lot to do with the way the system was exploited by consulting companies which primarily have Indian ownership. In the pre Perm day�s you would find every consulting company having an address in every state where the labor approval for green card was faster. That resulted in the same company filling multiple labor for the same employee from five different state�s resulting in clogging the system and leading to BEC�s. These labors when they were eventually approved were sold by these unscrupulous companies as substitution labors, infact you could find advertisement for sale on sulekha for these labors (I am sure we all remember cybersoft). Thanks to this, today we USCIS looking closely at every green card case.
In the last few years� things have got so bad that these consulting companies send team of attornies to India during the H1-B filing season for H1-B applications where they charge over Rs.200K plus from candidates for filling H1-B.(Open local Indian papers and you can see advertsiment for these) Half of these applicants never make it to US as consulates rdetect these frauds at the time of stamping and this has made stamping even for genuine cases difficult. Apart from that it has resulted in H1-B lottery where a deserving candidate can not get an H1-B and finally to the current situation where USCIS looks at every H1-B application including renewal with a jaundice eye. Add to this the Satyam issue.
Lets face it; the root cause of the issue we face in the immigration system can be attributed to the greed of some Indian consulting companies.
Just take at a look at these advertisments ..
http://www.training-classes.com/programs/01/26/12677_h1b_visa_sponsorship.php
http://www.indianscholar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=344
http://jobblogr.com/2007/04/08/h1-b-sponsorship-2007-usa-fresh-graduates-experienced-professinals-tcognition-inc/
I can bet this vipul or shilpa will "bench" the minute you are out of project,,
In the last few years� things have got so bad that these consulting companies send team of attornies to India during the H1-B filing season for H1-B applications where they charge over Rs.200K plus from candidates for filling H1-B.(Open local Indian papers and you can see advertsiment for these) Half of these applicants never make it to US as consulates rdetect these frauds at the time of stamping and this has made stamping even for genuine cases difficult. Apart from that it has resulted in H1-B lottery where a deserving candidate can not get an H1-B and finally to the current situation where USCIS looks at every H1-B application including renewal with a jaundice eye. Add to this the Satyam issue.
Lets face it; the root cause of the issue we face in the immigration system can be attributed to the greed of some Indian consulting companies.
Just take at a look at these advertisments ..
http://www.training-classes.com/programs/01/26/12677_h1b_visa_sponsorship.php
http://www.indianscholar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=344
http://jobblogr.com/2007/04/08/h1-b-sponsorship-2007-usa-fresh-graduates-experienced-professinals-tcognition-inc/
I can bet this vipul or shilpa will "bench" the minute you are out of project,,
copsmart
01-01 09:39 AM
Wish You All a Happy and Prosperous New Year.
May god give this world the strength and courage to tackle Pakistan and its terrorist activities.
World Peace!
May god give this world the strength and courage to tackle Pakistan and its terrorist activities.
World Peace!
alterego
09-27 10:39 AM
I wish Obama wins. His team has more clarity on many issues and he has the zeal like JFK for making things happen. But, a big but - I am very concerned about our Employment Based immigration. If he gets to win (I wish he does..as someone who want to see America regain it's global position not just with might but also being morally right), I am worried if it would be Sen. Durbin who will dictate the immigration policy.
I wish we get some clarity in this aspect. In the economic downturn, I wish to work more than I ever did and see that US comes out of recession fast. But for that I have to be inside the country first. I have to be given a fair chance to contribute to this economy first and I need to be treated with respect and honor.
Sen. Durbin's position on this issue and his closeness to Sen. Obama is certainly a cause for concern, however, one thing I have noticed over and over with Sen. Obama is that he is a cerebral pragmatist with a fairly decent judgement. He is not a locked in ideologue, when a rational argument is put to him he tends not to be dogmatic like the current president and instead will try to cut a deal.
To get the support of republican moderates in any CIR legislation pro business immigration policies will need to be included in an Obama administration. No doubt the legislation will include some H1b restrictions, but they may be more open to EB visa recapture etc. That will atleast get those in the 485 queue some relief. Noone can reason with the Sen. Sessions and Rep. Kings of the congress. The same group that is so ultra conservative that they basically openly revolted with their president on numerous issues including the current economic rescue package.
My fear with a Sen. McCain administration is that on the immigration issue, whatever his personal views, we will see another 4 yrs similar to the last 4 on immigration! He will get nowhere moving his party either. Pres. Bush is about as pro CIR as they come, he tried and tried very hard, but to no avail with the Congress. Even before the election, you can see the disagreements between McCain and the extreme right wing conservatives. Atleast with Obama, the scene will be shaken up, noone knows where it ends up, but atleast there is a chance the gridlock will be broken.
I wish we get some clarity in this aspect. In the economic downturn, I wish to work more than I ever did and see that US comes out of recession fast. But for that I have to be inside the country first. I have to be given a fair chance to contribute to this economy first and I need to be treated with respect and honor.
Sen. Durbin's position on this issue and his closeness to Sen. Obama is certainly a cause for concern, however, one thing I have noticed over and over with Sen. Obama is that he is a cerebral pragmatist with a fairly decent judgement. He is not a locked in ideologue, when a rational argument is put to him he tends not to be dogmatic like the current president and instead will try to cut a deal.
To get the support of republican moderates in any CIR legislation pro business immigration policies will need to be included in an Obama administration. No doubt the legislation will include some H1b restrictions, but they may be more open to EB visa recapture etc. That will atleast get those in the 485 queue some relief. Noone can reason with the Sen. Sessions and Rep. Kings of the congress. The same group that is so ultra conservative that they basically openly revolted with their president on numerous issues including the current economic rescue package.
My fear with a Sen. McCain administration is that on the immigration issue, whatever his personal views, we will see another 4 yrs similar to the last 4 on immigration! He will get nowhere moving his party either. Pres. Bush is about as pro CIR as they come, he tried and tried very hard, but to no avail with the Congress. Even before the election, you can see the disagreements between McCain and the extreme right wing conservatives. Atleast with Obama, the scene will be shaken up, noone knows where it ends up, but atleast there is a chance the gridlock will be broken.
No comments:
Post a Comment