Atleast republicans listen to Microsoft, Google etc and gives some visa etc...AllObama does is warn about Indians and Chinese growth
You are right... dealing with Republicans is easier ....they listen to American Chamber of Commerce, ITAA et al. When Tom Delay was incharge....it was straight forward. you fund GOP, we will look after you.
GOP taps the cash of industry...and leverages the anger of extreme right (mainly against illegal immigrants, gays and anti-gun/anti-god issues) Works good for skilled immigrants.
Yes there are nuts like...Tom Tancredo but GOP whips takes care of those (Note: GOP is a party that demands loyalty. Had it being the GOP, they would have extarcted revenge from Joe Liberman for disloyaty). It is the democratic paty that has historically faced infighting.
Since 1994 it was the GOP in charge and thats also a reason H1B got the AC21 etc.
You are right... dealing with Republicans is easier ....they listen to American Chamber of Commerce, ITAA et al. When Tom Delay was incharge....it was straight forward. you fund GOP, we will look after you.
GOP taps the cash of industry...and leverages the anger of extreme right (mainly against illegal immigrants, gays and anti-gun/anti-god issues) Works good for skilled immigrants.
Yes there are nuts like...Tom Tancredo but GOP whips takes care of those (Note: GOP is a party that demands loyalty. Had it being the GOP, they would have extarcted revenge from Joe Liberman for disloyaty). It is the democratic paty that has historically faced infighting.
Since 1994 it was the GOP in charge and thats also a reason H1B got the AC21 etc.
wallpaper considered. Jessica has an
and to prevent such chasms from forming and getting deeper...we all need to look to IV core for guidance and follow only their Action Items. It is critical or else we will find ourselves with our foot in the mouth.
How did you verify if the call was really from Immigration services?
2011 Hairstyles for oval face shape
"Originally Posted by lfwf
I have seen you post before, and with this post you lost some of my respect. You need to be rational and coherent if you want to debate the issue. Not emotional and silly."
More hollow rhetoric from lfwf... someone that fails to see coherent logic and arguments made out in posts and instead claims that there is none :). Maybe, Inglis is the prablem, eh? LOL.
Obviously, lfwf's 'respect' is worth a lot ;)
I've gotten my days worth of laughs reading these protectionist jokers' weak arguments and empty threats of lawsuits.
LOL!
see how stupid highly educated community is?.....the guy who started the thread is not writing anything and people are fighting......
the guy who wrote is definately not any of us i mean he is not in green card line.......
people chill.....
take it easy, when ur turn comes u will get ur gc.....try to participate in IV action item and donate if u can..
i am an EB3
I have seen you post before, and with this post you lost some of my respect. You need to be rational and coherent if you want to debate the issue. Not emotional and silly."
More hollow rhetoric from lfwf... someone that fails to see coherent logic and arguments made out in posts and instead claims that there is none :). Maybe, Inglis is the prablem, eh? LOL.
Obviously, lfwf's 'respect' is worth a lot ;)
I've gotten my days worth of laughs reading these protectionist jokers' weak arguments and empty threats of lawsuits.
LOL!
see how stupid highly educated community is?.....the guy who started the thread is not writing anything and people are fighting......
the guy who wrote is definately not any of us i mean he is not in green card line.......
people chill.....
take it easy, when ur turn comes u will get ur gc.....try to participate in IV action item and donate if u can..
i am an EB3
India asserting its interests vis-a-vis China (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101228a2.html) By Harsh Pant | Japan Times
India hosted Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao earlier this month in an attempt to stabilize Sino-Indian ties, which have undergone great turbulence the past two years.
There was no dearth of warm words during the visit: Wen, in a lecture in New Delhi, invoked Mahatma Gandhi as "a man of love and integrity" who "has always lived in my heart." He stressed that although Sino-Indian relations have experienced major turns, they were only a short episode in a 2000-year history of friendly bilateral exchanges.
Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna reciprocated by suggesting that the two nations do not see any contradiction in each other's rise and that both understand the importance of leveraging growth and development with mutual cooperation.
As in the past, economic ties ended up being the focus of the visit. The two sides have now set a target of $100 billion in trade expansion by 2015 from the present $60 billion. Wen had come to India with a group of around 300 Chinese executives; business deals worth about $16 billion were signed. But there was no progress on the regional trade agreement as India remains concerned about its growing trade deficit with China.
China did not concede to India on any major issue while India decided to play hardball on various issues of importance to China. Wen, for example, refused to acknowledge Indian concerns over China's issuance of stapled visas to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, the growing Chinese presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and anti-India terrorist groups operating from Pakistan. Unlike other major powers, China has refused to unambiguously demand that Pakistan shut down the terrorist infrastructure on its soil.
For its part, India this time refused to explicitly state that it recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of the Chinese territory.
There was little movement on a range of concerns that India had flagged before the visit. India had expressed concerns about Beijing damming rivers like the Brahmaputra as well as the nontariff trade barriers to Indian companies in China. India remains keen on gaining access to Chinese markets, especially in the area of pharmaceuticals, information technology and engineering goods.
Despite the lackluster nature of Wen's India trip, the newfound robustness in India's China policy in recent months is rather striking. After trying to push significant differences with China under the carpet for years, Indian decision-makers are being forced to grudgingly acknowledge that the relationship with China is becoming more contentious.
India has adopted a harder line on Tibet in recent weeks by making it clear to Beijing that it expects China to reciprocate on Jammu and Kashmir just as India has respected Chinese sensitivities on Tibet and Taiwan.
Ignoring pressures from Beijing, India decided to take part in the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in Oslo. Beijing had asked several countries, including India, to boycott the ceremony, describing the prize as open support for criminal activities in China. India was among the 44 states that did participate; Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq were among the nations that did not attend. There were rumors that Wen might cancel his India trip in response.
India's challenge is indeed formidable as it has not yet achieved the economic and political profile that China enjoys regionally and globally. But it gets increasingly bracketed with China as a rising power, emerging power or even a global superpower. India's main security concern is not the increasingly decrepit state of Pakistan but an ever more assertive China, which is widely viewed in India as having a better ability for strategic planning.
Indian policymakers, however, continue to believe that Beijing is not a short-term threat to India but needs to be watched over the long term even as Indian defense officials increasingly warn in rather blunt terms about the disparity between the two Asian powers.
India's naval chief has warned that India has neither "the capability nor the intention to match China force for force," while the former Indian air chief has suggested that China poses more of a threat to India than Pakistan.
It is certainly in the interest of both India and China to stabilize their relationship by seeking out issues on which their interests converge. But strategic problems do not necessarily make for satisfactory solutions merely because they are desirable and in the interest of all.
For a long time, India was not very important in China's foreign policy calculus, and there was a general perception that India could be easily pushed around. New Delhi's own actions also cemented a perception in China that it was easier to challenge Indian interests without incurring any cost.
New Delhi's latest robustness in its dealings with Beijing should, therefore, be welcomed insofar as it clarifies certain red lines that remain nonnegotiable.
Harsh V. Pant teaches at King's College London
Asia's Busy 2010 in Review (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/12/28/asias_busy_2010_in_review_99328.html) By Todd Crowell | RealClearWorld
Emerging Powers and Cooperative Security in Asia (http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/WorkingPapers/WP221.pdf) By Joshy M. Paul | S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
India hosted Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao earlier this month in an attempt to stabilize Sino-Indian ties, which have undergone great turbulence the past two years.
