Instructions: Just read the sentence straight through quickly without really thinking about it.
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
yse ,tahts hwo I awlays tyep in chat windwo s
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
yse ,tahts hwo I awlays tyep in chat windwo s
wallpaper Heidi Montag Hairstyles
Your wisdom is amaizing and we are happy to see you and request you to help clear the darkness of GC for many souls.
I second you !!! I also heard from my co-worker that UN's wisdom is awesome.He is so popular.
I second you !!! I also heard from my co-worker that UN's wisdom is awesome.He is so popular.
As is true with everything else it cannot be all gain.
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
pete,
i am a physician and in the same boat as you. my employer searched high and dry before i came along. but you are missing something here. except universities that can hire the "best candidate", every other employer has to employ a citizen/gc applicant with the "minimum qualifications for the job". please revisit the rules if you do not understand this. your talent and extra skills count for nothing. employers cannot take the best applicant...if an LCA is needed. this is a very significant problem if applied to H1B renewals. Any tom dick and harry can displace you every 3 years. think about it please, not just your own situation. i am strongly in favor of H1B reform. i believe that this if linked with a bill like strive dramatically increase support for retrogression relief. however the reform needs to be thought through carefully. a 6 mnth LCA process for each renewal would kill us. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
pete,
i am a physician and in the same boat as you. my employer searched high and dry before i came along. but you are missing something here. except universities that can hire the "best candidate", every other employer has to employ a citizen/gc applicant with the "minimum qualifications for the job". please revisit the rules if you do not understand this. your talent and extra skills count for nothing. employers cannot take the best applicant...if an LCA is needed. this is a very significant problem if applied to H1B renewals. Any tom dick and harry can displace you every 3 years. think about it please, not just your own situation. i am strongly in favor of H1B reform. i believe that this if linked with a bill like strive dramatically increase support for retrogression relief. however the reform needs to be thought through carefully. a 6 mnth LCA process for each renewal would kill us. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
2011 Heidi Montag always looks
You are right, different areas will bottom at different times. But it's relatively easy to judge whether your area has bottomed or not:
1. Check if the rents and mortgage payments for the comparable properties are similar. Remember to own a house you need to have sterling credit history + come up with 20% down. So your mortgage payment + tax + insurance should at least be equal to rent if not less because you are paying premium in terms of putting 20% down which renters do not have to do.
2. Bubble began forming around 2000 to 2002 depending on the area. Check past sales prices for comparable homes in the same area around that time because prices back then were still realistic. If the asking price now is same as the price then + 1-2.5% price appreciation per year to adjust for inflation then it's a reasonable price. Ignore the peak around 2005-2006.
If your purchase price meets both these criteria you know you have a good deal. Go ahead and buy.
If you have only been reading all the doomsday articles on the net about another nosedive in the realestate market, then I must suggest you to step out and smell the coffee. Other than in a few areas like Detroit and Miami, the home prices are close to stable and are not heading to fall another 10%. When people write articles they want to sensationalize thier reports. What's happening in Detriot will not be happening everywhere in the nation. Real estate markets are very local and cannot be generalized. So anyone that is thinking that there is going to be another HUGE drop in home prices are mistaken.
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
1. Check if the rents and mortgage payments for the comparable properties are similar. Remember to own a house you need to have sterling credit history + come up with 20% down. So your mortgage payment + tax + insurance should at least be equal to rent if not less because you are paying premium in terms of putting 20% down which renters do not have to do.
2. Bubble began forming around 2000 to 2002 depending on the area. Check past sales prices for comparable homes in the same area around that time because prices back then were still realistic. If the asking price now is same as the price then + 1-2.5% price appreciation per year to adjust for inflation then it's a reasonable price. Ignore the peak around 2005-2006.
If your purchase price meets both these criteria you know you have a good deal. Go ahead and buy.
If you have only been reading all the doomsday articles on the net about another nosedive in the realestate market, then I must suggest you to step out and smell the coffee. Other than in a few areas like Detroit and Miami, the home prices are close to stable and are not heading to fall another 10%. When people write articles they want to sensationalize thier reports. What's happening in Detriot will not be happening everywhere in the nation. Real estate markets are very local and cannot be generalized. So anyone that is thinking that there is going to be another HUGE drop in home prices are mistaken.
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
Now you may go and dig out my previous postings too!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Want to discuss which airlines to boycott?:D...
There is an IV thread for you!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Want to discuss which airlines to boycott?:D...
There is an IV thread for you!
If you don't got the greencard, good luck for that. Please don't discuss any religious things here. It make others furious. Concentrate on your carrer and family. Belief in God is enough. Religion will give misery only. Man made the religion. God didn't created it.
i'm really confused, my posts asked people not to let religion interfere with a political issue, you responded educating us on the salvation and trinity and disproving Mohamed's message.. which one of us was discussing religion..
And still how does this justify you being racist to egyptians?!
i'm really confused, my posts asked people not to let religion interfere with a political issue, you responded educating us on the salvation and trinity and disproving Mohamed's message.. which one of us was discussing religion..
And still how does this justify you being racist to egyptians?!
Who extensively opposes this bill (besides VI) will ultimately decide whether or not this bill will be enacted. I don't see anyone besides the consulting community/companies lined up. I would imagine Lou Dobbs likes and every American would like to see this bill passed. Companies like Microsoft, Google, Intel, IEEE etc. will benefit from this bill, as they can hire talent with easy, as they don't have to compete with companies like TCS, Infosys, Wipro and all other big/small body shopping companies for H1B cap. I guess we simply have to wait and watch to see what happens next.
