gimme_GC2006
03-23 02:19 PM
hey buddy are they digging your case just because you worked for the top 5 indian IT and does it start with a "S*****" , just wondering are they digging up all those who worked for them?
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
wallpaper aseball field positions
walking_dude
10-01 11:11 AM
I agree to point (1) for both Obama and McCain. Chances of them happening are very high. I, however, disagree with point (2) for both of them.
A bill similar to HR5882 can be added to CIR as an amendment (like the Cornyn-Cantwell amendment to CIR2007, which unfortunately didn't get voted on as the CIR died!). Most of the CIR backers like Hispanic caucus or Sen Menedez aren't opposed to EB increases/recaptures as such, but have prevented the passage to make pro-business Republicans make concession toward legalization. If Legalization passes through, they are unlikely to stand in our way.
On the other hand, anti-immigrant groups such as FAIR, CIS etc. oppose us as much as they oppose legalization ( according to their bizzaro definition every immigrant is illegal). They will oppose stand-alone bills such as HR 5882 as much as they oppose the CIR . Infact it was filibustering by Repubs such as Steve King and Smith - who are sympathetic to these groups - that killed our bill.
CIR + our EB ammendments will face only opposition from anti-immigrants, where as Hispanic Congressmen and CIR backers will be supporting our bills as well, where as EB-only bill face the ire of both anti-immigrants as well as the CIR backers and the powerful Hispanic caucus. That's the lesson we should learn from the failures of this year.
Focus may be on Economy, but Immigration cannot be ignored due to political considerations. If there is a democratic senate, democratic House and democratic President - Hispanic lawmakers will not let them rest, until they get the CIR on the floor.
IMO, our focus should be to find the EB-killer clauses in the CIR, get them ammended, and add our bills as ammendments to CIR. And not to oppose it in favor of highly-unlikely-to-pass piecemeal legislation.
If Obama becomes Prez
1)Sen. Durbin will play major role in immigration policy which may take us to Stone Age.
2)CIR is only resolution for the immigration ( Bills like HR 5882 will go away)
If McCain becomes Prez
1)Anti �immigrant lobbyist will take center stage and will not allow CIR to pass through
2)Smaller measures like HR 5882 will have chances to pass through
This is my opinion and it may differ from others. Its like catch 22, I have very little hope on either of them, more over based on the current economic situation. whoever the prez their focus will be on fixing the economy rather than immigration - my 2 cents
A bill similar to HR5882 can be added to CIR as an amendment (like the Cornyn-Cantwell amendment to CIR2007, which unfortunately didn't get voted on as the CIR died!). Most of the CIR backers like Hispanic caucus or Sen Menedez aren't opposed to EB increases/recaptures as such, but have prevented the passage to make pro-business Republicans make concession toward legalization. If Legalization passes through, they are unlikely to stand in our way.
On the other hand, anti-immigrant groups such as FAIR, CIS etc. oppose us as much as they oppose legalization ( according to their bizzaro definition every immigrant is illegal). They will oppose stand-alone bills such as HR 5882 as much as they oppose the CIR . Infact it was filibustering by Repubs such as Steve King and Smith - who are sympathetic to these groups - that killed our bill.
CIR + our EB ammendments will face only opposition from anti-immigrants, where as Hispanic Congressmen and CIR backers will be supporting our bills as well, where as EB-only bill face the ire of both anti-immigrants as well as the CIR backers and the powerful Hispanic caucus. That's the lesson we should learn from the failures of this year.
Focus may be on Economy, but Immigration cannot be ignored due to political considerations. If there is a democratic senate, democratic House and democratic President - Hispanic lawmakers will not let them rest, until they get the CIR on the floor.
IMO, our focus should be to find the EB-killer clauses in the CIR, get them ammended, and add our bills as ammendments to CIR. And not to oppose it in favor of highly-unlikely-to-pass piecemeal legislation.
If Obama becomes Prez
1)Sen. Durbin will play major role in immigration policy which may take us to Stone Age.
2)CIR is only resolution for the immigration ( Bills like HR 5882 will go away)
If McCain becomes Prez
1)Anti �immigrant lobbyist will take center stage and will not allow CIR to pass through
2)Smaller measures like HR 5882 will have chances to pass through
This is my opinion and it may differ from others. Its like catch 22, I have very little hope on either of them, more over based on the current economic situation. whoever the prez their focus will be on fixing the economy rather than immigration - my 2 cents
somegchuh
03-25 12:59 PM
I completely agree that buying a house is a long term move. But I disagree with some of the points:
1. Does rent always go up? No, my rent did not go up at all during the real estate boom as the number of ppl renting was low. Recently my rent has gone up only $75 pm. (love rent control!!!) So in 5 years, my monthly rent has gone up a total of $125 per month
2. I hear about tax rebate for homeowners. But what about property tax?
3. What about mortgage insurance payments?
It is a misconception that 5-10 years is the cycle for real estate.