There was no dearth of warm words during the visit: Wen, in a lecture in New Delhi, invoked Mahatma Gandhi as "a man of love and integrity" who "has always lived in my heart." He stressed that although Sino-Indian relations have experienced major turns, they were only a short episode in a 2000-year history of friendly bilateral exchanges.
Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna reciprocated by suggesting that the two nations do not see any contradiction in each other's rise and that both understand the importance of leveraging growth and development with mutual cooperation.
As in the past, economic ties ended up being the focus of the visit. The two sides have now set a target of $100 billion in trade expansion by 2015 from the present $60 billion. Wen had come to India with a group of around 300 Chinese executives; business deals worth about $16 billion were signed. But there was no progress on the regional trade agreement as India remains concerned about its growing trade deficit with China.
China did not concede to India on any major issue while India decided to play hardball on various issues of importance to China. Wen, for example, refused to acknowledge Indian concerns over China's issuance of stapled visas to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, the growing Chinese presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and anti-India terrorist groups operating from Pakistan. Unlike other major powers, China has refused to unambiguously demand that Pakistan shut down the terrorist infrastructure on its soil.
For its part, India this time refused to explicitly state that it recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of the Chinese territory.
There was little movement on a range of concerns that India had flagged before the visit. India had expressed concerns about Beijing damming rivers like the Brahmaputra as well as the nontariff trade barriers to Indian companies in China. India remains keen on gaining access to Chinese markets, especially in the area of pharmaceuticals, information technology and engineering goods.
Despite the lackluster nature of Wen's India trip, the newfound robustness in India's China policy in recent months is rather striking. After trying to push significant differences with China under the carpet for years, Indian decision-makers are being forced to grudgingly acknowledge that the relationship with China is becoming more contentious.
India has adopted a harder line on Tibet in recent weeks by making it clear to Beijing that it expects China to reciprocate on Jammu and Kashmir just as India has respected Chinese sensitivities on Tibet and Taiwan.
Ignoring pressures from Beijing, India decided to take part in the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in Oslo. Beijing had asked several countries, including India, to boycott the ceremony, describing the prize as open support for criminal activities in China. India was among the 44 states that did participate; Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq were among the nations that did not attend. There were rumors that Wen might cancel his India trip in response.
India's challenge is indeed formidable as it has not yet achieved the economic and political profile that China enjoys regionally and globally. But it gets increasingly bracketed with China as a rising power, emerging power or even a global superpower. India's main security concern is not the increasingly decrepit state of Pakistan but an ever more assertive China, which is widely viewed in India as having a better ability for strategic planning.
Indian policymakers, however, continue to believe that Beijing is not a short-term threat to India but needs to be watched over the long term even as Indian defense officials increasingly warn in rather blunt terms about the disparity between the two Asian powers.
India's naval chief has warned that India has neither "the capability nor the intention to match China force for force," while the former Indian air chief has suggested that China poses more of a threat to India than Pakistan.
It is certainly in the interest of both India and China to stabilize their relationship by seeking out issues on which their interests converge. But strategic problems do not necessarily make for satisfactory solutions merely because they are desirable and in the interest of all.
For a long time, India was not very important in China's foreign policy calculus, and there was a general perception that India could be easily pushed around. New Delhi's own actions also cemented a perception in China that it was easier to challenge Indian interests without incurring any cost.
New Delhi's latest robustness in its dealings with Beijing should, therefore, be welcomed insofar as it clarifies certain red lines that remain nonnegotiable.
Harsh V. Pant teaches at King's College London
Asia's Busy 2010 in Review (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/12/28/asias_busy_2010_in_review_99328.html) By Todd Crowell | RealClearWorld
Emerging Powers and Cooperative Security in Asia (http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/WorkingPapers/WP221.pdf) By Joshy M. Paul | S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
I live in NJ close to the cherry hill area and i am looking to buy only in Burlington county. I have been living here for about 9 years now and so far haven't thought of investing here. I invested in india and the investment appreciated 4 times or more so i am happy about the decision. I actually needed a bigger place now and i am not seeing that as a investment but if it turns out that way that's fine with me. I just wanted to find out what are people's experiences with the house escpecially for those who are under H1/EAD.
came across nice comments about NJ - comments from the people were more interesting than the article itself - one of them mentioned NJ and hence am posting it. The comments below are from other people (not mine) --it gives you an idea as to how Americans feel about housing
-----
can tell you in NJ, first time buyers are still screwed and stand no chance of buying right now. Let me set the scene for you. I just turned 25, I made $70k last year ($60k salary $10K bonus), I have 0 credit card debt and have never paid a cent of interest on a credit card. I have no student loans and a finished paying off a car loan in 2.5 years. I have $40k in savings and get an additional 10% of my income put in to a SEP IRA at year ($7k last year, $13k total). I would say I'm doing alright for only being in the workforce for 2.5 years, and I still have to live with my parents. Home prices here are unjustifiably high. On top the ridiculous home prices, I have to figure in the MINUMUM of $500 a MONTH in property taxes due to the complete ineptitude and corrupt nature of my state's government (if you want a never ending source to write about, this would be the place). The AVERAGE property tax in NJ is $6,800/year = $566/ month. Looking at a condo also doesn't work because you can't find a place with association fees of less than $250/month, so no point in paying a lower price for a condo. The ones that are still nice w/ 2 br. & 1 bath list for $300k. Between fees and taxes, you are down $700/month and haven't even gotten to your mortgage yet. I have no choice but to wait and HOPE the economy continues to crumble, while hoping that I stay employed throughout the whole ordeal. All of these action the Fed and the Gov't are taking to soften the blow are doing nothing but screwing me and other first-time buyers. They should just let the bottom fall out already so that people my age can even have a chance to survive on our own.
-------
Buy a house and watch the value continue to tank for the next five years....I'm sure all first time buyers are thrilled at the prospect of being "upside down" in their first mortgage. Also, Fed rate cuts also don't always translate to better mortgage rates. Lenders aren't thrilled about locking buyers into fixed low rates.
-------
Housing prices double in less than 5 years. Then they go down about 10% such that in the last six or seven years, prices have gone up only 80%. So now houses are suddenly a bargain because they aren't quite as overpriced as they were last year? That's like my neighbor joking that gas prices are cheap when they go below $3 a gallon. Houses have a long way to go before they are a good value. You are much better off renting from someone who is desperate to not sell their house for a loss. After a year of renting, you can get that house for less than today's cost plus a year of rent. Oh, and one other thing. Get a 30 year fixed loan with the lowest rate you can find. Make sure you pay attention to the fees, so you are covered there. Go through the process with at least two separate people, so you can easily switch when one tries to screw you. The last thing you want is an ARM when interest rates are sure to go up when the screaming about inflation reaches Washington DC.
