Slow down chief, not so fast.
There are two ways to give coverage to an issue. One could be decided based on how many people are affected, second could be based on how may people care for that issue.
If you go by how may people were affected, I'll say Palestine has a population of how much, say less than 5 million, but it has the world attention for over 50% of the entire world affairs coverage. For world affairs coverage its Palestine v/s rest of the world, but it seems according to you thats not enough. Why should Palestine or for that matter Israel be so important that it should get so much coverage or attention. All the religions AND HENCE THE VIOLENCE were created there. That's why its best to ignore that place so that twisted minds will not get motivation to fight anymore. But my point is, Isreal Palestine issue already gets more than adequate coverage, more so than rawanda, somalia, sudan, terror attacks in India etc. So based on this I don't think its NECESSARY to give Isreal Palestine any more attention.
But if you apply the second measure, which is how many people care about the issue, well in that case a lot more people here care about the attacks in India and a war between India and Pakistan. For that matter a lot more people on this forum are affected by attacks in Mumbai. If you go to some Palestine forum, maybe you can get more people wanting to discuss their views about Isreal there. But by law of inclination, since there more people on this site from India, you will see more people wanting to discuss about how they and their loved once are affected. If you want to discuss about paleastine, well, go right ahead, no one will respond to you because people are not interested. I am only responding to your rants and not your issue.
Loss of human life, WHICH IS OFTEN DUE TO SOME TWISTED RELIGION, is always very saddening. This is the core belief of every peace loving society and is not coming out in response to yuor rants. Infact, rants such as yours simple make a few people to tone down their expression of sorrow for the loss of human life.
There needs to be correction in your post. When Pakistanis terrorist attacked mumbai, world community blamed Pakistan and not the entire muslim community. The problem is, the way muslim community responds to such world events, due to the sense of the guilt of their twisted belief system, they think that the world community is blaming every muslim, but that is actually not how the world community responded. Also, because of the urge to defend terror attacks by a terrorist, muslim community tends to justify terrorism and terrosit attacks. We saw many "educated" (HIGHLY SKILLED) members, who were apparently muslims, on this forum justifying terrorist attacks conducted by Pakistani terrorist who happen to be "muslims". Because, the overriding factor for a lot people following islamic faith is the religion of the person performing the bad deeds. And if that person happen to be a muslim, most of you guys tend to justify bad deeds including terrorist acts. This behavior results in world community responding to you in plain and simple terms that terrorist sympathizer is encouraging more terrorism and hence you perceive that expression as if the others are branding your entire community as terrorist, but again, this is not true either. Its the direct result of your sense of guilt and your urge to be terrorist sympathizer.
I don't follow any religion. For me nation of my nationality (which could change in future) is above all forms of religions. When I will take US citizenship, my loyalties will be with the nation where my children are born and with the nation where I will become a citizen by CHOICE. Religion has nothing to do my relationship, my responsibilities and my rights in the country I BELONG. I am not saying that this is the right kind of behavior, but the pattern of behavior which is excepted as reasonable by most rationale minds. However, for you, you have to pick up a side in any issue based on the religion of the terrorist or the victims of any situation. You have no regard for the country of your birth or citizenship. Maybe not for you, but I see that as a problem.
I am a peace loving person and denounce every form of violence SPECIALLY THE ONE CAUSED DUE TO RELIGION. But that is not because of your rants, that's just the way I think normal humans behave. Although I must add that its not my issue as much as Mumbai attacks because Palestine is not in my backyard and I don't have the bandwidth to pay attention to Palestine even if I wanted.
Hope that's good enought for the day.
I think we discuss these kind of news in IV. Don't you know that? In the same forum i have heard people saying Isreal is a peace loving nation and they never commit crime.
Look at what is happening now. Can we justify killing innocent kids? Who would kill kids? How evil one should be in order to kill school kids?
How evil this world is, watching these attrocities silently. While pakistani terrorists committed attrocities in India, whole world blamed the entire Muslim communities.
Now where are those peace loving people have gone while Muslims are brutally murdered and innocent kids are brutally killed by missles?