2010 Heidi Montag shows off
If you go through the transcripts of his shows over the last 4-5 years, he is stauncly against everything foriegn, period. He hates H1-Bs, absolutely hates indian call centers , hates cheap chinese goods, hates illegal aliens ... he is not just anti-immigrant, he is xenophobic.
The reason he is so popular is because he appeals to populist sentiments .. its the easiest thing in the world to blame foreigners when the economy is bad and believe everything will be hunky-dory if they are kicked out.
I used to watch his show for 2 yrs. This is what exactly he wants to do. I agree 200% to the above passage. He wants to build walls for everything, technolgy, foriegn goods and Immigrants(legal and illegel). I am surprised that he is a harvard graduate. He want to send 15 mil illegals out, which is 10% of the whole work force. The current unemployment in this coutry is under 5% which the best in the world. How is he going to fill the jobs that were left behind by the illegals...
The reason he is so popular is because he appeals to populist sentiments .. its the easiest thing in the world to blame foreigners when the economy is bad and believe everything will be hunky-dory if they are kicked out.
I used to watch his show for 2 yrs. This is what exactly he wants to do. I agree 200% to the above passage. He wants to build walls for everything, technolgy, foriegn goods and Immigrants(legal and illegel). I am surprised that he is a harvard graduate. He want to send 15 mil illegals out, which is 10% of the whole work force. The current unemployment in this coutry is under 5% which the best in the world. How is he going to fill the jobs that were left behind by the illegals...
this is what I had meant when I said that (for some people only) moving in to a very big house leads to lower standard on living. I repeat - this is only if you buy a big house beyond your means. this is from fortune
---
Stay-at-home mom, 40, Apopka, Fla.
We bought a home in Orlando, Fla., in February 2005, the height of the boom here. At the time, we could afford the home, the taxes and the insurance. It would be tight but we kept planning on "the bonus" or "the raise."
We got all caught up in the "square footage" of the home. Well, what we didn't realize was that with our BIG HOUSE comes BIG EVERYTHING! Big taxes, big insurance, big water bills, big electric bills. The anxiety at the end of the month caused health problems for both my husband, Victor, and I.
Last summer, we realized that we could not live like this any longer. We could not afford our home, we were prisoners of our mortgage. We couldn't enjoy life outside the house. We were literally trapped.
We decided to "downsize" our life, our lifestyle and our home. It was a lot of soul searching but we both realized that it's not all about "square footage" or bedrooms or full baths. It's about being able to afford a mortgage (and all the add-ons) and still have money at the end of the month.
Now, our timing could not be worse of course, for putting the big house on the market. We built a much smaller house, ranch style and I love it! My first electric bill was a third of what it used to be. Yes, we still have the big house, but we were able to rent it out and cover expenses.
We are not making a dime on the rental, and when the market comes back, we will put it back up to sell. We wiped out Victor's 401(k) to pay off debt and put a down payment on the new house. We have established a savings account and there is actually money left over at the end of the month....whew!
---
Stay-at-home mom, 40, Apopka, Fla.
We bought a home in Orlando, Fla., in February 2005, the height of the boom here. At the time, we could afford the home, the taxes and the insurance. It would be tight but we kept planning on "the bonus" or "the raise."
We got all caught up in the "square footage" of the home. Well, what we didn't realize was that with our BIG HOUSE comes BIG EVERYTHING! Big taxes, big insurance, big water bills, big electric bills. The anxiety at the end of the month caused health problems for both my husband, Victor, and I.
Last summer, we realized that we could not live like this any longer. We could not afford our home, we were prisoners of our mortgage. We couldn't enjoy life outside the house. We were literally trapped.
We decided to "downsize" our life, our lifestyle and our home. It was a lot of soul searching but we both realized that it's not all about "square footage" or bedrooms or full baths. It's about being able to afford a mortgage (and all the add-ons) and still have money at the end of the month.
Now, our timing could not be worse of course, for putting the big house on the market. We built a much smaller house, ranch style and I love it! My first electric bill was a third of what it used to be. Yes, we still have the big house, but we were able to rent it out and cover expenses.
We are not making a dime on the rental, and when the market comes back, we will put it back up to sell. We wiped out Victor's 401(k) to pay off debt and put a down payment on the new house. We have established a savings account and there is actually money left over at the end of the month....whew!
hair hairstyles Heidi Montag
I definitely agree with the post above :). ..here is another article ..not the best bit vague but still good ..it came in just now on cnbc
note the line marked in red ..it still depends on economy ...but predictions are that US economy may stagnate plus tight immi ..and you can see what will happen in future
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31151346
--------------------
Home prices in the United States have been falling for nearly three years, and the decline may well continue for some time.
AP
Even the federal government has projected price decreases through 2010. As a baseline, the stress tests recently performed on big banks included a total fall in housing prices of 41 percent from 2006 through 2010. Their “more adverse” forecast projected a drop of 48 percent — suggesting that important housing ratios, like price to rent, and price to construction cost — would fall to their lowest levels in 20 years.
Such long, steady housing price declines seem to defy both common sense and the traditional laws of economics, which assume that people act rationally and that markets are efficient. Why would a sensible person watch the value of his home fall for years, only to sell for a big loss? Why not sell early in the cycle? If people acted as the efficient-market theory says they should, prices would come down right away, not gradually over years, and these cycles would be much shorter.