---------
came across nice comments about NJ - comments from the people were more interesting than the article itself - one of them mentioned NJ and hence am posting it. The comments below are from other people (not mine) --it gives you an idea as to how Americans feel about housing
-----
can tell you in NJ, first time buyers are still screwed and stand no chance of buying right now. Let me set the scene for you. I just turned 25, I made $70k last year ($60k salary $10K bonus), I have 0 credit card debt and have never paid a cent of interest on a credit card. I have no student loans and a finished paying off a car loan in 2.5 years. I have $40k in savings and get an additional 10% of my income put in to a SEP IRA at year ($7k last year, $13k total). I would say I'm doing alright for only being in the workforce for 2.5 years, and I still have to live with my parents. Home prices here are unjustifiably high. On top the ridiculous home prices, I have to figure in the MINUMUM of $500 a MONTH in property taxes due to the complete ineptitude and corrupt nature of my state's government (if you want a never ending source to write about, this would be the place). The AVERAGE property tax in NJ is $6,800/year = $566/ month. Looking at a condo also doesn't work because you can't find a place with association fees of less than $250/month, so no point in paying a lower price for a condo. The ones that are still nice w/ 2 br. & 1 bath list for $300k. Between fees and taxes, you are down $700/month and haven't even gotten to your mortgage yet. I have no choice but to wait and HOPE the economy continues to crumble, while hoping that I stay employed throughout the whole ordeal. All of these action the Fed and the Gov't are taking to soften the blow are doing nothing but screwing me and other first-time buyers. They should just let the bottom fall out already so that people my age can even have a chance to survive on our own.
-------
Buy a house and watch the value continue to tank for the next five years....I'm sure all first time buyers are thrilled at the prospect of being "upside down" in their first mortgage. Also, Fed rate cuts also don't always translate to better mortgage rates. Lenders aren't thrilled about locking buyers into fixed low rates.
-------
Housing prices double in less than 5 years. Then they go down about 10% such that in the last six or seven years, prices have gone up only 80%. So now houses are suddenly a bargain because they aren't quite as overpriced as they were last year? That's like my neighbor joking that gas prices are cheap when they go below $3 a gallon. Houses have a long way to go before they are a good value. You are much better off renting from someone who is desperate to not sell their house for a loss. After a year of renting, you can get that house for less than today's cost plus a year of rent. Oh, and one other thing. Get a 30 year fixed loan with the lowest rate you can find. Make sure you pay attention to the fees, so you are covered there. Go through the process with at least two separate people, so you can easily switch when one tries to screw you. The last thing you want is an ARM when interest rates are sure to go up when the screaming about inflation reaches Washington DC.
---------
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
2010 Hairstyles For Oval Shaped
Really Good Work!!!
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
hair hairstyles heart-shaped face a
Someone gave me red in extremely bad language on my mother that I can not even copy and paste here. This is really bad. It you have guts come and talk to me. Don't write bad words on my back.
I am not concerned about red, the language was worse than uncultured.
I am really upset with the language. Admins can read the comment if they wish.
People write bad words all the time.
What to do? Its like a flu shot. You feel feverish for a while and then you are immune.
I am not concerned about red, the language was worse than uncultured.
I am really upset with the language. Admins can read the comment if they wish.
People write bad words all the time.
What to do? Its like a flu shot. You feel feverish for a while and then you are immune.
Today I received a call from my lawyers office asking me whether my wife had taken the TB test as we skipped that test when we applied for I-485 in July 2007 as my wife was expecting at that time. My PD is Feb 2007
Lawyers office said they received a call from USCIS as they are getting the cases ready to be adjudicated. USCIS wanted to know whether my wife got her TB test done or not.
Did anyone else got such a call from USCIS? And Gurus, what do you all think this means?
Lawyers office said they received a call from USCIS as they are getting the cases ready to be adjudicated. USCIS wanted to know whether my wife got her TB test done or not.
Did anyone else got such a call from USCIS? And Gurus, what do you all think this means?
hot with heart-shaped faces
Employers dont just go around spending thousands of dollars on H1B fees and greencard fees to hire a guy with foreign accent if a native citizen was available. And they do not underpay them, because they HAVE to pay prevailing wages based on the wages determined by the Department of labor.
Just wanted to let you know that the employer has to pay at least the prevailing wage for a starter to qualify the petition. The employer also has to pay a median wage to the H-1B holder that is commensurate with similarly qualified employees in the company. Otherwise the employer could be prosecuted for wage violations.
Norm Matloff's figures are faulty because he measures only the prevailing wage as a yardstick which is the bare minimum for qualification. And then he claims H-1Bs are undercutting American employees. No wonder, if you make calculations with lower figures, on the average, H-1Bs look as if they are getting paid less than American employees. To get the actual picture, Norm needs to know actual wages of H-1B employees, which is not possible because not all employers divulge employee pay. As long as the figures can be taken to one's advantage, we always will have these critics running around with distorted graphs and figures.
One reform Zazona.com should support and fight for in EB Greencards is making the application employee-centric, not employer-centric. Current procedure is in a way bondage to the employer, especially when USCIS takes a long time with multiple stages (read delays) that too not bothering about how long the application has been pending. If USCIS processing improves and they try to reach out to their customers, then a wait of one or two years for Greencard should not be an issue. Infact, I support instant GC proposal in that case.
Regarding the claims of stealing jobs, I see tons of job advertisements weekly. Many of these ads specifically exclude non-sponsorship candidates (read H-1Bs). US citizens have a bigger market and better opportunities than H-1Bs. I am not sure how it is not possible for them to get jobs. As Logiclife mentioned, the unemployment rate is 2% in IT field. Perhaps people are not prepared to move to areas where jobs are growing. I can not specukate any more on that.
Just wanted to let you know that the employer has to pay at least the prevailing wage for a starter to qualify the petition. The employer also has to pay a median wage to the H-1B holder that is commensurate with similarly qualified employees in the company. Otherwise the employer could be prosecuted for wage violations.
Norm Matloff's figures are faulty because he measures only the prevailing wage as a yardstick which is the bare minimum for qualification. And then he claims H-1Bs are undercutting American employees. No wonder, if you make calculations with lower figures, on the average, H-1Bs look as if they are getting paid less than American employees. To get the actual picture, Norm needs to know actual wages of H-1B employees, which is not possible because not all employers divulge employee pay. As long as the figures can be taken to one's advantage, we always will have these critics running around with distorted graphs and figures.
One reform Zazona.com should support and fight for in EB Greencards is making the application employee-centric, not employer-centric. Current procedure is in a way bondage to the employer, especially when USCIS takes a long time with multiple stages (read delays) that too not bothering about how long the application has been pending. If USCIS processing improves and they try to reach out to their customers, then a wait of one or two years for Greencard should not be an issue. Infact, I support instant GC proposal in that case.
Regarding the claims of stealing jobs, I see tons of job advertisements weekly. Many of these ads specifically exclude non-sponsorship candidates (read H-1Bs). US citizens have a bigger market and better opportunities than H-1Bs. I am not sure how it is not possible for them to get jobs. As Logiclife mentioned, the unemployment rate is 2% in IT field. Perhaps people are not prepared to move to areas where jobs are growing. I can not specukate any more on that.
house hairstyles for heart shaped
I am assuming that you haven't left the country since 2005?
Going from h-4 to h-1 or L-1 to H-1b is a gray area in regards to have you actually changed your status and what happens if you maintain your old status.
What is for sure is when you are on F-1 and you file a change of status to h-1b. For sure at this point your status is h-1b.