There are two ways to give coverage to an issue. One could be decided based on how many people are affected, second could be based on how may people care for that issue.
If you go by how may people were affected, I'll say Palestine has a population of how much, say less than 5 million, but it has the world attention for over 50% of the entire world affairs coverage. For world affairs coverage its Palestine v/s rest of the world, but it seems according to you thats not enough. Why should Palestine or for that matter Israel be so important that it should get so much coverage or attention. All the religions AND HENCE THE VIOLENCE were created there. That's why its best to ignore that place so that twisted minds will not get motivation to fight anymore. But my point is, Isreal Palestine issue already gets more than adequate coverage, more so than rawanda, somalia, sudan, terror attacks in India etc. So based on this I don't think its NECESSARY to give Isreal Palestine any more attention.
But if you apply the second measure, which is how many people care about the issue, well in that case a lot more people here care about the attacks in India and a war between India and Pakistan. For that matter a lot more people on this forum are affected by attacks in Mumbai. If you go to some Palestine forum, maybe you can get more people wanting to discuss their views about Isreal there. But by law of inclination, since there more people on this site from India, you will see more people wanting to discuss about how they and their loved once are affected. If you want to discuss about paleastine, well, go right ahead, no one will respond to you because people are not interested. I am only responding to your rants and not your issue.
Loss of human life, WHICH IS OFTEN DUE TO SOME TWISTED RELIGION, is always very saddening. This is the core belief of every peace loving society and is not coming out in response to yuor rants. Infact, rants such as yours simple make a few people to tone down their expression of sorrow for the loss of human life.
There needs to be correction in your post. When Pakistanis terrorist attacked mumbai, world community blamed Pakistan and not the entire muslim community. The problem is, the way muslim community responds to such world events, due to the sense of the guilt of their twisted belief system, they think that the world community is blaming every muslim, but that is actually not how the world community responded. Also, because of the urge to defend terror attacks by a terrorist, muslim community tends to justify terrorism and terrosit attacks. We saw many "educated" (HIGHLY SKILLED) members, who were apparently muslims, on this forum justifying terrorist attacks conducted by Pakistani terrorist who happen to be "muslims". Because, the overriding factor for a lot people following islamic faith is the religion of the person performing the bad deeds. And if that person happen to be a muslim, most of you guys tend to justify bad deeds including terrorist acts. This behavior results in world community responding to you in plain and simple terms that terrorist sympathizer is encouraging more terrorism and hence you perceive that expression as if the others are branding your entire community as terrorist, but again, this is not true either. Its the direct result of your sense of guilt and your urge to be terrorist sympathizer.
I don't follow any religion. For me nation of my nationality (which could change in future) is above all forms of religions. When I will take US citizenship, my loyalties will be with the nation where my children are born and with the nation where I will become a citizen by CHOICE. Religion has nothing to do my relationship, my responsibilities and my rights in the country I BELONG. I am not saying that this is the right kind of behavior, but the pattern of behavior which is excepted as reasonable by most rationale minds. However, for you, you have to pick up a side in any issue based on the religion of the terrorist or the victims of any situation. You have no regard for the country of your birth or citizenship. Maybe not for you, but I see that as a problem.
I am a peace loving person and denounce every form of violence SPECIALLY THE ONE CAUSED DUE TO RELIGION. But that is not because of your rants, that's just the way I think normal humans behave. Although I must add that its not my issue as much as Mumbai attacks because Palestine is not in my backyard and I don't have the bandwidth to pay attention to Palestine even if I wanted.
Hope that's good enought for the day.
I think we discuss these kind of news in IV. Don't you know that? In the same forum i have heard people saying Isreal is a peace loving nation and they never commit crime.
Look at what is happening now. Can we justify killing innocent kids? Who would kill kids? How evil one should be in order to kill school kids?
How evil this world is, watching these attrocities silently. While pakistani terrorists committed attrocities in India, whole world blamed the entire Muslim communities.