Here's how in a sane real estate market the cycle should work:
No population influx in your area or there is no exodus from your area:
Your real estate ownership should be 25 years because that's when the next generation is ready to buy houses.
However, in places like SF Bay Area/new York/Boston where there is continuous influx of young working ppl this cycle can be reduced to 15-20 years.
Over the last few years, nobody thought of longevity required to make money in RE. Now that it is tanking ppl are talking about 5-10 years. Unless you are buying in a booming place, your ownership has to be 15+ years to turn a real profit.
This is purely the financial aspect of ownership. If you have a family I think its really nice to have a house but you don't have to really take on the liability. You can rent the same house for much less. But if you are clear in your mind that no matter what I am going to live in XYZ town/city for the next 20 years, go for it.
As a sidenote for Indians. We all have either aging or soon to start aging parents. The way I see it, caring for aging parents is a social debt that we must pay back. This will need me to go back to India. Therefore, if you feel you need to care for your parents, don't commit to a house.
Buying a house is a long term move. Not a short term. The payment for house will remain (pretty much) the same for 30 years! Rental prices will go up every year. And after 30 years of payments, the house will be all yours.
You're also neglecting the tax savings. There'll be appx. $900 per month in tax saving (assuming 25% tax bracket).
Unless you can think and plan 5~10 years ahead (at least), real estate is not for you.
1. Does rent always go up? No, my rent did not go up at all during the real estate boom as the number of ppl renting was low. Recently my rent has gone up only $75 pm. (love rent control!!!) So in 5 years, my monthly rent has gone up a total of $125 per month
2. I hear about tax rebate for homeowners. But what about property tax?
3. What about mortgage insurance payments?
It is a misconception that 5-10 years is the cycle for real estate.
Here's how in a sane real estate market the cycle should work:
No population influx in your area or there is no exodus from your area:
Your real estate ownership should be 25 years because that's when the next generation is ready to buy houses.
However, in places like SF Bay Area/new York/Boston where there is continuous influx of young working ppl this cycle can be reduced to 15-20 years.
Over the last few years, nobody thought of longevity required to make money in RE. Now that it is tanking ppl are talking about 5-10 years. Unless you are buying in a booming place, your ownership has to be 15+ years to turn a real profit.
This is purely the financial aspect of ownership. If you have a family I think its really nice to have a house but you don't have to really take on the liability. You can rent the same house for much less. But if you are clear in your mind that no matter what I am going to live in XYZ town/city for the next 20 years, go for it.
As a sidenote for Indians. We all have either aging or soon to start aging parents. The way I see it, caring for aging parents is a social debt that we must pay back. This will need me to go back to India. Therefore, if you feel you need to care for your parents, don't commit to a house.
Buying a house is a long term move. Not a short term. The payment for house will remain (pretty much) the same for 30 years! Rental prices will go up every year. And after 30 years of payments, the house will be all yours.
You're also neglecting the tax savings. There'll be appx. $900 per month in tax saving (assuming 25% tax bracket).
Unless you can think and plan 5~10 years ahead (at least), real estate is not for you.
2011 positions in the field and
dealsnet
01-08 03:05 PM
You think about using brain by them?? You kidding???
Blind following the blind.
What did they invent in this world.?
May be using kids as suicide bombers.
You may remember first attempt for Benezer's life by giving a 3 month old child covered with bombs, and it explode before she touched the child??
All the religeous books were written based on contemporary circumstances. I have a friend named Mansuri, mentioned to me once why muslims don't eat turtles:
"Few animals with hard shell were not hygenic or dangerous like crocodile. It was difficult to explain each animal separately to common people. So Mohammad advised that animals with hard shell should not be eaten. "
Another one told by my friend Maqsood:
"There were lots of cabella wars going on at the time of Mohammad. The prophet allowed to have more than one wives so that those ladies don't go on wrong route like prostitution. "
Above examples seem acceptable over that time. At today they are not relevant anymore. Some people still want to follow the same words spoken 1300 years before literally without applying a slightest brain. They are abused and misguided by some selfish Mullahs who have their own agenda in life.
Rather than abusing entire community, need to educate "spoiled kids" how they are misguided in current time. Unfortunately percentage of "spoiled kids" are very high as I mentioned in one of posts before.
Blind following the blind.