Some lawyers will tell you that if you continue on L-1 then you have violted your status; others will tell you differently.
Anytime there is a questionable issue then you definitely want to go out and re-enter and get an I-94 card. (use auto revalidation by going to canada). This will take the gray out of it.
Once you have used auto revalidation then tell the absolute truth on the G-325a. USCIS won't be able to do anything about it. However; if they dig into it and accuse you of fraud then you are in for a long and difficult battle.(note: checking status is #1 thing uscis does in examining a 485 application).
The big danger people will have is that regardless of whether people will be able to file now or later; the dates will go backwards. During this retrogressed time; uscis will pre-adjuidcate cases. Therefore, it is possible that they could deny your case but you wouldn't be able to re-file it until the dates have become current again.
Thanks Unitednations!
I was waiting for your reply, good to see you back. I talked to my attorney(Looks like she's a good one, 20 years Expericence, for several years she's been in America's Best Lawyers). This is what she said
"I don't think that it is worth worrying about this. It is definitely not
unlawful presence, if anything you were out of status, but I think that even this is
debatable. YOu will have to deal with this issue whenever you file, so I would not use
this as a reason not to file for adjustment." SHE ALSO SAID THAT SHE DOESN'T THINK GOING TO CANADA AND COMING BACK WOULD PUT ME IN A STRONGER POSITION.
She says travel might have its own issues, so she wouldn't suggest going to Canada just for this, but if I want I can go. Yesterday, I thought I'll go by wahtever she says and asked her to go ahead and file. I don't know if she has filed yet. BUT this issue is always at the back of my mind and disturbing me. I think I'll never get over it....
So please give your suggestion on auto revalidation?? Initially I was thinking that I should get my H1 stamped in Canada, Now I understand this is not required. Is it a problem if I DONT have a prior H1B stamp on the passport?? What I have is my expired L1 stamp. What all do they check at the border for revalidation?? How risky is it?? Please give me your suggestion. I personally want to do it and get it out of my head, but am fearing if something bad happens.......
ALSO WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS IF MY 485 GETS DENIED BECAUSE OF THIS??
IF I have MADE A LAWFUL RE-ENTRY BY THEN, CAN I REAPPLY?
CAN I STILL MAINTAIN H1 STATUS AND PRIORITY DATE?
WHAT WOULD MY WIFE NEED TO DO, TO MAINTAIN STATUS IF SHE'S WORKING ON EAD AT THE TIME OF DENIAL?
Going from h-4 to h-1 or L-1 to H-1b is a gray area in regards to have you actually changed your status and what happens if you maintain your old status.
What is for sure is when you are on F-1 and you file a change of status to h-1b. For sure at this point your status is h-1b.
Some lawyers will tell you that if you continue on L-1 then you have violted your status; others will tell you differently.
Anytime there is a questionable issue then you definitely want to go out and re-enter and get an I-94 card. (use auto revalidation by going to canada). This will take the gray out of it.
Once you have used auto revalidation then tell the absolute truth on the G-325a. USCIS won't be able to do anything about it. However; if they dig into it and accuse you of fraud then you are in for a long and difficult battle.(note: checking status is #1 thing uscis does in examining a 485 application).
The big danger people will have is that regardless of whether people will be able to file now or later; the dates will go backwards. During this retrogressed time; uscis will pre-adjuidcate cases. Therefore, it is possible that they could deny your case but you wouldn't be able to re-file it until the dates have become current again.
Thanks Unitednations!
I was waiting for your reply, good to see you back. I talked to my attorney(Looks like she's a good one, 20 years Expericence, for several years she's been in America's Best Lawyers). This is what she said
"I don't think that it is worth worrying about this. It is definitely not
unlawful presence, if anything you were out of status, but I think that even this is
debatable. YOu will have to deal with this issue whenever you file, so I would not use
this as a reason not to file for adjustment." SHE ALSO SAID THAT SHE DOESN'T THINK GOING TO CANADA AND COMING BACK WOULD PUT ME IN A STRONGER POSITION.
She says travel might have its own issues, so she wouldn't suggest going to Canada just for this, but if I want I can go. Yesterday, I thought I'll go by wahtever she says and asked her to go ahead and file. I don't know if she has filed yet. BUT this issue is always at the back of my mind and disturbing me. I think I'll never get over it....
So please give your suggestion on auto revalidation?? Initially I was thinking that I should get my H1 stamped in Canada, Now I understand this is not required. Is it a problem if I DONT have a prior H1B stamp on the passport?? What I have is my expired L1 stamp. What all do they check at the border for revalidation?? How risky is it?? Please give me your suggestion. I personally want to do it and get it out of my head, but am fearing if something bad happens.......
ALSO WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS IF MY 485 GETS DENIED BECAUSE OF THIS??
IF I have MADE A LAWFUL RE-ENTRY BY THEN, CAN I REAPPLY?
CAN I STILL MAINTAIN H1 STATUS AND PRIORITY DATE?
WHAT WOULD MY WIFE NEED TO DO, TO MAINTAIN STATUS IF SHE'S WORKING ON EAD AT THE TIME OF DENIAL?
tattoo hair heart shaped faces.
Blaming any religion on terrorism is inappropriate, inflammatory, and just plain irresponsible.
Here's some proof for you:
MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront)
And I'll give you a couple specific examples :
Al-Fakhoura School Bombed, 42 Killed, Including Children; 13,000 Homeless; Water, Medicine in Short Supply (http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/al-fakhoura-school-bombed-42-killed.html)
Muhammad Atta was radicalized by watching the gruesome results of that attack and he was a 9/11 hijacker. (He flew one of the planes.) That attack happened to be Israel bombing a school in 1986.
Torture trail to September 11 : A two-part investigation into state brutality opens with a look at how the violent interrogation of Islamist extremists hardened their views, helped to create al-Qaida and now, more than ever, is fuelling fundamentalist hatred (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/24/alqaida.terrorism1)
Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, for example was tortured in Egypt. He was Al Q's number 2 and known as the "brains" behind the 9/11 attacks. He was a successful doctor.
It is not religion that makes people willing to blow up themselves and kill others. It is perceived oppression against one's people. If you look closely enough, you will find it.
Blaming religious beliefs on terrorism is sloppy thinking that:
inflames people
justifies further violence
divides people
creates more terrorism
The IRA, Shining Path, the Basques, and yes, Al Q, all have one thing in common: their political aspirations for their people to be freed from what they see as oppression. The Irish Catholics weren't allowed good jobs. Peruvian Marxists were unhappy with their government. The Basques were mistreated by Franco. Many Middle Easterners want the right to form their own governments, which we in the west actively prevent by supporting dictatorships.
Invariably, when people blame religion for some injustice, there is a political or economic reason behind it. The Crusades, for example, were not about converting people, but about wealth, power and what they saw as "glory".
Please stop with the religious scape goating, bigotry and hatred. It leads nowhere but down.
If they don't want the religion to be blamed, they should not give religious sounding names to their organizations like JAISH-E-MOHAMMAD, LASHKAR-E-TAIBA etc and then call their killings a JIHAD.