But something is definitely different about real estate. Long declines do happen with some regularity. And despite the uptick last week in pending home sales and recent improvement in consumer confidence, we still appear to be in a continuing price decline.
There are many historical examples. After the bursting of the Japanese housing bubble in 1991, land prices in Japan’s major cities fell every single year for 15 consecutive years.
Why does this happen? One could easily believe that people are a little slower to sell their homes than, say, their stocks. But years slower?
Several factors can explain the snail-like behavior of the real estate market. An important one is that sales of existing homes are mainly by people who are planning to buy other homes. So even if sellers think that home prices are in decline, most have no reason to hurry because they are not really leaving the market.
Furthermore, few homeowners consider exiting the housing market for purely speculative reasons. First, many owners don’t have a speculator’s sense of urgency. And they don’t like shifting from being owners to renters, a process entailing lifestyle changes that can take years to effect.
Among couples sharing a house, for example, any decision to sell and switch to a rental requires the assent of both partners. Even growing children, who may resent being shifted to another school district and placed in a rental apartment, are likely to have some veto power.
In fact, most decisions to exit the market in favor of renting are not market-timing moves. Instead, they reflect the growing pressures of economic necessity. This may involve foreclosure or just difficulty paying bills, or gradual changes in opinion about how to live in an economic downturn.
This dynamic helps to explain why, at a time of high unemployment, declines in home prices may be long-lasting and predictable.
Imagine a young couple now renting an apartment. A few years ago, they were toying with the idea of buying a house, but seeing unemployment all around them and the turmoil in the housing market, they have changed their thinking: they have decided to remain renters. They may not revisit that decision for some years. It is settled in their minds for now.
On the other hand, an elderly couple who during the boom were holding out against selling their home and moving to a continuing-care retirement community have decided that it’s finally the time to do so. It may take them a year or two to sort through a lifetime of belongings and prepare for the move, but they may never revisit their decision again.
As a result, we will have a seller and no buyer, and there will be that much less demand relative to supply — and one more reason that prices may continue to fall, or stagnate, in 2010 or 2011.
All of these people could be made to change their plans if a sharp improvement in the economy got their attention. The young couple could change their minds and decide to buy next year, and the elderly couple could decide to further postpone their selling. That would leave us with a buyer and no seller, providing an upward kick to the market price.
For this reason, not all economists agree that home price declines are really predictable. Ray Fair, my colleague at Yale, for one, warns that any trend up or down may suddenly be reversed if there is an economic “regime change” — a shift big enough to make people change their thinking.
But market changes that big don’t occur every day. And when they do, there is a coordination problem: people won’t all change their views about homeownership at once. Some will focus on recent price declines, which may seem to belie any improvement in the economy, reinforcing negative attitudes about the housing market.
Even if there is a quick end to the recession, the housing market’s poor performance may linger. After the last home price boom, which ended about the time of the 1990-91 recession, home prices did not start moving upward, even incrementally, until 1997.
note the line marked in red ..it still depends on economy ...but predictions are that US economy may stagnate plus tight immi ..and you can see what will happen in future
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31151346
--------------------
Home prices in the United States have been falling for nearly three years, and the decline may well continue for some time.
AP
Even the federal government has projected price decreases through 2010. As a baseline, the stress tests recently performed on big banks included a total fall in housing prices of 41 percent from 2006 through 2010. Their “more adverse” forecast projected a drop of 48 percent — suggesting that important housing ratios, like price to rent, and price to construction cost — would fall to their lowest levels in 20 years.
Such long, steady housing price declines seem to defy both common sense and the traditional laws of economics, which assume that people act rationally and that markets are efficient. Why would a sensible person watch the value of his home fall for years, only to sell for a big loss? Why not sell early in the cycle? If people acted as the efficient-market theory says they should, prices would come down right away, not gradually over years, and these cycles would be much shorter.
But something is definitely different about real estate. Long declines do happen with some regularity. And despite the uptick last week in pending home sales and recent improvement in consumer confidence, we still appear to be in a continuing price decline.
There are many historical examples. After the bursting of the Japanese housing bubble in 1991, land prices in Japan’s major cities fell every single year for 15 consecutive years.
Why does this happen? One could easily believe that people are a little slower to sell their homes than, say, their stocks. But years slower?
Several factors can explain the snail-like behavior of the real estate market. An important one is that sales of existing homes are mainly by people who are planning to buy other homes. So even if sellers think that home prices are in decline, most have no reason to hurry because they are not really leaving the market.
Furthermore, few homeowners consider exiting the housing market for purely speculative reasons. First, many owners don’t have a speculator’s sense of urgency. And they don’t like shifting from being owners to renters, a process entailing lifestyle changes that can take years to effect.
Among couples sharing a house, for example, any decision to sell and switch to a rental requires the assent of both partners. Even growing children, who may resent being shifted to another school district and placed in a rental apartment, are likely to have some veto power.
In fact, most decisions to exit the market in favor of renting are not market-timing moves. Instead, they reflect the growing pressures of economic necessity. This may involve foreclosure or just difficulty paying bills, or gradual changes in opinion about how to live in an economic downturn.
This dynamic helps to explain why, at a time of high unemployment, declines in home prices may be long-lasting and predictable.
Imagine a young couple now renting an apartment. A few years ago, they were toying with the idea of buying a house, but seeing unemployment all around them and the turmoil in the housing market, they have changed their thinking: they have decided to remain renters. They may not revisit that decision for some years. It is settled in their minds for now.