What did they invent in this world.?
May be using kids as suicide bombers.
You may remember first attempt for Benezer's life by giving a 3 month old child covered with bombs, and it explode before she touched the child??
All the religeous books were written based on contemporary circumstances. I have a friend named Mansuri, mentioned to me once why muslims don't eat turtles:
"Few animals with hard shell were not hygenic or dangerous like crocodile. It was difficult to explain each animal separately to common people. So Mohammad advised that animals with hard shell should not be eaten. "
Another one told by my friend Maqsood:
"There were lots of cabella wars going on at the time of Mohammad. The prophet allowed to have more than one wives so that those ladies don't go on wrong route like prostitution. "
Above examples seem acceptable over that time. At today they are not relevant anymore. Some people still want to follow the same words spoken 1300 years before literally without applying a slightest brain. They are abused and misguided by some selfish Mullahs who have their own agenda in life.
Rather than abusing entire community, need to educate "spoiled kids" how they are misguided in current time. Unfortunately percentage of "spoiled kids" are very high as I mentioned in one of posts before.
more...
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
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
GCBatman
01-06 12:35 PM
It is very sad but please post it on the relevant site.
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
more...
unitednations
03-24 07:56 PM
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/98/98-60340.CV0.wpd.pdf
Above case is the most frequent cited case by california/vermont service center and appeals office in denying h-1b's.
Essentially; many years ago a nurse staffing agency was filing h-1b's and they were doing it for a specific set of nurses which actually required a degree (most nurses do not require a degree).
The staffing agency was using one of the ways to demonstrate that the job required a degree (which is listed in 8 cfr 214.2h) that it normally hired nurses with degrees. Essentially; they were trying to circumvent h-1b for jobs that normally didn't require degrees.
USCIS and the courts basically stated that if a person is not working at your location then you are considered a "token" employer and that the job requirements of where you are actually working is what needs to be demonstrated to see if the job requires a degree.
Most of h-1b rfe's are trying to determine whether the petitioner is the employer or the agent (they ask for office information, project details and intertwine it to whether you have specailty occupation work at your location) or if the information on your payroll reports; your office size, pictures, etc., show that you are an agent. If they believe that you are an agent then they go the purchase order route.
Now; uscis is totally misapplying this because h-1b is simple; job requreis a degree and person has that degree. In this particular case; nursing agency was trying to create a degree requirement for job that normally doesn't require one.
However; they are applying this standard to all the staffing companies. I would read it and memorize it as this is quoted in every one of the denials.
Above case is the most frequent cited case by california/vermont service center and appeals office in denying h-1b's.
Essentially; many years ago a nurse staffing agency was filing h-1b's and they were doing it for a specific set of nurses which actually required a degree (most nurses do not require a degree).
The staffing agency was using one of the ways to demonstrate that the job required a degree (which is listed in 8 cfr 214.2h) that it normally hired nurses with degrees. Essentially; they were trying to circumvent h-1b for jobs that normally didn't require degrees.
USCIS and the courts basically stated that if a person is not working at your location then you are considered a "token" employer and that the job requirements of where you are actually working is what needs to be demonstrated to see if the job requires a degree.
Most of h-1b rfe's are trying to determine whether the petitioner is the employer or the agent (they ask for office information, project details and intertwine it to whether you have specailty occupation work at your location) or if the information on your payroll reports; your office size, pictures, etc., show that you are an agent. If they believe that you are an agent then they go the purchase order route.
Now; uscis is totally misapplying this because h-1b is simple; job requreis a degree and person has that degree. In this particular case; nursing agency was trying to create a degree requirement for job that normally doesn't require one.
However; they are applying this standard to all the staffing companies. I would read it and memorize it as this is quoted in every one of the denials.
2010 Right field position of
xyzgc
12-24 02:19 PM
I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Thou_shalt_rise_again/articleshow/3882599.cms Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!
Excellent article!
Excellent article!
more...
a_yaja
05-17 07:20 AM
You have no arguments that make sense. You are arguing that doing something illegal is a great thing to do. Not so. And yes, I do support the bill as it will weed out some fraudsters from amongst us, who give the H-1B program a very bad rep.
You still have not told me why you are support the Durbin-Grassley bill and you are OK with consulting on a "full-time" basis. The Durbin-Grassley bill bans this.
The present laws are more then enough to go after offenders. The law is not being enforced. What makes you think that if the Durbin-Grassley bill is passed, all abuse will stop? People who abuse the system will continue to do so. They will simply say that the job is "permanant, full-time" or whatever the bill requires the job definition to be and file for H1B. And the show will go on. I guess at that point you will then dance when someone else will propose another bill to restrict H1Bs to some other sector that includes you.