Here's some proof for you:
MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront)
And I'll give you a couple specific examples :
Al-Fakhoura School Bombed, 42 Killed, Including Children; 13,000 Homeless; Water, Medicine in Short Supply (http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/al-fakhoura-school-bombed-42-killed.html)
Muhammad Atta was radicalized by watching the gruesome results of that attack and he was a 9/11 hijacker. (He flew one of the planes.) That attack happened to be Israel bombing a school in 1986.
Torture trail to September 11 : A two-part investigation into state brutality opens with a look at how the violent interrogation of Islamist extremists hardened their views, helped to create al-Qaida and now, more than ever, is fuelling fundamentalist hatred (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/24/alqaida.terrorism1)
Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, for example was tortured in Egypt. He was Al Q's number 2 and known as the "brains" behind the 9/11 attacks. He was a successful doctor.
It is not religion that makes people willing to blow up themselves and kill others. It is perceived oppression against one's people. If you look closely enough, you will find it.
Blaming religious beliefs on terrorism is sloppy thinking that:
inflames people
justifies further violence
divides people
creates more terrorism
The IRA, Shining Path, the Basques, and yes, Al Q, all have one thing in common: their political aspirations for their people to be freed from what they see as oppression. The Irish Catholics weren't allowed good jobs. Peruvian Marxists were unhappy with their government. The Basques were mistreated by Franco. Many Middle Easterners want the right to form their own governments, which we in the west actively prevent by supporting dictatorships.
Invariably, when people blame religion for some injustice, there is a political or economic reason behind it. The Crusades, for example, were not about converting people, but about wealth, power and what they saw as "glory".
Please stop with the religious scape goating, bigotry and hatred. It leads nowhere but down.
If they don't want the religion to be blamed, they should not give religious sounding names to their organizations like JAISH-E-MOHAMMAD, LASHKAR-E-TAIBA etc and then call their killings a JIHAD.
pictures Best Haircuts for a Round Face
Lou Dobbs makes 6+ Mils and gives his opinions on the best news network at close to prime time. We are rotting in retrogression. Most of us are tiger on IV forums but can not even wimper on non-IV forums.
The utility of these opinions on IV forums is debatable, at best. However, It will help us if we can convince others that they are not getting the facts from Lou Dobbs and give them the facts.
Please post fact based opinions at non-IV forums.
The utility of these opinions on IV forums is debatable, at best. However, It will help us if we can convince others that they are not getting the facts from Lou Dobbs and give them the facts.
Please post fact based opinions at non-IV forums.
dresses heart shaped face hairstyle.
An Increasing Population is a Good Thing. So is Immigration. (http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6941654/an-increasing-population-is-a-good-thing-so-is-immigration.thtml) By ALEX MASSIEFRIDAY | Spectator
Plenty of folk seem to think otherwise. Including George Bridges who has written a very curious post for the Motherblog in which he seems most perturbed by the prospect of this happy isle's population increasing. He even suggests he's not doing his bit since Mrs Bridges is expecting their third child, presumably furthering the onrushing demographic apocalypse.
Piffle. Good for Mrs Bridges and her fecund husband. Congratulations to them. May they produce this and many more little Bridges. A rising population is a feature of a healthy society, not the beginning of the end for this sceptered land. Of course an increasing population puts pressure on any number of public facilities and services, from transport to schools to housing to hospitals. But so what? It's also a motor for future economic growth which will - hurrah! - provide for all of this. Excess capacity caused by an absence of demand is, as many a rural parish will tell you, a much more grievous problem than having too many people. There is no need for this "for we are too many" Jude the Obscure stuff. There really isn't.
Mr Bridges concludes, darkly:
Cameron, Theresa May and Damian Green have made a good start at controlling immigration. But that�s just a start. More needs to be done to educate the public about the challenge. We need some radical thinking about how we solve it; and we must ask ourselves whether a state that was largely constructed to cope with 50 million people can meet the challenges of 70 million people?
Really? The logic of this position leads us to China's one-child policy. Is that really what those obsessed with population figures want to see? If not, perhaps they can tell us what the optimal UK population figure might be and how they propose to "cap" the number of people living in this country at that number?
OK, let us suppose that, ill-advisedly, the government reduces immigration to "zero". What then? Do you, as I say, limit the number of children people may have? Or do you pay people to emigrate so the population remains beneath your arbitrarily-decided "ideal" figure? Would that be enough? Probably not! There could be back-street, clandestine babies born every day!
Seriously, do these people think a falling population would be a good thing? Perhaps they do. Population decline is rarely the sign of a healthy society. Rarely? Never seems more probable. Factor in the reality that the existing population is increasingly elderly and it becomes clear, surely, that Britain will need more people. The alternative is fewer and fewer workers providing for more and more pensioners and, by doing so, ensuring that their own futures are bleaker than they need be. Suggesting that population growth is so very dangerous is, essentially, to demand much higher taxes on today's teenagers and their future. What's just about that?
So it's good that Mr and Mrs Bridges are spawning again. But their efforts, no matter how heroic, will not be enough. Which is another reason why immigration is a good thing not the beginning of the end. We need more people so we can cope with the costs of an increasingly wrinkly population.
This is the self-interested justification for more immigration (since not everyone is as selfless as the Bridges when it comes to healthy birth-rates) though of course there are many other, more altruistic and even noble grounds for welcoming a come-all-ye approach to these matters. To be born or live in Britain is to have access to opportunities and riches that are the stuff of dreams for most of the world's population. We should allow more people from other lands to have those chances.
That will be good for them and it will be necessary - and good - for us too. Sure, there are problems and strains and pressures associated with immigration and population growth but they're not nearly so terrifying as the prospect of a geriatric and closed society working its few remaining young people to the bone with little to no regard for the future well-being of the people supporting the oldies. Those obsessed by population figures should be asked what they consider to be the ideal worker:retiree ratio.
Again, and really it cannot be stressed enough, in the developed world a growing population is a mark of success, not failure.
Still, if you do think there's an imminent population crisis, there is one more option available to you: compulsory euthanasia ten years after you pass the point of average life expectancy. This seems a modest enough proposal, don't you think?
Obama�s wise investment: Making life easier for 'illegals' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/obamas-wise-investment-making-life-easier-for-illegals/article2021683/) By DOUG SAUNDERS | Globe and Mail
Obama playing games with immigration (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/12/navarrette.immigration.obama/index.html) By Ruben Navarrette | CNN
Gutless politicians are broken, not the immigration system (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/gutless-politicians-are-broken-not-immigration-system) By Greg Kane | Examiner
The Muslim-American: reclaiming my identity (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110514a1.html) By ARSHAD CHOWDHURY | The Japan Times
Plenty of folk seem to think otherwise. Including George Bridges who has written a very curious post for the Motherblog in which he seems most perturbed by the prospect of this happy isle's population increasing. He even suggests he's not doing his bit since Mrs Bridges is expecting their third child, presumably furthering the onrushing demographic apocalypse.
Piffle. Good for Mrs Bridges and her fecund husband. Congratulations to them. May they produce this and many more little Bridges. A rising population is a feature of a healthy society, not the beginning of the end for this sceptered land. Of course an increasing population puts pressure on any number of public facilities and services, from transport to schools to housing to hospitals. But so what? It's also a motor for future economic growth which will - hurrah! - provide for all of this. Excess capacity caused by an absence of demand is, as many a rural parish will tell you, a much more grievous problem than having too many people. There is no need for this "for we are too many" Jude the Obscure stuff. There really isn't.