Now where are those peace loving people have gone while Muslims are brutally murdered and innocent kids are brutally killed by missles?
wallpaper wrapped Ferrari 599 GTB
Four college friends were so confident that the weekend before finals, they decided to go up to Dallas and party with some friends up there. They had a great time. However, after all the partying, they slept all day Sunday and didn't make it back to Austin until early Monday morning.
Rather than taking the final then, they decided to find their professor after the final and explain to him why they missed it. They explained that they had gone to Dallas for the weekend with the plan to come back and study but, unfortunately, they had a flat tire on the way back, didn't have a spare, and couldn't get help for a long time. As a result, they missed the final.
The Professor thought it over and then agreed they could make up the final the following day. The guys were elated and relieved. They studied that night and went in the next day at the time the professor had told them. He placed them in separate rooms and handed each of them a test booklet, and told them to begin.
They looked at the first problem, worth 5 points. It was something simple about free radical formation. "Cool," they thought at the same time, each one in his separate room. "This is going to be easy."
Each finished the problem and then turned the page. On the second page was written:
(For 95 points): Which tire?
Rather than taking the final then, they decided to find their professor after the final and explain to him why they missed it. They explained that they had gone to Dallas for the weekend with the plan to come back and study but, unfortunately, they had a flat tire on the way back, didn't have a spare, and couldn't get help for a long time. As a result, they missed the final.
The Professor thought it over and then agreed they could make up the final the following day. The guys were elated and relieved. They studied that night and went in the next day at the time the professor had told them. He placed them in separate rooms and handed each of them a test booklet, and told them to begin.
They looked at the first problem, worth 5 points. It was something simple about free radical formation. "Cool," they thought at the same time, each one in his separate room. "This is going to be easy."
Each finished the problem and then turned the page. On the second page was written:
(For 95 points): Which tire?
Why should we waste our resources when Pakistanis are doing the damage by themselves??? The joke is Pak blaming some poor Indian for a bomb blast which was quickly owned up by a domestic terrorist organization!!
Pakistan is a begging bowl which is trying to blackmail US by threatening to pull out troops from Afgan border..so US and UK are trying to pacify India telling them that they will put pressure on Pak to do something.
And you know what a bigger joke is? your slum dog cum president who told Larry King that no one from "his part of the country" were involved in the attack!!! What is his part of the country? his toilet seat??? It has not been 1 year since he killed his wife he was jumping all over Sarah Palin like a horny dog!! Barking dogs seldom bite, so don't just thump your chest just yet. When the fox has to die it runs towards the lion. That is what Pakistan is doing by pretending to pose as if it will go to war with India. If India attacks Pak will fold it's tail between its legs and run to US, like Nawaz sherif did during the Kargil war. We have beaten you in 4 wars, how may more beatings will it take for it to sink into your thick skull that Pakistan can NEVER beat India. Period!!
Pakistan will disintegrate with in the next few years if they don't seek India's support in whacking them Jehadi SOB's. Baluchitan, NWFP, Sindh are all going to be independent countries and the Pak president can easily rule " his part of the country"
Buddyinsfo you might try to bring friction among Indians by pitting people from different states against each other, but remember when it comes to any outside force we are all Indians first and we will Kick your Ass...
This is like an ant taking on an elephant, if half the men in Punjab, Guj and Rajastan stand on the border and Pee; Pakistan will be washed away in a flood of Urine...If you poor people want to get killed, there are better painless ways than enrage India. So it is in Paks best interest to request India to come in clean up the terrorist camps which are now turning against Pakistan itself!!