You still have not told me why you are support the Durbin-Grassley bill and you are OK with consulting on a "full-time" basis. The Durbin-Grassley bill bans this.
The present laws are more then enough to go after offenders. The law is not being enforced. What makes you think that if the Durbin-Grassley bill is passed, all abuse will stop? People who abuse the system will continue to do so. They will simply say that the job is "permanant, full-time" or whatever the bill requires the job definition to be and file for H1B. And the show will go on. I guess at that point you will then dance when someone else will propose another bill to restrict H1Bs to some other sector that includes you.
hair and Hillbilly Baseball
tanu_75
07-28 03:52 PM
dont ever ever dare to compare India and USA.
A little touchy here are we. I thought we were skilled immigrants and could hold a mature conversation.
And the President should never wait for Illegal immigrants to pass Legal Immigration. In USA immigration means it is Legal. not illegal. He is playing politics with every one. Please understand that. The US unemployment on Tech sector is only around 3 % that is not a big issue.
First of all, the President doesn't create policy, the Congress does. And please answer my question of why he should focus on a few hundred thousands when millions are out of their jobs, economy is in crisis and a couple of wars to fight. I'm just saying in terms of priorities we don't fit and I'm fine with that even though from a selfish perspective it hurts us. With regard to the unemployment rate:
1. Not all EB immigrants are tech sector employees (esp in EB3)
2. Even if we consider the population of tech EB employees, some in the American Congress and public *could* argue that lots of these jobs could indeed be done by Americans if they are trained. If you look at the trend of outsourcing you know that it's really not that hard to find somebody who can code in Java/C++ etc. I'm not saying that's true but just saying that's an argument that could be given forward by people who say that the nation's overall unemployment rate could be helped by training people for tech oriented jobs where unemployment rate is low. This is already happening with science and tech initiatives at the middle/higher education level.
A little touchy here are we. I thought we were skilled immigrants and could hold a mature conversation.
And the President should never wait for Illegal immigrants to pass Legal Immigration. In USA immigration means it is Legal. not illegal. He is playing politics with every one. Please understand that. The US unemployment on Tech sector is only around 3 % that is not a big issue.
First of all, the President doesn't create policy, the Congress does. And please answer my question of why he should focus on a few hundred thousands when millions are out of their jobs, economy is in crisis and a couple of wars to fight. I'm just saying in terms of priorities we don't fit and I'm fine with that even though from a selfish perspective it hurts us. With regard to the unemployment rate:
1. Not all EB immigrants are tech sector employees (esp in EB3)
2. Even if we consider the population of tech EB employees, some in the American Congress and public *could* argue that lots of these jobs could indeed be done by Americans if they are trained. If you look at the trend of outsourcing you know that it's really not that hard to find somebody who can code in Java/C++ etc. I'm not saying that's true but just saying that's an argument that could be given forward by people who say that the nation's overall unemployment rate could be helped by training people for tech oriented jobs where unemployment rate is low. This is already happening with science and tech initiatives at the middle/higher education level.
more...
Jerrome
08-07 04:57 PM
Menu
-----
Waiter: I've stewed liver, boiled tongue and frog's leg.
Customer: Don't tell me your problems. Give me the menu card.
Gangster's son
--------------
Q: What did the gangster's son tell his dad when he failed his examination?
A: Dad they questioned me for 3 hours but I never told them anything."
Dinner
-----
Wife : Do you want dinner?
Husband : Sure, what are my choices?
Wife : Yes and No.
Wife
----
First guy (proudly) : "My wife's an angel!"
Second guy: "You're lucky, mine's still alive."
-----
Waiter: I've stewed liver, boiled tongue and frog's leg.
Customer: Don't tell me your problems. Give me the menu card.
Gangster's son
--------------
Q: What did the gangster's son tell his dad when he failed his examination?
A: Dad they questioned me for 3 hours but I never told them anything."
Dinner
-----
Wife : Do you want dinner?
Husband : Sure, what are my choices?
Wife : Yes and No.
Wife
----
First guy (proudly) : "My wife's an angel!"
Second guy: "You're lucky, mine's still alive."
hot aseball field diagram
shensh
04-09 10:03 AM
There are many big companies that depend completely on consultants for their software projects. Example Sony, Boeing... If this applies to existing H1bs then their projects will suffer a great loss.
ERP softwares basically are implemented by consulting firms .Then all big companies including Oracle,SAP cannot implement their applications anywhere as they have to hire people on their own to implement.All ERP implementations can be treated as consulting.This is going to be a big mess.