On the other hand, an elderly couple who during the boom were holding out against selling their home and moving to a continuing-care retirement community have decided that it’s finally the time to do so. It may take them a year or two to sort through a lifetime of belongings and prepare for the move, but they may never revisit their decision again.
As a result, we will have a seller and no buyer, and there will be that much less demand relative to supply — and one more reason that prices may continue to fall, or stagnate, in 2010 or 2011.
All of these people could be made to change their plans if a sharp improvement in the economy got their attention. The young couple could change their minds and decide to buy next year, and the elderly couple could decide to further postpone their selling. That would leave us with a buyer and no seller, providing an upward kick to the market price.
For this reason, not all economists agree that home price declines are really predictable. Ray Fair, my colleague at Yale, for one, warns that any trend up or down may suddenly be reversed if there is an economic “regime change” — a shift big enough to make people change their thinking.
But market changes that big don’t occur every day. And when they do, there is a coordination problem: people won’t all change their views about homeownership at once. Some will focus on recent price declines, which may seem to belie any improvement in the economy, reinforcing negative attitudes about the housing market.
Even if there is a quick end to the recession, the housing market’s poor performance may linger. After the last home price boom, which ended about the time of the 1990-91 recession, home prices did not start moving upward, even incrementally, until 1997.
Man!!! thats getting nastier..
Best bet for you is to hire an attorney to come out of this trap.
Good luck!
ok...this is something..
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
Best bet for you is to hire an attorney to come out of this trap.
Good luck!
ok...this is something..
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
hot Heidi Montag Hairstyles
Why America Needs Immigrants (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576313490871429216.html) By JONAH LEHRER | Wall Street Journal
If there's one fact that Americans take for granted, it's that other people want to live here. As President Barack Obama noted in his speech on immigration earlier this week, the U.S. has always attracted strivers from every corner of the globe, often willing to risk great hardships to get here.
During the 20th century especially, America became a magnet for the bright and ambitious. Millions of talented foreigners, from Alfred Hitchcock to Sergey Brin, flocked to our universities and benefited from our financial capital and open culture.
There are signs, however, that the allure of America is fading. A new study by researchers at U.C. Berkeley, Duke and Harvard has found that, for the first time, a majority of American-trained entrepreneurs who have returned to India and China believe they are doing better at "home" than they would be doing in the U.S. The numbers weren't even close: 72% of Indians and 81% of Chinese said "economic opportunities" were superior in their native countries.
Some of the local advantages cited by these global entrepreneurs were predictable: cheap labor and low operating costs. What's more worrisome is that these business people also cited the optimistic mood of their homelands. To them, America felt tapped out, but their own countries seem full of potential. This might also help to explain why the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. has plunged more than 60% since 2005.
These trends are troubling because they threaten to undermine a chief competitive advantage of the U.S. Though politicians constantly pay lip service to the importance of American innovation, they often fail to note that it is driven in large part by first-generation immigrants.
Consider some recent data. The U.S. Patent Office says immigrants invent patents at roughly double the rate of non-immigrants, which is why a 1% increase in immigrants with college degrees leads to a 15% rise in patent production. (In recent years, immigrant inventors have contributed to more than a quarter of all U.S. global patent applications.) These immigrants also start companies at an accelerated pace, co-founding 52% of Silicon Valley firms since 1995. It's no accident that immigrants founded or co-founded many of the most successful high-tech companies in America, such as Google, Intel and eBay.
Why is immigration so essential for innovation? Immigrants bring a much-needed set of skills and interests. Last year, foreign students studying on temporary visas received more than 60% of all U.S. engineering doctorates. (American students, by contrast, dominate doctorate programs in the humanities and social sciences.)
These engineering students drive economic growth. According to the Department of Labor, only 5% of U.S. workers are employed in fields related to science and engineering, but they're responsible for more than 50% of sustained economic expansion (growth that isn't due to temporary or cyclical factors). These people invent products that change our lives, and in the process, they create jobs.
But the advantages of immigration aren't limited to those with particular academic backgrounds. In recent years, psychologists have discovered that exposing people to different cultures, either through travel abroad or diversity in their hometown, can also make them more creative. When we encounter other cultures we become more willing to consider multiple interpretations of the same thing. Take leaving food on one's plate: In China, it's often a compliment, signaling that the host has provided enough to eat. But in America it can suggest that the food wasn't good.
People familiar with such cultural contrasts are more likely to consider alternate possibilities when problem-solving, instead of settling for their first answer. As a result, they score significantly higher on tests of creativity. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that many of the most innovative places in the world, such as Silicon Valley and New York City, are also the most diverse.
We need a new immigration debate. In recent years, politicians have focused on border control and keeping out illegal immigrants. That's important work, of course. But what's even more important is ensuring that future inventors want to call America home.
Europe and immigration are vital issues, so let's discuss them (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8514152/Europe-and-immigration-are-vital-issues-so-lets-discuss-them.html) Telegraph
Fewer takers for H-1B
The software scene in the US is changing (http://businessstandard.com/india/news/fewer-takers-for-h-1b-/435622/)
Business Standard Editorial
President Obama's dreaming if he thinks he's mending fences with immigrants (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2011/05/15/2011-05-15_prez_dreaming_if_he_thinks_hes_mending_fences.h tml) By Albor Ruiz | NYDN
Twisting the truth on the Mexican border (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/twisting-the-truth-on-the-mexican-border/2011/05/12/AFOJKi3G_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
The Secure Visas Act (http://www.cfr.org/immigration/secure-visas-act/p24959) By Edward Alden | Council on Foreign Relations
If there's one fact that Americans take for granted, it's that other people want to live here. As President Barack Obama noted in his speech on immigration earlier this week, the U.S. has always attracted strivers from every corner of the globe, often willing to risk great hardships to get here.