Pranab Muks, the foreign minister needs to be applauded (?) for creating a drama of sorts by setting up the army against Pakis assuming that the Pakis will give in to the pressure and return the militants that India is looking for. On the other hand, the Prime Minister ManMohan Singh was consistently giving out statements that India is not in favour of war and never was (completely contradicting Pranab Muks' moves) and as per the latest news that emerged out of nowhere (???) there seemed to have been some kinda communication between the military officials of both the countries and they've come to some sort of understanding that war was not in the best interest of both the countries and only dialogue was as India was apprehensive as to what Pak's response to a military strike wud be...the drama continues and its a big joke. With China playing the mediator and India (silently and 100% dependent on US and UK put pressure on Pak but to no avail) had to succumb to the boomeranged efforts by playing the peace game now. One only needs to wait to see what happens next. But one thing is for sure...India will never strike Pakistan at a point when there is really no open support from anywhere. At some point (yesterday?) the honorable Prime Minister was looking for Iran to pressurise Pakistan (by calling Ahmadinejad) and this in itself speaks volumes !!! India is making a joke of itself...Had it been US, they'd have made a strike at Paki's terrorist sites in no time (as they did after 9/11). Its been over a month of Mumbai strikes and the way India is showing its weakness makes us wonder if they really have solid evidence against Pakistan. The latest news goes like...The Mumbai Govt has ordered probes into the attacks...Wonder what needs to be probed now(after one month) and that too after the entire nation has been made to believe that it was always Pakistan and claiming and shouting at the top of their lungs that they had SUFFICIENT evidence!!!!
Pakistan is a begging bowl which is trying to blackmail US by threatening to pull out troops from Afgan border..so US and UK are trying to pacify India telling them that they will put pressure on Pak to do something.
And you know what a bigger joke is? your slum dog cum president who told Larry King that no one from "his part of the country" were involved in the attack!!! What is his part of the country? his toilet seat??? It has not been 1 year since he killed his wife he was jumping all over Sarah Palin like a horny dog!! Barking dogs seldom bite, so don't just thump your chest just yet. When the fox has to die it runs towards the lion. That is what Pakistan is doing by pretending to pose as if it will go to war with India. If India attacks Pak will fold it's tail between its legs and run to US, like Nawaz sherif did during the Kargil war. We have beaten you in 4 wars, how may more beatings will it take for it to sink into your thick skull that Pakistan can NEVER beat India. Period!!
Pakistan will disintegrate with in the next few years if they don't seek India's support in whacking them Jehadi SOB's. Baluchitan, NWFP, Sindh are all going to be independent countries and the Pak president can easily rule " his part of the country"
Buddyinsfo you might try to bring friction among Indians by pitting people from different states against each other, but remember when it comes to any outside force we are all Indians first and we will Kick your Ass...
This is like an ant taking on an elephant, if half the men in Punjab, Guj and Rajastan stand on the border and Pee; Pakistan will be washed away in a flood of Urine...If you poor people want to get killed, there are better painless ways than enrage India. So it is in Paks best interest to request India to come in clean up the terrorist camps which are now turning against Pakistan itself!!
Pranab Muks, the foreign minister needs to be applauded (?) for creating a drama of sorts by setting up the army against Pakis assuming that the Pakis will give in to the pressure and return the militants that India is looking for. On the other hand, the Prime Minister ManMohan Singh was consistently giving out statements that India is not in favour of war and never was (completely contradicting Pranab Muks' moves) and as per the latest news that emerged out of nowhere (???) there seemed to have been some kinda communication between the military officials of both the countries and they've come to some sort of understanding that war was not in the best interest of both the countries and only dialogue was as India was apprehensive as to what Pak's response to a military strike wud be...the drama continues and its a big joke. With China playing the mediator and India (silently and 100% dependent on US and UK put pressure on Pak but to no avail) had to succumb to the boomeranged efforts by playing the peace game now. One only needs to wait to see what happens next. But one thing is for sure...India will never strike Pakistan at a point when there is really no open support from anywhere. At some point (yesterday?) the honorable Prime Minister was looking for Iran to pressurise Pakistan (by calling Ahmadinejad) and this in itself speaks volumes !!! India is making a joke of itself...Had it been US, they'd have made a strike at Paki's terrorist sites in no time (as they did after 9/11). Its been over a month of Mumbai strikes and the way India is showing its weakness makes us wonder if they really have solid evidence against Pakistan. The latest news goes like...The Mumbai Govt has ordered probes into the attacks...Wonder what needs to be probed now(after one month) and that too after the entire nation has been made to believe that it was always Pakistan and claiming and shouting at the top of their lungs that they had SUFFICIENT evidence!!!!