I don't think this bill is going pass successfully.
Not true. For many software development projects, it really doesn't matter whether the developers are located in US or in India. What they need onshore is project/program managers or IT architects, who they can hire directly via H1-B not via consulting firm. For those H1-Bs the new bill's restrictions will not be a problem.
If this bill passes, I can see that many US employers start hiring the highly-valued onshore consultants as their employees via H1-B, and let the rest stay in consulting firm either onshore or offshore. It is so-called "insourcing" which is very popular among big firms nowadays. So this bill is going to be bad for H1-B based consulting firms, good for US employers and future H1-B workers (either new or extended). In the short term though, it is not going to help US workers much, because most companies would ship onshore consulting jobs offshore rather than hiring US workers to fill them. However, in the long term it prevents "some" consulting firms (bodyshoppers) from abusing H1-B workers which benefit us all. I expect this bill will also ease the EB retrogression in the future because there will be less H1-Bs waiting in queue especially from India or China.
ERP softwares basically are implemented by consulting firms .Then all big companies including Oracle,SAP cannot implement their applications anywhere as they have to hire people on their own to implement.All ERP implementations can be treated as consulting.This is going to be a big mess.
I don't think this bill is going pass successfully.
Not true. For many software development projects, it really doesn't matter whether the developers are located in US or in India. What they need onshore is project/program managers or IT architects, who they can hire directly via H1-B not via consulting firm. For those H1-Bs the new bill's restrictions will not be a problem.
If this bill passes, I can see that many US employers start hiring the highly-valued onshore consultants as their employees via H1-B, and let the rest stay in consulting firm either onshore or offshore. It is so-called "insourcing" which is very popular among big firms nowadays. So this bill is going to be bad for H1-B based consulting firms, good for US employers and future H1-B workers (either new or extended). In the short term though, it is not going to help US workers much, because most companies would ship onshore consulting jobs offshore rather than hiring US workers to fill them. However, in the long term it prevents "some" consulting firms (bodyshoppers) from abusing H1-B workers which benefit us all. I expect this bill will also ease the EB retrogression in the future because there will be less H1-Bs waiting in queue especially from India or China.
more...
house all because
waitnwatch
08-05 03:18 PM
If someone is eligible to port to a higher category they will rightfully do so. Your post seems to imply all PD porting is through shady means. Grow up buddy!
You've got me wrong - if folks think they are entitled to EB2 for a particular "FUTURE" job what stops them from getting a "FUTURE" job description to fit EB-1. After all it's all in the "FUTURE"..............
You've got me wrong - if folks think they are entitled to EB2 for a particular "FUTURE" job what stops them from getting a "FUTURE" job description to fit EB-1. After all it's all in the "FUTURE"..............
tattoo +aseball+field+positions
pani_6
07-14 06:37 PM
We are old horses fo IV and dont have an agenda against any particular groups or category..all that we are trying to highlight is that our situation since 01..that's it...that having said the people will who are have been objecting to this will get thier GC's this time and will be gone ...and we in EB-3 2002 have to wait for another 2-3 years to get out turn..Can you imagine our situation..So please support this initiative...send out the letters...
God bless us all!
I am too tired to go against any law (I have my plan A to Z..and I guess most in EB3 have something similar) ..I don't think that there is a strict law as to how the spillover should happen (if someone knows ..please post it)..what I am saying is some fairness..call it pleading ..call it the last resort ..call it begging ..anything. will DOS agree ..maybe No. but maybe,,,maybe they will atleast give out a statement as to the future of EB3...and people in EB3 can make a decision and move on.
as to the post above ...I am not saying do spillover in some ratio ..do something ...I am sure there are lot of workarounds or loopholes or whatever.
what I am saying is ..if EB3-I does not act ..nothing will happen ..anyone can say that with certainity.
maybe if core IV has meetings with DOS or USCIS .. maybe they can just ask as to what is the hope for EB3 ..I am sure most in EB3 (who are stuck in 2001, 02 ,03 ) will be happy just with some information
God bless us all!