During the 20th century especially, America became a magnet for the bright and ambitious. Millions of talented foreigners, from Alfred Hitchcock to Sergey Brin, flocked to our universities and benefited from our financial capital and open culture.
There are signs, however, that the allure of America is fading. A new study by researchers at U.C. Berkeley, Duke and Harvard has found that, for the first time, a majority of American-trained entrepreneurs who have returned to India and China believe they are doing better at "home" than they would be doing in the U.S. The numbers weren't even close: 72% of Indians and 81% of Chinese said "economic opportunities" were superior in their native countries.
Some of the local advantages cited by these global entrepreneurs were predictable: cheap labor and low operating costs. What's more worrisome is that these business people also cited the optimistic mood of their homelands. To them, America felt tapped out, but their own countries seem full of potential. This might also help to explain why the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. has plunged more than 60% since 2005.
These trends are troubling because they threaten to undermine a chief competitive advantage of the U.S. Though politicians constantly pay lip service to the importance of American innovation, they often fail to note that it is driven in large part by first-generation immigrants.
Consider some recent data. The U.S. Patent Office says immigrants invent patents at roughly double the rate of non-immigrants, which is why a 1% increase in immigrants with college degrees leads to a 15% rise in patent production. (In recent years, immigrant inventors have contributed to more than a quarter of all U.S. global patent applications.) These immigrants also start companies at an accelerated pace, co-founding 52% of Silicon Valley firms since 1995. It's no accident that immigrants founded or co-founded many of the most successful high-tech companies in America, such as Google, Intel and eBay.
Why is immigration so essential for innovation? Immigrants bring a much-needed set of skills and interests. Last year, foreign students studying on temporary visas received more than 60% of all U.S. engineering doctorates. (American students, by contrast, dominate doctorate programs in the humanities and social sciences.)
These engineering students drive economic growth. According to the Department of Labor, only 5% of U.S. workers are employed in fields related to science and engineering, but they're responsible for more than 50% of sustained economic expansion (growth that isn't due to temporary or cyclical factors). These people invent products that change our lives, and in the process, they create jobs.
But the advantages of immigration aren't limited to those with particular academic backgrounds. In recent years, psychologists have discovered that exposing people to different cultures, either through travel abroad or diversity in their hometown, can also make them more creative. When we encounter other cultures we become more willing to consider multiple interpretations of the same thing. Take leaving food on one's plate: In China, it's often a compliment, signaling that the host has provided enough to eat. But in America it can suggest that the food wasn't good.
People familiar with such cultural contrasts are more likely to consider alternate possibilities when problem-solving, instead of settling for their first answer. As a result, they score significantly higher on tests of creativity. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that many of the most innovative places in the world, such as Silicon Valley and New York City, are also the most diverse.
We need a new immigration debate. In recent years, politicians have focused on border control and keeping out illegal immigrants. That's important work, of course. But what's even more important is ensuring that future inventors want to call America home.
Europe and immigration are vital issues, so let's discuss them (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8514152/Europe-and-immigration-are-vital-issues-so-lets-discuss-them.html) Telegraph
Fewer takers for H-1B
The software scene in the US is changing (http://businessstandard.com/india/news/fewer-takers-for-h-1b-/435622/)
Business Standard Editorial
President Obama's dreaming if he thinks he's mending fences with immigrants (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2011/05/15/2011-05-15_prez_dreaming_if_he_thinks_hes_mending_fences.h tml) By Albor Ruiz | NYDN
Twisting the truth on the Mexican border (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/twisting-the-truth-on-the-mexican-border/2011/05/12/AFOJKi3G_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
The Secure Visas Act (http://www.cfr.org/immigration/secure-visas-act/p24959) By Edward Alden | Council on Foreign Relations
house heidi montag hairstyle project
Israeli shelling kills more than 40 at UN school in Gaza.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-death-un
More killing while the world watches silently.
Unfortunately Hamas has been using this school as human shield launching missiles against Israel military. You need to consider all acts before accusing Israel of killing innocents.
Hamas must stop their methodology of using innocent civilian homes/schools as launch pads for bombings and they must drop their quest of eliminating a Jewish state. Similarly Israel should recognize Palestine as a separate independent country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-death-un
More killing while the world watches silently.
Unfortunately Hamas has been using this school as human shield launching missiles against Israel military. You need to consider all acts before accusing Israel of killing innocents.
Hamas must stop their methodology of using innocent civilian homes/schools as launch pads for bombings and they must drop their quest of eliminating a Jewish state. Similarly Israel should recognize Palestine as a separate independent country.
tattoo from Heidi Montag
Why should they?
Just self-interest and what works for them.
No wonder many people, after getting GC, do not visit this forum and support any immigration reforms.
*
Just self-interest and what works for them.
No wonder many people, after getting GC, do not visit this forum and support any immigration reforms.
*
pictures Heidi Montag, Lauren Conrad
What would be the purpose of reading all that? I thought the spotlight was on hamas...this is how you try to move the spotlight away huh!!
My point is, they keep the spotlight on Hamas and go kill as many innocent civilians as possible.
Even when they kill school kids, we still blame Hamas. We don't blame the killer and try to stop their mad actions. Thats my point.
My point is, they keep the spotlight on Hamas and go kill as many innocent civilians as possible.