2011 The first one uses Ferrari#39;s
If that's what your experience has been, its good news.
Overall, my experience has been completely opposite but if most Pakistanis are anti-terrorism as you say, half the battle is already won. I am also beginning to a get a sense that this has embarrased lot of muslims....and its set them thinking.
However, how do you propose we bring the terrorists to book? Attack Pakistan? Bomb the terrorist camps out? Wait for another attack to happen, wait for your own family in Mumbai to be wiped out? And exchange hateful words on IV? Release the terrorists in exchange for political hostages or fedd them dal, chapatis in Indian prisons?
Justice doesn't come magically or does it?
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.
Overall, my experience has been completely opposite but if most Pakistanis are anti-terrorism as you say, half the battle is already won. I am also beginning to a get a sense that this has embarrased lot of muslims....and its set them thinking.
However, how do you propose we bring the terrorists to book? Attack Pakistan? Bomb the terrorist camps out? Wait for another attack to happen, wait for your own family in Mumbai to be wiped out? And exchange hateful words on IV? Release the terrorists in exchange for political hostages or fedd them dal, chapatis in Indian prisons?
Justice doesn't come magically or does it?
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.
So tomorrow if I loose a job and kill someone considering responsible for it is justifiable? Where is the gray area?
Dude, if you havent heard about it, it is already happening.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/15/a-sad-day-in-silicon-valley/
One the serious note, you didn't get the crux of my post. Read my previous reply to another poster.
Dude, if you havent heard about it, it is already happening.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/15/a-sad-day-in-silicon-valley/
One the serious note, you didn't get the crux of my post. Read my previous reply to another poster.
Does this mean that H1B is also location specific?
There has been no definitive guidance. H-1b is specific to company, candidate with job duties. If there is a "material change" then it should be amended.
Material change has not been defined in all encompassing ways. it is a gray area whether one needs to amend h-1b for another location. In that particular case; aao seemed to imply that another work location was a material change. There was no follow up after they made the decision. One of the posters who participated on that thread said that he knew that particular person and after that decsion his lawyer showed LCA's and the case was approved.
However; it still wasn't conclusive of whether that was good enough. Reason being was that the candidates labor was filed in 2000 and he had 245i protection and that in itself would have protected him from his out of status issues; ultimately on that specific case of working on different locations would not have had an impact because he was protected in other ways.
There has been no definitive guidance. H-1b is specific to company, candidate with job duties. If there is a "material change" then it should be amended.
Material change has not been defined in all encompassing ways. it is a gray area whether one needs to amend h-1b for another location. In that particular case; aao seemed to imply that another work location was a material change. There was no follow up after they made the decision. One of the posters who participated on that thread said that he knew that particular person and after that decsion his lawyer showed LCA's and the case was approved.
However; it still wasn't conclusive of whether that was good enough. Reason being was that the candidates labor was filed in 2000 and he had 245i protection and that in itself would have protected him from his out of status issues; ultimately on that specific case of working on different locations would not have had an impact because he was protected in other ways.
There is some excellent information on this thread. Pls add it on http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php?title=Buying_a_house_in_USA&action=edit
as well
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Immigration_to_US
There are some new Miscellaneous topics created in the wiki. Please help us by adding content in those titles as well so that this valuable information helps everyone. Do add links to relevant IV threads wherever possible.
as well
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Immigration_to_US
There are some new Miscellaneous topics created in the wiki. Please help us by adding content in those titles as well so that this valuable information helps everyone. Do add links to relevant IV threads wherever possible.
2010 Ferrari 599 GTB.
Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21cong.html) By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
A man was sitting reading his papers when his wife hit him round the head with a frying pan.
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
hair Ferrari 599 GTB Tuned by
Don't you think Pakistan already knows that?
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
Not at all.
My 90 year old grandmother did this. She was also responsible for setting Taj on fire and attacking Indian senate.
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
Not at all.
My 90 year old grandmother did this. She was also responsible for setting Taj on fire and attacking Indian senate.