I am too tired to go against any law (I have my plan A to Z..and I guess most in EB3 have something similar) ..I don't think that there is a strict law as to how the spillover should happen (if someone knows ..please post it)..what I am saying is some fairness..call it pleading ..call it the last resort ..call it begging ..anything. will DOS agree ..maybe No. but maybe,,,maybe they will atleast give out a statement as to the future of EB3...and people in EB3 can make a decision and move on.
as to the post above ...I am not saying do spillover in some ratio ..do something ...I am sure there are lot of workarounds or loopholes or whatever.
what I am saying is ..if EB3-I does not act ..nothing will happen ..anyone can say that with certainity.
maybe if core IV has meetings with DOS or USCIS .. maybe they can just ask as to what is the hope for EB3 ..I am sure most in EB3 (who are stuck in 2001, 02 ,03 ) will be happy just with some information
more...
pictures likely field positions,
hiralal
06-25 10:48 PM
Just as an example, this may be an anomaly, but I know this Australian Indian citizen, who has recently bought 2 houses in the LA Valley and is having no issues filling them with contractors so far (1 my friend), even in this economy. He works on SAP projects traveling on H1 , but is in Aussie land most of the time, with his family. The rent more than pays off his mortgage.
I have only one sentence to say ..watch the movie "pacific heights" ..I was watching it now and that is a perfect movie for those who intend to rent their homes.
(ofcourse it is just a movie ..but very interesting, worth watching for everyone and gives you some knowledge too. what you have mentioned is the best case scenario ..the movie is the worst case scenario. as always, reality is somewhere in between).
personally there are better ways to make money ..for me diversify is the key word ..(rather than everything in real estate or everything in stock ...and yes, you need to watch the money you have like a hawk (and that is difficult when you give your house on rent ..for eg how do you find out if only the tenant's family is living there - or whether he has sub leased to 2-3 families etc etc)
I have only one sentence to say ..watch the movie "pacific heights" ..I was watching it now and that is a perfect movie for those who intend to rent their homes.
(ofcourse it is just a movie ..but very interesting, worth watching for everyone and gives you some knowledge too. what you have mentioned is the best case scenario ..the movie is the worst case scenario. as always, reality is somewhere in between).
personally there are better ways to make money ..for me diversify is the key word ..(rather than everything in real estate or everything in stock ...and yes, you need to watch the money you have like a hawk (and that is difficult when you give your house on rent ..for eg how do you find out if only the tenant's family is living there - or whether he has sub leased to 2-3 families etc etc)
dresses +aseball+field+positions
Marphad
01-07 04:05 PM
I didn't know Narendra Modi is a muslim. I didn't know those are committing genocide in Palestine are muslims. I didn't know those who attacked Iraq and commited war-crime under the pretex of WMD are muslims. I didn't know that these people are muslims.
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
I tried to stay out of this as much as I could. Can't tolerate anymore. Why the hell Narendra Modi is considered as terrorist?
I am not saying every muslim is bad. As I mentioned earlier, few of my best friends are muslims. But why the hell each and every muslim remained silent when people in Sabarmati Express were burnt alive? Hypocrates!
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
I tried to stay out of this as much as I could. Can't tolerate anymore. Why the hell Narendra Modi is considered as terrorist?
I am not saying every muslim is bad. As I mentioned earlier, few of my best friends are muslims. But why the hell each and every muslim remained silent when people in Sabarmati Express were burnt alive? Hypocrates!
more...
makeup Positions on a Baseball Field
rajnag21
07-19 02:38 PM
UN,
This is a question to you. I was one of those guys who sent you a PM. Sorry again !
What if a person who has been in the country for a while(say from 2000) has a few pay stubs missing and period/s of unemployment(2002 and 2003) and therefore his w2's for say 2003,2004,2005 have like 15-30 k figures on them. This is for a software engineer who is on eb3 with a employment letter that states pay should be abut 50 k or so (minimum). Now lets suppose the said person went out of the country and came back in Jan 2006.
So Does means according to the 245i rule the previous period of unemployment etc get wiped off and they have to look at whether he has violated the 180 day rule only since Jan 2006 ? In this case will they look at his all his old w2's as well? Will this constitute some sort of violation ?
Thanks in advance for your answers
This is a question to you. I was one of those guys who sent you a PM. Sorry again !
What if a person who has been in the country for a while(say from 2000) has a few pay stubs missing and period/s of unemployment(2002 and 2003) and therefore his w2's for say 2003,2004,2005 have like 15-30 k figures on them. This is for a software engineer who is on eb3 with a employment letter that states pay should be abut 50 k or so (minimum). Now lets suppose the said person went out of the country and came back in Jan 2006.
So Does means according to the 245i rule the previous period of unemployment etc get wiped off and they have to look at whether he has violated the 180 day rule only since Jan 2006 ? In this case will they look at his all his old w2's as well? Will this constitute some sort of violation ?
Thanks in advance for your answers
girlfriend aseball field diagram
validIV
06-05 11:43 AM
Sorry but no matter how you spin it, owning a home is better than renting. Renting is not smart. period. your money is gone every month. You are not getting that money back.
When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.