Even when they kill school kids, we still blame Hamas. We don't blame the killer and try to stop their mad actions. Thats my point.
dresses Pictures: Heidi Montag
Not true.
All it matters is the "intention" to get employed in the offered position & the job duties of the AC21 job you have at the time of adjudicating 485.
Means.... never joining your original 485 employer ... by it self... wont cause any issue.
ok now i'm really confused between AC21 and future employment debate....
AC21 can be used after 6 months of 485 filing to change the job but then once u get GC you have to work for the original company that filed your 485 for few months?? so for e.g. if i change my job after lets say 1 year of 485 filing and lets say my 485 is approved after 3 years so now do i have to quit my new job and go back to my old employer to work for few months to get my gc? am i understanding this correct? i think i'm not... can you please clarify?? thnx
All it matters is the "intention" to get employed in the offered position & the job duties of the AC21 job you have at the time of adjudicating 485.
Means.... never joining your original 485 employer ... by it self... wont cause any issue.
ok now i'm really confused between AC21 and future employment debate....
AC21 can be used after 6 months of 485 filing to change the job but then once u get GC you have to work for the original company that filed your 485 for few months?? so for e.g. if i change my job after lets say 1 year of 485 filing and lets say my 485 is approved after 3 years so now do i have to quit my new job and go back to my old employer to work for few months to get my gc? am i understanding this correct? i think i'm not... can you please clarify?? thnx
makeup 2009 updo hairstyle from Heidi Montag
Well, one thing I can think of is how we treat the dead terrorists. In case of Parliament, Ashkardam and Mumbai attack, security forces killed the terrorists while they were killing innocents. As usual, Pakistan disowned them.
Publicise very very heavily and spread the word that these dead bodies would be given non-islamic burial. Hit where it hurts them...After giving non-islamic rites, spread the word that next terrorist that gets killed would get more drastic treatment.
BUT ensure that this treatment would be only for the foreign terrorists who are killed by security forces while doing their act and that are disowned by their country. It can be easily misused also. This should ONLY be done if nobody claims ownership of the body.
The story we hear about Kasab is that he was a looser and a petty criminal who was brainwashed. If he and his ilks are willing to get brainwashed religiously then they can not discount the effect of propaganda about non-islamic rites for their dead body and possibly it might deter them from taking that ultimate step.
Take a survey among the Muslims in Bombay to see if they support giving non-islamic rites for the 'orphaned' dead terrorists. I'm sure most of the sensible Muslims are outraged and they would agree to it especially after seeing what they saw on the TV. Before the killer's gun, there is no religion but only the intention to kill.
Publicity is a good potent weapon, I agree.
Publicise very very heavily and spread the word that these dead bodies would be given non-islamic burial. Hit where it hurts them...After giving non-islamic rites, spread the word that next terrorist that gets killed would get more drastic treatment.
BUT ensure that this treatment would be only for the foreign terrorists who are killed by security forces while doing their act and that are disowned by their country. It can be easily misused also. This should ONLY be done if nobody claims ownership of the body.
The story we hear about Kasab is that he was a looser and a petty criminal who was brainwashed. If he and his ilks are willing to get brainwashed religiously then they can not discount the effect of propaganda about non-islamic rites for their dead body and possibly it might deter them from taking that ultimate step.
Take a survey among the Muslims in Bombay to see if they support giving non-islamic rites for the 'orphaned' dead terrorists. I'm sure most of the sensible Muslims are outraged and they would agree to it especially after seeing what they saw on the TV. Before the killer's gun, there is no religion but only the intention to kill.
Publicity is a good potent weapon, I agree.
girlfriend 2010 White Party Dresses For
Moderator/Admin/Pappoo,
Please delete this thread. It is not helping in anyways to our immigration goals.
Calm down friends.
MC
Please delete this thread. It is not helping in anyways to our immigration goals.
Calm down friends.
MC
hairstyles Though Heidi didn#39;t win the
bfadlia,
I agree with you on most things you have said in your post and if you take a honest vote among the folks on this thread, you will find the overwhelming majority on the following views:
1. The human loss and suffering of the innocent Gaza people is sad and horrific.
2. Israel has reacted too strongly and used aggression to unacceptable limits.
3. Palestine deserves its own state and power to govern itself.
Now, the reason you have the same majority of folks respond in a manner that you, refugee and rayyan object and feel offended about is due to the following:
1. You fail to acknowledge the role of Hamas in initiating this conflict AND not resolving this conflict. Even if you personally did, others have very ineffectively shied away from this point.
2. There seems to be a lack of similar anguish and sympathy offered by you guys when it came to the mumbai attacks. Not saying you applauded the attackers but you didn't denounce them with the same vigor you are using to denounce Israel.
3. Finally, the biggest reason you are getting such unwarranted and to an extent shameful posts on your religion is because you are not only ready to defend it when it's followers are the victim BUT also when it's followers are the aggressors (like in Mumbai attacks). And with all due respect to Palestinians, there seem to be more muslim aggressors in today's world than victims.
In conclusion, I have nothing against you or the others. I am sure if I met you socially you will be a decent person. Lets hope peace is given a chance in Gaza and despite the differences educated people like us unite to fight for the common good...in these forums, it is EB Green cards.