Mr Bridges concludes, darkly:
Cameron, Theresa May and Damian Green have made a good start at controlling immigration. But that�s just a start. More needs to be done to educate the public about the challenge. We need some radical thinking about how we solve it; and we must ask ourselves whether a state that was largely constructed to cope with 50 million people can meet the challenges of 70 million people?
Really? The logic of this position leads us to China's one-child policy. Is that really what those obsessed with population figures want to see? If not, perhaps they can tell us what the optimal UK population figure might be and how they propose to "cap" the number of people living in this country at that number?
OK, let us suppose that, ill-advisedly, the government reduces immigration to "zero". What then? Do you, as I say, limit the number of children people may have? Or do you pay people to emigrate so the population remains beneath your arbitrarily-decided "ideal" figure? Would that be enough? Probably not! There could be back-street, clandestine babies born every day!
Seriously, do these people think a falling population would be a good thing? Perhaps they do. Population decline is rarely the sign of a healthy society. Rarely? Never seems more probable. Factor in the reality that the existing population is increasingly elderly and it becomes clear, surely, that Britain will need more people. The alternative is fewer and fewer workers providing for more and more pensioners and, by doing so, ensuring that their own futures are bleaker than they need be. Suggesting that population growth is so very dangerous is, essentially, to demand much higher taxes on today's teenagers and their future. What's just about that?
So it's good that Mr and Mrs Bridges are spawning again. But their efforts, no matter how heroic, will not be enough. Which is another reason why immigration is a good thing not the beginning of the end. We need more people so we can cope with the costs of an increasingly wrinkly population.
This is the self-interested justification for more immigration (since not everyone is as selfless as the Bridges when it comes to healthy birth-rates) though of course there are many other, more altruistic and even noble grounds for welcoming a come-all-ye approach to these matters. To be born or live in Britain is to have access to opportunities and riches that are the stuff of dreams for most of the world's population. We should allow more people from other lands to have those chances.
That will be good for them and it will be necessary - and good - for us too. Sure, there are problems and strains and pressures associated with immigration and population growth but they're not nearly so terrifying as the prospect of a geriatric and closed society working its few remaining young people to the bone with little to no regard for the future well-being of the people supporting the oldies. Those obsessed by population figures should be asked what they consider to be the ideal worker:retiree ratio.
Again, and really it cannot be stressed enough, in the developed world a growing population is a mark of success, not failure.
Still, if you do think there's an imminent population crisis, there is one more option available to you: compulsory euthanasia ten years after you pass the point of average life expectancy. This seems a modest enough proposal, don't you think?
Obama�s wise investment: Making life easier for 'illegals' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/obamas-wise-investment-making-life-easier-for-illegals/article2021683/) By DOUG SAUNDERS | Globe and Mail
Obama playing games with immigration (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/12/navarrette.immigration.obama/index.html) By Ruben Navarrette | CNN
Gutless politicians are broken, not the immigration system (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/gutless-politicians-are-broken-not-immigration-system) By Greg Kane | Examiner
The Muslim-American: reclaiming my identity (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110514a1.html) By ARSHAD CHOWDHURY | The Japan Times
makeup makeup Oval Face short
Thanks!
The outstanding questions, i guess, are:
They allotted the visa numbers prior to actual approvals. This contravened their clearly stated policy. In fact the ombudsman mentions this policy and suggests change. If they allotted the numbers prematurely, and are still in the process of approving those petitions and sending out the decisions...should the numbers have remained current UNTIL THE LAST PETITION IS APPROVED?
One could argue that per USCIS policy and stated process the visa numbers are still available till that day- a petition could be rejected at the last moment- sending a number back to the pool....
the other question is- did they allot >81% of the numbers (27% per quarter) even before the fourth quarter began? Can they allot numbers on sunday while not accepting applications that day because they are "closed" thus denying petitioners from getting in while the numbers are current?
i would be surprised if they went over the country cap- they have treated that as religion of late.
the dates for india/china will only move after EB3 ROW becomes current. any ideas how far that is?
The outstanding questions, i guess, are:
They allotted the visa numbers prior to actual approvals. This contravened their clearly stated policy. In fact the ombudsman mentions this policy and suggests change. If they allotted the numbers prematurely, and are still in the process of approving those petitions and sending out the decisions...should the numbers have remained current UNTIL THE LAST PETITION IS APPROVED?
One could argue that per USCIS policy and stated process the visa numbers are still available till that day- a petition could be rejected at the last moment- sending a number back to the pool....
the other question is- did they allot >81% of the numbers (27% per quarter) even before the fourth quarter began? Can they allot numbers on sunday while not accepting applications that day because they are "closed" thus denying petitioners from getting in while the numbers are current?
i would be surprised if they went over the country cap- they have treated that as religion of late.
the dates for india/china will only move after EB3 ROW becomes current. any ideas how far that is?
girlfriend haircuts for oblong faces
one of the main reason that I stopped looking for a home is GC. the reason I was hunting around was to get advantage of tax credit ..but when I read articles like this ..I feel waiting for some more time has advantages too !! (so even if you take best case scenario of 10% drop in your area ..a house which costs 250K will drop by 25K ??? which is 3 times the tax credit).
-------------------------
Searching for a bottom in the housing market
Sales look like they could rebound soon, but you can't say the same for prices.
See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close)
By Janet Morrissey, contributor
June 19, 2009: 4:23 AM ET
FORTUNE 500
Current Issue
Subscribe to Fortune
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Sales in the decimated housing market may finally be bottoming, but don't expect home prices to stop dropping before mid-2010 at the earliest, analysts and economists say.
Indeed, prices in the battered housing market could get a lot worse before they get better as an avalanche of specialized adjustable rate mortgages, known as option ARMs and Alt-A mortgages, are slated to reset over the next 18 to 24 months, and rising unemployment causes a surge in the number of prime mortgages going into default. All of this is expected to trigger another round of foreclosures and cause home prices to tumble at least another 20% before the market rebounds, according to market analysts and economists.
Market bulls believe home prices could bottom in the second half of 2010, but the bears warn it could be 2013 before they finally trough. And once prices do reach a low, it could be years before they significantly rebound.
0:00 /4:19Housing market's false hope
"This is clearly the worst housing crisis since the Depression," says John Burns, president of John Burns Real Estate Consulting. Losses from the housing meltdown totaled $3.6 trillion at the end of 2008, and will likely approach $5 trillion by the time the crisis ends, predicts Lawrence Yun, chief economist with the National Association of Realtors.
Bob Curran, managing director at Fitch Ratings, is a lot more cautious, noting that one month of gains doesn't make a trend -- existing home sales are still off 3.5% from a year ago. "You'd want to see a string of months -- ideally three months -- to say with confidence that a bottom has been reached," he says.
"We're about two-thirds of the way through the pricing correction on a percentage basis," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist with MFR Inc., an economic consulting and analysis firm. He expects prices to slide at least another 20% over the next 18 months.
-------------------------
Searching for a bottom in the housing market
Sales look like they could rebound soon, but you can't say the same for prices.