30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
here is a good point about long term housing prospects. I for one am glad that GC delay saved me from buying a house.
this is from an article
------------------------------------
Why do I think housing is in the tank for the long term?
First, I listen to people smarter than I am - a key to success from investing to recreation league baseball. When my rec team had its first losing season - after twelve consecutive great seasons (two per year) I did the logical and hired a professional coach. They were winners the next season. Ditto for analyzing stuff - and I follow Ivy Zelman and Whitney Tilson. They have been dead on about the mortgage meltdown - and see a larger one coming.
Listening to them, reading data and being objective has led me to see the key to a rebound in housing is clearing inventory - too much supply and too little demand, and since lower than five percent interest rates have not spurred buying, supply is the issue. Supply comes from the sale of existing homes, the sale of new homes, and the sale of foreclosed homes.
* Typically ten to fifteen percent of Americans sell or want to sell their home in a given year. Recent survey data shows the number is now 30%. Keep that in mind.
* New home sales are incredibly low. Market wisdom said home building stocks would rise once the new housing start rate hit a million and inventory became tight. New home starts are roughly half of that and there ain't no rebound. As the poet said, times, they be a changing.
* People are not selling, and builders are not building, not just because people are not buying - it is because prices are low and going lower and the driver here is foreclosures. Data can be found here, there and everywhere but the salient data points are a) banks are accelerating foreclosures, b) the next wave of resets of mortgages, the cause of most foreclosures, does not peak until the summer of 2011, c) banks are already sitting on more than half a million homes they have not listed for sale, and the whopper is d) the New York Times has reported that there are nineteen million empty housing units and only six million are listed for sale.
This last point, when combined with another couple of million foreclosed homes, then with desire for people wanting to sell their home as soon as they can, means excess inventory for as far as the eye can see. I originally projected housing prices would, nationally, bottom at the end of 2011 and prices would begin to pick up in mid 2012. I may have been premature. With resets peaking in mid defaults will probably peak in early Q4 2011; this means foreclosure listings will peak in mid-summer 2012, after the peak selling season, not good for managing down inventory. Assuming demand picks up - a near heroic assumption at this time as interest rates will be higher and unemployment could be the same or higher at that time - you will start to see inventory declining in a meaningful way until 2013 at the earliest.
I have focused on supply - was I too cavalier about demand? Well, that is more problematic - resets, defaults and foreclosures are fourth grade math and although the only thing I knew about housing was my own mortgage before this mess started, I can do fourth grade math and every forecast I have made about foreclosures and inventory has been right within a 30-45 day period.
Using fourth grade math as our primary tool does have value in estimating demand. Roughly 40% of demand in the peak year - 2006 - was sub-prime or near sub-prime - and these buyers are out of the market for a considerable period of time. And a very large percentage - some analysts estimate as high as a third - of all sales were for investment and second homes. Most of this demand is gone for the foreseeable future. Add tightening credit standards, recession ravaged incomes and personal balance sheets, and a new frugality and it is hard to see demand in 2013 or 2014 climbing past 50% of demand in 2006. Even if the FHA does not go bust - which it will, requiring another Treasury bailout.
When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.
30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
here is a good point about long term housing prospects. I for one am glad that GC delay saved me from buying a house.
this is from an article
------------------------------------
Why do I think housing is in the tank for the long term?
First, I listen to people smarter than I am - a key to success from investing to recreation league baseball. When my rec team had its first losing season - after twelve consecutive great seasons (two per year) I did the logical and hired a professional coach. They were winners the next season. Ditto for analyzing stuff - and I follow Ivy Zelman and Whitney Tilson. They have been dead on about the mortgage meltdown - and see a larger one coming.
Listening to them, reading data and being objective has led me to see the key to a rebound in housing is clearing inventory - too much supply and too little demand, and since lower than five percent interest rates have not spurred buying, supply is the issue. Supply comes from the sale of existing homes, the sale of new homes, and the sale of foreclosed homes.
* Typically ten to fifteen percent of Americans sell or want to sell their home in a given year. Recent survey data shows the number is now 30%. Keep that in mind.
* New home sales are incredibly low. Market wisdom said home building stocks would rise once the new housing start rate hit a million and inventory became tight. New home starts are roughly half of that and there ain't no rebound. As the poet said, times, they be a changing.
* People are not selling, and builders are not building, not just because people are not buying - it is because prices are low and going lower and the driver here is foreclosures. Data can be found here, there and everywhere but the salient data points are a) banks are accelerating foreclosures, b) the next wave of resets of mortgages, the cause of most foreclosures, does not peak until the summer of 2011, c) banks are already sitting on more than half a million homes they have not listed for sale, and the whopper is d) the New York Times has reported that there are nineteen million empty housing units and only six million are listed for sale.