Cheers.
bondgoli007, i'm glad we have some common ground.. i am sure my posts expressed that I despise intentional attacks on civilians.. i was disgusted hearing about the mumbai attacked and expressed that in its thread, although the guys there converted it into attack-islam thread
having said that, i am still amazed the people starting history at the point hamas fired rockets and israel retaliated.. this is a more than 60 year struggle, with palestinians driven out of their homes and israeli settlements built over its rubble and tens of UN resolutions ordering israel to let the palestinians back and end the occupation but these just swept under the carpet based on israel's allies veto power.. point is hamas is resisting the wrong way by targeting civilians, but people resisting occupation will always happen regardless of how violently they are retaliated against
I agree with you on most things you have said in your post and if you take a honest vote among the folks on this thread, you will find the overwhelming majority on the following views:
1. The human loss and suffering of the innocent Gaza people is sad and horrific.
2. Israel has reacted too strongly and used aggression to unacceptable limits.
3. Palestine deserves its own state and power to govern itself.
Now, the reason you have the same majority of folks respond in a manner that you, refugee and rayyan object and feel offended about is due to the following:
1. You fail to acknowledge the role of Hamas in initiating this conflict AND not resolving this conflict. Even if you personally did, others have very ineffectively shied away from this point.
2. There seems to be a lack of similar anguish and sympathy offered by you guys when it came to the mumbai attacks. Not saying you applauded the attackers but you didn't denounce them with the same vigor you are using to denounce Israel.
3. Finally, the biggest reason you are getting such unwarranted and to an extent shameful posts on your religion is because you are not only ready to defend it when it's followers are the victim BUT also when it's followers are the aggressors (like in Mumbai attacks). And with all due respect to Palestinians, there seem to be more muslim aggressors in today's world than victims.
In conclusion, I have nothing against you or the others. I am sure if I met you socially you will be a decent person. Lets hope peace is given a chance in Gaza and despite the differences educated people like us unite to fight for the common good...in these forums, it is EB Green cards.
Cheers.
bondgoli007, i'm glad we have some common ground.. i am sure my posts expressed that I despise intentional attacks on civilians.. i was disgusted hearing about the mumbai attacked and expressed that in its thread, although the guys there converted it into attack-islam thread
having said that, i am still amazed the people starting history at the point hamas fired rockets and israel retaliated.. this is a more than 60 year struggle, with palestinians driven out of their homes and israeli settlements built over its rubble and tens of UN resolutions ordering israel to let the palestinians back and end the occupation but these just swept under the carpet based on israel's allies veto power.. point is hamas is resisting the wrong way by targeting civilians, but people resisting occupation will always happen regardless of how violently they are retaliated against
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
I'm not with those proposing war on this thread neither am I with those advocating no war (I felt most of the reasons, not all, were ugly).I was not keen about sharing my thoughts on this topic or may be I was not sure so I didn't join this thread earlier although I've been watching this thread.
No matter what is being discussed on this thread there is no war imminent in South Asia ,which is good.There's not going to be any war not because of the reasons that some of the folks on this thread that are against war were citing . We all know the reasons why there won't be war.
There's not much that we as individuals could do to wage a war or stop a war ,that's for sure at least for now.
Nevertheless it's interesting discussion.
That said now something for you alisa.
You are right. And so it is imperative that before that happens, the perpetrators and their handlers are hunted down, exposed and punished, in a credible and transparent manner.
Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why.
If you would revisit the earlier posts on this thread you would find that we did trace that part of the circle. With due respect I would like to ask, now do you understand why 'nojoke' is calling you delirious?
Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why.
Please revisit the earlier posts on this thread you and all of your Pakistanis(that you are pitching in for) would get to know what you want to know.
Now Specifically for you :
1.Either you already know what you are doing -trying to take everyone on a silly logical ride
or
2.You don't know what you are doing and thus taking everyone along with yourself on this silly logical ride.
If it's #1 we have many smart alecs in the society and that's nothing new.It's for us to royally ignore you unless of course someone wants to kill their time responding to you.
If it's #2 , though you have not asked me here's a piece of friendly advice, take it or drop it,it's your choice.But before you go about posting on this thread next time sit down and contemplate your logic that's telling you what you are doing is right.See if you are convinced. That'll help you a lot in many aspects not just on the subject of this thread.
Your this unending tireless logic that is so strong that it won't let you see that you are doing circles.Delirium would be one word for it but my explanation is the customized(for you) meaning of the word delirium which seems to suit you aptly for now.
why apology I am not responsible for the actions of those people.
you would find an answer to your this question if you went back to read your posts just yours not even other posts on this thread.
Imagine if after 9/11, an American asked you to apologize for the actions of the 19 'Brown men' (I am assuming here that you are a south asian male) who killed 3000 Americans, how silly do you think that situation would be.
Now if there were incidents like 9/11 going on in this country for last 20 years, all committed by South Asians and then a person from South Asia keeps arguing that Americans should not go to war against South Asia to deal with a problem that South Asia doesn't seem capable of dealing with then apology won't look silly to start with and here 'nojoke' is asking for an apology almost towards the tail end of the thread(Meaning all the folks on this thread have been really patient,understanding with you and your logic though we allcould see through it just after first 5-6 posts.)
If cockroaches from my house take a dump in your kitchen, don't ask me to apologize for that.
If you keep your house shabby,don't get rid of the garbage that you know is breeding those roaches and those roaches keep jumping on to the next house from yours ...the said neighbor has been patient with those roaches for like 20 years...then when he and the corporation think of taking action(clean up) the garbage in your place... then you/your house mates jump in to say that your neighbor,corporation and you should work together or wait for like another 20 years to get rid of those roaches when the actual work can be accomplished much sooner, who is at fault here?.