This is exactly I hate. To divert focus of terrorism to Hindu group, Muslim leader comes out - WOW!
Sounds like LeT informed Hindu group in advance that they are going to attack so as a by-product they can kill Karkare. Ha ha ha.
Times Of India Headline: Antulay raises doubts over Karkare's killing
People like Antulay are real traitors of India. Who know they may be taking instructions from Pakistan ISI? Such people go unpunish is the main reason India was slave for 2000 years.
Sounds like LeT informed Hindu group in advance that they are going to attack so as a by-product they can kill Karkare. Ha ha ha.
Times Of India Headline: Antulay raises doubts over Karkare's killing
People like Antulay are real traitors of India. Who know they may be taking instructions from Pakistan ISI? Such people go unpunish is the main reason India was slave for 2000 years.
hot Ferrari 599 GTB
I am just losing confidence.Just wondering how they have moved only the second category -when there is someone highly retrogressed.
To fail the bills so no one will work for that anymore or just because EB2 is superior than EB3 or am I confusing myself.So once if EB2I becomes C and then EB3row C will EB3 I atleast move.
Its just a spillover,why cant they give it equally.Why no one is ready to question for us?
To fail the bills so no one will work for that anymore or just because EB2 is superior than EB3 or am I confusing myself.So once if EB2I becomes C and then EB3row C will EB3 I atleast move.
Its just a spillover,why cant they give it equally.Why no one is ready to question for us?
house ferrari 599 gtb front engien
http://www.bluelatinos.org/firelou?from=0
I encourage IV members to go to the above website and add themselves to the list of petitioners asking CNN to fire Lou.
Lou Dobbs has a right to speak his mind. A lot of what he says is rhetoric but it is within his rights. I wouldn't want to associate IV with any Latino related immigration movement. Their objectives, issues and means are altogether different from ours.
We [should] care only about legal immigrants and not have even a whiff of supporting illegal immigration in any form and from any country. For a long time now, the word immigration has been expanded to mean Latino immigrants and only Wall Street Journal takes care to single out that immigration from countries like India is of a different hue (more knowledge based), than immigration from Mexico (more labor intensive).
Bottom line, aligning ourselves with the Latino agenda is bad policy and politics and a losing proposition.
I encourage IV members to go to the above website and add themselves to the list of petitioners asking CNN to fire Lou.
Lou Dobbs has a right to speak his mind. A lot of what he says is rhetoric but it is within his rights. I wouldn't want to associate IV with any Latino related immigration movement. Their objectives, issues and means are altogether different from ours.
We [should] care only about legal immigrants and not have even a whiff of supporting illegal immigration in any form and from any country. For a long time now, the word immigration has been expanded to mean Latino immigrants and only Wall Street Journal takes care to single out that immigration from countries like India is of a different hue (more knowledge based), than immigration from Mexico (more labor intensive).
Bottom line, aligning ourselves with the Latino agenda is bad policy and politics and a losing proposition.
tattoo The Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano is
Alisa, you sound like rational Pakistani who can think and judge the things by oneself. I wish % like you people increase in Pakistan.
Marphad,
Please don't get fooled again by this kind of sweet talk. This is the same kind of talk that Musharraf did with Americans after 9/11. But no terrorist camps were dismantled and Pakistan continues to provide safe heaven to taliban and bin ladin. Every time US or India or someone else is about to take a stern action, the most clever wing of Pakistan kicks-in, to do this sweet talk. I don't trust this sweet but filthy expression anymore. Pakistan is not even ready to prosecute LeT, JeM leaders. Just 1 guy is under "house arrest" for Mumbai attacks. If Pakistan were serious, there would be more real action on the ground. Instead, the government is trying to find reasons not to take any action. Alisa is just saying the same thing, justifying the inaction of Pakistani government. The bottom line is, Pakistan is not serious about dismantling the terrorism infrastructure. ISI continues to fund and supply arms to all terror outfits. Every terrorist attack also presents an opportunity to get ride of the bad guys. Civilized society is befooled by this sweet talk every time there is a possibility of some action. Since 9/11, the terror outfits have grown within Pakistan, even though world community thinks that Pakistan is "ally" in "war on terror". Bull Shit. India must conduct surgical strikes and should not let its guard down. The only other option is, wait for the next attack by terrorist coming from Pakistan. Next time it will someone else's brother or mother. I don't want it to be my brother or my mother. And so I demand action from Indian government RIGHT NOW. I have given piece of my mind by calling and writing emails & letters to news anchors who even remotely suggested against attacking pakistan. I see their tone change. I have also called the government and written letters demanding action, and will continue to do so till there is response to the war waged on us. And I request you and others do the same.