See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close)
By Janet Morrissey, contributor
June 19, 2009: 4:23 AM ET
FORTUNE 500
Current Issue
Subscribe to Fortune
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Sales in the decimated housing market may finally be bottoming, but don't expect home prices to stop dropping before mid-2010 at the earliest, analysts and economists say.
Indeed, prices in the battered housing market could get a lot worse before they get better as an avalanche of specialized adjustable rate mortgages, known as option ARMs and Alt-A mortgages, are slated to reset over the next 18 to 24 months, and rising unemployment causes a surge in the number of prime mortgages going into default. All of this is expected to trigger another round of foreclosures and cause home prices to tumble at least another 20% before the market rebounds, according to market analysts and economists.
Market bulls believe home prices could bottom in the second half of 2010, but the bears warn it could be 2013 before they finally trough. And once prices do reach a low, it could be years before they significantly rebound.
0:00 /4:19Housing market's false hope
"This is clearly the worst housing crisis since the Depression," says John Burns, president of John Burns Real Estate Consulting. Losses from the housing meltdown totaled $3.6 trillion at the end of 2008, and will likely approach $5 trillion by the time the crisis ends, predicts Lawrence Yun, chief economist with the National Association of Realtors.
Bob Curran, managing director at Fitch Ratings, is a lot more cautious, noting that one month of gains doesn't make a trend -- existing home sales are still off 3.5% from a year ago. "You'd want to see a string of months -- ideally three months -- to say with confidence that a bottom has been reached," he says.
"We're about two-thirds of the way through the pricing correction on a percentage basis," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist with MFR Inc., an economic consulting and analysis firm. He expects prices to slide at least another 20% over the next 18 months.
hairstyles Berry Oval shaped haircut
its embarrasing to see a journalist fall down the hole like that. I dont think he realizes that he works at CNN and not at Fox. Nobody else spins it along with him. Wolf Blitzer and the rest dont pay any attention to him. Even during the election results night the only thing he was asked to do was ask a couple of senators for their impression on how the results were looking.
The problem with Lou is that he goes on air every day and tells the American people that if they are having a miserable time or not saving enough money or their kids are not studying hard enough it is the fault of immigrants and corporations.
If there is a "perceived" class divide, it is because there are certain segments of the society that live beyond their means, dont save up for a rainy day and are not vested in their financial future. If you want your kid to go to college you have to be with them, talk to them and work through their issues with them. It is always easy to blame someone that is of a different color or of a different background for your problems but it is not the solution.
Outsourcing was an integral part of doing business in America even before India got involved. Ireland was the number 1 destination for outsourcing for years. They were never featured in the news. The thing is showing a bunch of indians sitting around and answeing calls has more shock value as compared to showing Irish people which would probably not register as it might seem like a call center right here in the US.
What Lou doesnt get is that his hateful tirade has prejudiced the minds of whatever demographic that he caters to. This inturn leads to everyday issues that we as immigrants face; whether it is a coworker who keeps prodding us about how jobs are going overseas, bad customer service at a restaurant or at the grocery store and sometimes hate crimes where one of us gets our head bashed in.
The problem with Lou is that he goes on air every day and tells the American people that if they are having a miserable time or not saving enough money or their kids are not studying hard enough it is the fault of immigrants and corporations.
If there is a "perceived" class divide, it is because there are certain segments of the society that live beyond their means, dont save up for a rainy day and are not vested in their financial future. If you want your kid to go to college you have to be with them, talk to them and work through their issues with them. It is always easy to blame someone that is of a different color or of a different background for your problems but it is not the solution.
Outsourcing was an integral part of doing business in America even before India got involved. Ireland was the number 1 destination for outsourcing for years. They were never featured in the news. The thing is showing a bunch of indians sitting around and answeing calls has more shock value as compared to showing Irish people which would probably not register as it might seem like a call center right here in the US.
What Lou doesnt get is that his hateful tirade has prejudiced the minds of whatever demographic that he caters to. This inturn leads to everyday issues that we as immigrants face; whether it is a coworker who keeps prodding us about how jobs are going overseas, bad customer service at a restaurant or at the grocery store and sometimes hate crimes where one of us gets our head bashed in.
:D We've all been there, but don't like to admit it. We've all kicked
back in our cubicles and suddenly felt something brewing down below. As
much as we try to convince ourselves otherwise, the WORK POOP is
inevitable.
For those who hate pooping at work, following is the Survival Guide
for Taking a dump at work.
*CROP DUSTING* - When farting, you walk really fast around the
office so the smell is not in your area and everyone else gets a whiff, but no
one knows where it came from. Be careful when you do this. Do not stop
until the full fart has been expelled. Walk an extra 30 feet to make sure
the smell has left your pants.
*FLY BY* - The act of scouting out a bathroom before pooping. Walk
in and check for other poopers. If there are others in the bathroom,
leave and come back again. Be careful not to become a FREQUENT FLYER.
People may become suspicious if they catch you constantly going into the bathroom.
*ESCAPEE* - A fart that slips out while taking a pee or forcing a
poop in a stall. This is usually accompanied by a sudden wave of
embarrassment. If you release an escapee, do not acknowledge it.
Pretend it did not happen. If you are a man and are standing next to the farter in the urinal,
pretend you did not hear it. No one likes an escapee. It is uncomfortable for all involved.
Making a joke or laughing makes both parties feel uneasy.
*JAILBREAK*- When forcing a poop, several farts slip out at a machine
gun pace. This is usually a side effect of diarrhea or a hangover.
If this should happen, do not panic. Remain in the stall until everyone has
left the bathroom to spare everyone the awkwardness of what just occurred.
*COURTESY FLUSH* - The act of flushing the toilet the instant the
poop hits the water. This reduces the amount of air time the poop has to
stink up the bathroom. This can help you avoid being caught doing the
WALK OF SHAME.
*WALK OF SHAME* - Walking from the stall-to the sink-to the door
after you have just stunk up the bathroom. This can be a very uncomfortable
moment if someone walks in and busts you. As with farts, it is best to
pretend that the smell does not exist.--Can be avoided with the use of
the COURTESY FLUSH.
*OUT OF THE CLOSET POOPER* - A colleague who poops at work and is
Dog-gone proud of it. You will often see an Out-Of-The-Closet Pooper
enter the bathroom with a newspaper or magazine under their arm.
Always look around the office for the Out-Of- The-Closet Pooper before
entering the bathroom.
*THE POOPING FRIENDS NETWORK (P.F.N)* A group of co-workers who band
together to ensure emergency pooping goes off without incident. This
group can help you to monitor the whereabouts of Out-Of-The-Closet
Poopers and identify SAFE HAVENS.
*SAFE HAVENS* A seldom-used bathroom somewhere in t he building
where you can least expect visitors. Try floors that are predominantly of
the opposite sex. This will reduce the odds of a pooper of your sex
entering the bathroom.
*TURD BURGLAR* - Someone who does not realize that you are in the
stall and tries to force the door open. This is one of the most shocking
and vulnerable moments that can occur when taking a poop at work. If
this occurs, remain in the stall until the Turd Burglar leaves. This way
you will avoid all uncomfortable eye contact.
*CAMO-COUGH* A phony cough that alerts all new entrants into the
bathroom that you are in a stall. This can be used to cover-up a
WATERMELON, or to alert potential *Turd Burglars* - Very effective when used in conjunction with a
SHIRLEY TEMPLE .