I've also observed from all your posts that you keep citing example after example, when someone joins in to break your silly logic you royally ignore those posts ,go ahead and throw another logical example at another post that you choose.
For instance refer to this answer from 'GCmuddu_H1BVadd' to you earlier post
Well, if one provinance is joined hands with the theives then the police from second provinance should kick the other provinance's theives and police (as*).And yes a possible revilary between two provinances.
Suppose there are theives from Bihar that come and rob you in West Bengal. You can either send your West Bengal police into Bihar, and turn it into a rivalry between two police departments. And a rivalry between two provinces.Or you have the two police departments work together to reduce crime rate in the future.
Moral of the story:
Till a certain point you were fine (where many of us thought that you are much better than 'Zeb','Shuuyaib') but then you started (you kow it or not ) playing this game where you concede a point only to keep peddling this haggard logic of yours.
On a humorous note I guess you are trying to get solutions to all of the pakistan's problems for free on this forum from IV members(be it roaches, terrorists, non-state actors or the state itself.)
So go on ...keep posting your delusions ...or give your self a chance to
think what you are doing...I'm not saying you don't think(just that your logic in on what can be called irrelevant overdrive). I guess even you would agree that too much of anything is too bad be it terrorism or your haggard logic.
All those who don't agree with me keep having fun with this handles posts.
Thank you.
No matter what is being discussed on this thread there is no war imminent in South Asia ,which is good.There's not going to be any war not because of the reasons that some of the folks on this thread that are against war were citing . We all know the reasons why there won't be war.
There's not much that we as individuals could do to wage a war or stop a war ,that's for sure at least for now.
Nevertheless it's interesting discussion.
That said now something for you alisa.
You are right. And so it is imperative that before that happens, the perpetrators and their handlers are hunted down, exposed and punished, in a credible and transparent manner.
Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why.
If you would revisit the earlier posts on this thread you would find that we did trace that part of the circle. With due respect I would like to ask, now do you understand why 'nojoke' is calling you delirious?
Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why.
Please revisit the earlier posts on this thread you and all of your Pakistanis(that you are pitching in for) would get to know what you want to know.
Now Specifically for you :
1.Either you already know what you are doing -trying to take everyone on a silly logical ride
or
2.You don't know what you are doing and thus taking everyone along with yourself on this silly logical ride.
If it's #1 we have many smart alecs in the society and that's nothing new.It's for us to royally ignore you unless of course someone wants to kill their time responding to you.
If it's #2 , though you have not asked me here's a piece of friendly advice, take it or drop it,it's your choice.But before you go about posting on this thread next time sit down and contemplate your logic that's telling you what you are doing is right.See if you are convinced. That'll help you a lot in many aspects not just on the subject of this thread.
Your this unending tireless logic that is so strong that it won't let you see that you are doing circles.Delirium would be one word for it but my explanation is the customized(for you) meaning of the word delirium which seems to suit you aptly for now.
why apology I am not responsible for the actions of those people.
you would find an answer to your this question if you went back to read your posts just yours not even other posts on this thread.
Imagine if after 9/11, an American asked you to apologize for the actions of the 19 'Brown men' (I am assuming here that you are a south asian male) who killed 3000 Americans, how silly do you think that situation would be.
Now if there were incidents like 9/11 going on in this country for last 20 years, all committed by South Asians and then a person from South Asia keeps arguing that Americans should not go to war against South Asia to deal with a problem that South Asia doesn't seem capable of dealing with then apology won't look silly to start with and here 'nojoke' is asking for an apology almost towards the tail end of the thread(Meaning all the folks on this thread have been really patient,understanding with you and your logic though we allcould see through it just after first 5-6 posts.)
If cockroaches from my house take a dump in your kitchen, don't ask me to apologize for that.
If you keep your house shabby,don't get rid of the garbage that you know is breeding those roaches and those roaches keep jumping on to the next house from yours ...the said neighbor has been patient with those roaches for like 20 years...then when he and the corporation think of taking action(clean up) the garbage in your place... then you/your house mates jump in to say that your neighbor,corporation and you should work together or wait for like another 20 years to get rid of those roaches when the actual work can be accomplished much sooner, who is at fault here?.
I've also observed from all your posts that you keep citing example after example, when someone joins in to break your silly logic you royally ignore those posts ,go ahead and throw another logical example at another post that you choose.
For instance refer to this answer from 'GCmuddu_H1BVadd' to you earlier post
Well, if one provinance is joined hands with the theives then the police from second provinance should kick the other provinance's theives and police (as*).And yes a possible revilary between two provinances.
Suppose there are theives from Bihar that come and rob you in West Bengal. You can either send your West Bengal police into Bihar, and turn it into a rivalry between two police departments. And a rivalry between two provinces.Or you have the two police departments work together to reduce crime rate in the future.
Moral of the story:
Till a certain point you were fine (where many of us thought that you are much better than 'Zeb','Shuuyaib') but then you started (you kow it or not ) playing this game where you concede a point only to keep peddling this haggard logic of yours.
On a humorous note I guess you are trying to get solutions to all of the pakistan's problems for free on this forum from IV members(be it roaches, terrorists, non-state actors or the state itself.)
So go on ...keep posting your delusions ...or give your self a chance to
think what you are doing...I'm not saying you don't think(just that your logic in on what can be called irrelevant overdrive). I guess even you would agree that too much of anything is too bad be it terrorism or your haggard logic.
All those who don't agree with me keep having fun with this handles posts.
Thank you.