Marphad,
Please don't get fooled again by this kind of sweet talk. This is the same kind of talk that Musharraf did with Americans after 9/11. But no terrorist camps were dismantled and Pakistan continues to provide safe heaven to taliban and bin ladin. Every time US or India or someone else is about to take a stern action, the most clever wing of Pakistan kicks-in, to do this sweet talk. I don't trust this sweet but filthy expression anymore. Pakistan is not even ready to prosecute LeT, JeM leaders. Just 1 guy is under "house arrest" for Mumbai attacks. If Pakistan were serious, there would be more real action on the ground. Instead, the government is trying to find reasons not to take any action. Alisa is just saying the same thing, justifying the inaction of Pakistani government. The bottom line is, Pakistan is not serious about dismantling the terrorism infrastructure. ISI continues to fund and supply arms to all terror outfits. Every terrorist attack also presents an opportunity to get ride of the bad guys. Civilized society is befooled by this sweet talk every time there is a possibility of some action. Since 9/11, the terror outfits have grown within Pakistan, even though world community thinks that Pakistan is "ally" in "war on terror". Bull Shit. India must conduct surgical strikes and should not let its guard down. The only other option is, wait for the next attack by terrorist coming from Pakistan. Next time it will someone else's brother or mother. I don't want it to be my brother or my mother. And so I demand action from Indian government RIGHT NOW. I have given piece of my mind by calling and writing emails & letters to news anchors who even remotely suggested against attacking pakistan. I see their tone change. I have also called the government and written letters demanding action, and will continue to do so till there is response to the war waged on us. And I request you and others do the same.
pictures ferrari 599 gtb hamann
Still better abolish Eb1/ Eb2/ Eb3 when there is no EBx in H1 then why EBx in GC? come on guys stratification on EB is reality along with preference order set by CIS. What is stopping eb3 guys from moving to eb2?
you know what it takes to do that. Just think, if you were in eb3 and had applied in 2001 and now suggested to start all over again. It is very easy to say go change your category.
you know what it takes to do that. Just think, if you were in eb3 and had applied in 2001 and now suggested to start all over again. It is very easy to say go change your category.
dresses Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
makeup Ferrari 599 GTB lead shot
This is exactly my point. In my view, since have seen both worlds, each one has their own adv and disadv. But eliminating body shopping does not solve todays H1-B shortage issue. They can do many things like limiting no's of H1B per company, release H1B quota quarterly like greencard.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
girlfriend Novitec Rosso 599 GTB based on
I commend the initiative. But I see a few issues with it:
You are complaining to DOS about USCIS and DOL. That will not work. Every agency has a specific role
You are complaining to the official who sets visa dates. He has no authority to give relief just because some applicant/s are asking for it. He has to follow the rule every month and his responsibility is only to set the dates based on the statistics received from USCIS. This official has a very specific and limited role.
The reasons are not compelling enough. You cannot just say you are waiting long enough and thus your date should become current. Rules cannot be changed just for that reason.
If economy was down in 2001- 2003 and you were asked to file in EB3 and people in Perm could file in EB2 is your strongest reason, it may not work in your favor. Because by law you can file again and convert to EB2 and port your date. DOL and USCIS does not stop you from doing that.
If you are qualified for EB2 but your attorney and employer filed in EB3, then it is not a fault of USCIS/DOL/DOS. You must talk to the company and the lawyer for it. If the company or the lawyer has broken any rule or employer has exploited you, then the letter should be complain to the appropriate authority about them.