*SHIRLEY TEMPLE* - A subtle toe-tapping that is used to alert
potential Turd Burglars that you are occupying a stall. This will remove all
doubt that the stall is occupied. If you hea r a SHIRLEY TEMPLE, leave the
bathroom immediately so the pooper can poop in peace.
*WATERMELON* - A poop that creates a loud splash when hitting the
toilet water. This is also an embarrassing incident. If you feel a
Watermelon coming on, create a diversion. See CAMO-COUGH.
*HAVANAOMELET* - A case of diarrhea that creates a series of loud
splashes in the toilet water--often accompanied by an Escapee. Try
using a CAMO-COUGH with a SHIRLEY TEMPLE.
*AUNT BETTY* - A bathroom user who seems to linger around
forever...Could spend extended lengths of time in front of the
mirror or sitting on the pot.
An AUNT BETTY makes it difficult to relax while on the crapper, as
you should always wait to poop when the bathroom is empty. This benefits
you as well as the other bathroom attendees
************************************************** ******************
SOME VARIETIES~
*The King Poop* - This kind is the kind of poop that killed Elvis.
It doesn't come until you're all sweaty, trembling and purple from
straining so hard.
*Bali Belly Poop* - You poop so much you lose 5 lbs.
*Cement Block* - You wish you'd gotten a spinal block before you
poop.
*Cork Poop* - (Also Known as Floater Poop) = Even after the third
flush, it's still floating in there. How do I get rid of it? This poop
usually happens at someone else's house.
*The Bungee Poop* - The kind of poop that just hangs off your rear
before it falls into the water.
*The Crippler* - The kind of poop where you have to sit on the
toilet so long your legs go numb from the waist down.
*The Chitty Chitty Bang Bang* - The kind of poop that hits you when
you're trapped in your car in a traffic jam.
*The Party Pooper* - The giant poop you take at a party and, when
you flush the toilet, you watch in horror as the water starts to rise.
back in our cubicles and suddenly felt something brewing down below. As
much as we try to convince ourselves otherwise, the WORK POOP is
inevitable.
For those who hate pooping at work, following is the Survival Guide
for Taking a dump at work.
*CROP DUSTING* - When farting, you walk really fast around the
office so the smell is not in your area and everyone else gets a whiff, but no
one knows where it came from. Be careful when you do this. Do not stop
until the full fart has been expelled. Walk an extra 30 feet to make sure
the smell has left your pants.
*FLY BY* - The act of scouting out a bathroom before pooping. Walk
in and check for other poopers. If there are others in the bathroom,
leave and come back again. Be careful not to become a FREQUENT FLYER.
People may become suspicious if they catch you constantly going into the bathroom.
*ESCAPEE* - A fart that slips out while taking a pee or forcing a
poop in a stall. This is usually accompanied by a sudden wave of
embarrassment. If you release an escapee, do not acknowledge it.
Pretend it did not happen. If you are a man and are standing next to the farter in the urinal,
pretend you did not hear it. No one likes an escapee. It is uncomfortable for all involved.
Making a joke or laughing makes both parties feel uneasy.
*JAILBREAK*- When forcing a poop, several farts slip out at a machine
gun pace. This is usually a side effect of diarrhea or a hangover.
If this should happen, do not panic. Remain in the stall until everyone has
left the bathroom to spare everyone the awkwardness of what just occurred.
*COURTESY FLUSH* - The act of flushing the toilet the instant the
poop hits the water. This reduces the amount of air time the poop has to
stink up the bathroom. This can help you avoid being caught doing the
WALK OF SHAME.
*WALK OF SHAME* - Walking from the stall-to the sink-to the door
after you have just stunk up the bathroom. This can be a very uncomfortable
moment if someone walks in and busts you. As with farts, it is best to
pretend that the smell does not exist.--Can be avoided with the use of
the COURTESY FLUSH.
*OUT OF THE CLOSET POOPER* - A colleague who poops at work and is
Dog-gone proud of it. You will often see an Out-Of-The-Closet Pooper
enter the bathroom with a newspaper or magazine under their arm.
Always look around the office for the Out-Of- The-Closet Pooper before
entering the bathroom.
*THE POOPING FRIENDS NETWORK (P.F.N)* A group of co-workers who band
together to ensure emergency pooping goes off without incident. This
group can help you to monitor the whereabouts of Out-Of-The-Closet
Poopers and identify SAFE HAVENS.
*SAFE HAVENS* A seldom-used bathroom somewhere in t he building
where you can least expect visitors. Try floors that are predominantly of
the opposite sex. This will reduce the odds of a pooper of your sex
entering the bathroom.
*TURD BURGLAR* - Someone who does not realize that you are in the
stall and tries to force the door open. This is one of the most shocking
and vulnerable moments that can occur when taking a poop at work. If
this occurs, remain in the stall until the Turd Burglar leaves. This way
you will avoid all uncomfortable eye contact.
*CAMO-COUGH* A phony cough that alerts all new entrants into the
bathroom that you are in a stall. This can be used to cover-up a
WATERMELON, or to alert potential *Turd Burglars* - Very effective when used in conjunction with a
SHIRLEY TEMPLE .
*SHIRLEY TEMPLE* - A subtle toe-tapping that is used to alert
potential Turd Burglars that you are occupying a stall. This will remove all
doubt that the stall is occupied. If you hea r a SHIRLEY TEMPLE, leave the
bathroom immediately so the pooper can poop in peace.
*WATERMELON* - A poop that creates a loud splash when hitting the
toilet water. This is also an embarrassing incident. If you feel a
Watermelon coming on, create a diversion. See CAMO-COUGH.
*HAVANAOMELET* - A case of diarrhea that creates a series of loud
splashes in the toilet water--often accompanied by an Escapee. Try
using a CAMO-COUGH with a SHIRLEY TEMPLE.
*AUNT BETTY* - A bathroom user who seems to linger around
forever...Could spend extended lengths of time in front of the
mirror or sitting on the pot.
An AUNT BETTY makes it difficult to relax while on the crapper, as
you should always wait to poop when the bathroom is empty. This benefits
you as well as the other bathroom attendees
************************************************** ******************
SOME VARIETIES~
*The King Poop* - This kind is the kind of poop that killed Elvis.
It doesn't come until you're all sweaty, trembling and purple from
straining so hard.
*Bali Belly Poop* - You poop so much you lose 5 lbs.
*Cement Block* - You wish you'd gotten a spinal block before you
poop.
*Cork Poop* - (Also Known as Floater Poop) = Even after the third
flush, it's still floating in there. How do I get rid of it? This poop
usually happens at someone else's house.
*The Bungee Poop* - The kind of poop that just hangs off your rear
before it falls into the water.
*The Crippler* - The kind of poop where you have to sit on the
toilet so long your legs go numb from the waist down.
*The Chitty Chitty Bang Bang* - The kind of poop that hits you when
you're trapped in your car in a traffic jam.
*The Party Pooper* - The giant poop you take at a party and, when
you flush the toilet, you watch in horror as the water starts to rise.
Why do you write 'I know this mess is depressing for EB3 folks' ?
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
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.
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
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.