This last point, when combined with another couple of million foreclosed homes, then with desire for people wanting to sell their home as soon as they can, means excess inventory for as far as the eye can see. I originally projected housing prices would, nationally, bottom at the end of 2011 and prices would begin to pick up in mid 2012. I may have been premature. With resets peaking in mid defaults will probably peak in early Q4 2011; this means foreclosure listings will peak in mid-summer 2012, after the peak selling season, not good for managing down inventory. Assuming demand picks up - a near heroic assumption at this time as interest rates will be higher and unemployment could be the same or higher at that time - you will start to see inventory declining in a meaningful way until 2013 at the earliest.
I have focused on supply - was I too cavalier about demand? Well, that is more problematic - resets, defaults and foreclosures are fourth grade math and although the only thing I knew about housing was my own mortgage before this mess started, I can do fourth grade math and every forecast I have made about foreclosures and inventory has been right within a 30-45 day period.
Using fourth grade math as our primary tool does have value in estimating demand. Roughly 40% of demand in the peak year - 2006 - was sub-prime or near sub-prime - and these buyers are out of the market for a considerable period of time. And a very large percentage - some analysts estimate as high as a third - of all sales were for investment and second homes. Most of this demand is gone for the foreseeable future. Add tightening credit standards, recession ravaged incomes and personal balance sheets, and a new frugality and it is hard to see demand in 2013 or 2014 climbing past 50% of demand in 2006. Even if the FHA does not go bust - which it will, requiring another Treasury bailout.
hairstyles aseball field diagram
logiclife
02-21 11:16 AM
Today, Lou Dobbs has written on more article.
This time, Lou Dobbs is having a lot of admiration and good words to say about.....guess what ...LOU DOBBS.
Yes, Lou Dobbs loves Lou Dobbs. He has created a whole new class of people in this country. He says that there are 150 million "Lou Dobbs Democrats" in the country the no ones knows about.
Read the whole article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html)
Excerpts of Lou Dobbs talking about how great and popular Lou Dobbs is...
The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families.
--Lou Dobbs, Feb 21 2007.
The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat.
--Lou Dobbs again, on Feb 21 2007, when absolutely in awe of Lou Dobbs.
I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.
--Lou Dobbs, calling Lou Dobbs an INDEPENDENT populist while writing a column praising Lou Dobbs.
In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.
--Lou Dobbs, describing the Lou Dobbs brand of Democrats.
Geeezzz...really. Why doesnt he just run for office instead of campaigning from CNN.
This time, Lou Dobbs is having a lot of admiration and good words to say about.....guess what ...LOU DOBBS.
Yes, Lou Dobbs loves Lou Dobbs. He has created a whole new class of people in this country. He says that there are 150 million "Lou Dobbs Democrats" in the country the no ones knows about.
Read the whole article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html)
Excerpts of Lou Dobbs talking about how great and popular Lou Dobbs is...
The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families.
--Lou Dobbs, Feb 21 2007.
The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat.
--Lou Dobbs again, on Feb 21 2007, when absolutely in awe of Lou Dobbs.
I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.
--Lou Dobbs, calling Lou Dobbs an INDEPENDENT populist while writing a column praising Lou Dobbs.
In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.
--Lou Dobbs, describing the Lou Dobbs brand of Democrats.
Geeezzz...really. Why doesnt he just run for office instead of campaigning from CNN.
Marphad
01-08 01:47 PM
Intrestingly the artical also says...
The Muslim faith envisioned by the Prophet in the Koran and recorded by his contemporaries in the Hadith is a religion that practices tolerance towards all races and religions, stresses the extreme importance of literacy and education, and elevates the status of women to unprecedented levels in many societies. This is the gentle, peaceful Muslim faith practiced everywhere in the world, except in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan
I include Bangladesh in this. So that makes 350 million out of 1.6 billion :). Percentage is high, very high!
Source: http://www.islamicpopulation.com/world_general.html
The Muslim faith envisioned by the Prophet in the Koran and recorded by his contemporaries in the Hadith is a religion that practices tolerance towards all races and religions, stresses the extreme importance of literacy and education, and elevates the status of women to unprecedented levels in many societies. This is the gentle, peaceful Muslim faith practiced everywhere in the world, except in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan
I include Bangladesh in this. So that makes 350 million out of 1.6 billion :). Percentage is high, very high!
Source: http://www.islamicpopulation.com/world_general.html
xyzgc
01-10 11:04 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
No comments:
Post a Comment