Please also note that labor is filed based on the degree and experience requirement of the job. By law if the requirement is only undergraduate degree for the job, the employer cannot file in EB2 just because the applicant has a masters degree or more experience than needed. So you cannot really put this arguement here because it will be against the rules.
So I personally do not think this idea will work.
While this mess is depressing for EB3 folks, we need to have a more compelling argument, determined membership and effective plan to get things changed.
The root cause of the problem is limited greencard quota for EB3. And the solution is to get recapture, get rid of country limits, STEM exemption. Any single relief itself will be huge for all of us. With 179 phone calls and $16656 collected in last 3 months, I do not see that happening. It will need a far more bigger and determined effort. Such amount can be spent on full scale lobbying in just one month. 179 phone calls are nothing if we have to make a compelling case for ourselves.
You are complaining to DOS about USCIS and DOL. That will not work. Every agency has a specific role
You are complaining to the official who sets visa dates. He has no authority to give relief just because some applicant/s are asking for it. He has to follow the rule every month and his responsibility is only to set the dates based on the statistics received from USCIS. This official has a very specific and limited role.
The reasons are not compelling enough. You cannot just say you are waiting long enough and thus your date should become current. Rules cannot be changed just for that reason.
If economy was down in 2001- 2003 and you were asked to file in EB3 and people in Perm could file in EB2 is your strongest reason, it may not work in your favor. Because by law you can file again and convert to EB2 and port your date. DOL and USCIS does not stop you from doing that.
If you are qualified for EB2 but your attorney and employer filed in EB3, then it is not a fault of USCIS/DOL/DOS. You must talk to the company and the lawyer for it. If the company or the lawyer has broken any rule or employer has exploited you, then the letter should be complain to the appropriate authority about them.
Please also note that labor is filed based on the degree and experience requirement of the job. By law if the requirement is only undergraduate degree for the job, the employer cannot file in EB2 just because the applicant has a masters degree or more experience than needed. So you cannot really put this arguement here because it will be against the rules.
So I personally do not think this idea will work.
While this mess is depressing for EB3 folks, we need to have a more compelling argument, determined membership and effective plan to get things changed.
The root cause of the problem is limited greencard quota for EB3. And the solution is to get recapture, get rid of country limits, STEM exemption. Any single relief itself will be huge for all of us. With 179 phone calls and $16656 collected in last 3 months, I do not see that happening. It will need a far more bigger and determined effort. Such amount can be spent on full scale lobbying in just one month. 179 phone calls are nothing if we have to make a compelling case for ourselves.
hairstyles 2009 Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Seems to me he started the flood and left....I was going thru this thread, and after couple of pages Rolling_flood seems to have vanished. I think he got what he wanted...a pointless debate. It was funny though to read... :D
Seems to me he started the flood and left....I was going thru this thread, and after couple of pages Rolling_flood seems to have vanished. I think he got what he wanted...a pointless debate. It was funny though to read... :D
all until the one going down hits a trampoline and the one going up hits a ceiling. Then they reverse course. The trampoline and ceiling are the visa bulletins:
Neat :)
Neat :)
What are they? :D
http://justifythis.blogspot.com/2006/05/pervert-prophet_12.html
Warning : Watching this video may lead some into a state of denial, or even rage. If you are easily offended by creative depictions, then don't watch. For everyone else, enjoy :
I didn't know Narendra Modi is a muslim. I didn't know those are committing genocide in Palestine are muslims. I didn't know those who attacked Iraq and commited war-crime under the pretex of WMD are muslims. I didn't know that these people are muslims.
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
http://justifythis.blogspot.com/2006/05/pervert-prophet_12.html
Warning : Watching this video may lead some into a state of denial, or even rage. If you are easily offended by creative depictions, then don't watch. For everyone else, enjoy :
I didn't know Narendra Modi is a muslim. I didn't know those are committing genocide in Palestine are muslims. I didn't know those who attacked Iraq and commited war-crime under the pretex of WMD are muslims. I didn't know that these people are muslims.
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
