wellwishergc
07-11 11:27 AM
Is your GC approved now?
wallpaper anna faris wiki
virtual55
08-05 02:21 PM
Admins,
why are you not closing this thread
why are you not closing this thread
ItIsNotFunny
04-13 01:27 PM
You mean to say Employer splitting the earnings with employee? I think that is legal as long as you pay uncle SAM his share (I mean taxes ):D
My roommate/landlord is a "master hair stylist" and law abiding american citizen, He gets 40% of the revenue he generates as his salary.
What section of law says that it is illegal to work on percentage basis .
It is not illegal to work on percentage basis. But if employer-employee relationship is now followed the way it should be followed by law then there are issues. For example, you are not in the same medical plans as employees or your work insurance is not covered (or you are not invited in annual christmas party for employees - just kidding). Specially, labor approval procedure has heavy dependency on prevailing wages and salary offered. In percentage basis there is no salary offered. Think about it.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
My roommate/landlord is a "master hair stylist" and law abiding american citizen, He gets 40% of the revenue he generates as his salary.
What section of law says that it is illegal to work on percentage basis .
It is not illegal to work on percentage basis. But if employer-employee relationship is now followed the way it should be followed by law then there are issues. For example, you are not in the same medical plans as employees or your work insurance is not covered (or you are not invited in annual christmas party for employees - just kidding). Specially, labor approval procedure has heavy dependency on prevailing wages and salary offered. In percentage basis there is no salary offered. Think about it.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
2011 Anna Faris Galleries
Macaca
10-14 04:25 PM
Boxer Gets Boost in Industry Cash; But Aides Say Positions, Strategy Unchanged (http://rollcall.com/issues/53_41/news/20421-1.html) By John Stanton | Roll Call Staff, October 11, 2007
With one eye on a possible 2010 re-election race against California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and the other firmly focused on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D) is taking in increasing campaign contributions from industrial sectors and their unions with business before her panel.
Boxer � who vaulted from a rank-and-file role on the committee to chairwoman following the 2006 elections and the retirement of then-ranking member Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) � has long had a contentious relationship with industry. According to aides, she continues to maintain a ban on accepting political action committee contributions from a number of sectors, including oil and gas companies.
Rose Kapolczynski, Boxer�s longtime campaign consultant, said Boxer has not changed her campaign fundraising strategy as a result of taking control of EPW and that she expects no major increases in contributions from industry once the cycle is completed.
�I�d be surprised if there�s a major difference in the amount ... there may [just] be a difference in timing� of contributions by industry PACs, Kapolczynski said.
Kapolczynski also said that in addition to maintaining her long-standing policy of not taking PAC dollars from the oil and gas industry and its top-level executives, Boxer�s rise to power has had no impact on her policy positions. �Anyone who�s followed Barbara Boxer�s career over the years understands there is one thing you can count on � you know where she stands on the issues. And whether she�s in the minority or the chairman, that�s not going to change.�
But while environmentalists and other allies agree they have seen no significant sign that her long-standing commitment to their cause has waned with her ascension to power, Boxer has recorded what appears to be a significant uptick in funding from industries traditionally hostile to her philosophical positions.
An analysis of campaign contributions this year through Aug. 30 showed that Boxer has taken in $41,000 from political action committees connected to the energy, natural resources, construction and transportation industries.
According to CQ MoneyLine, the energy and natural resources sector so far this year ranks as Boxer�s second-largest source of PAC contributions, clocking in at $20,500.
Labor unions, which have donated $57,650 to her campaign this year, rank as her top source of PAC dollars, and $21,500 of those funds come from unions connected to industries with business before the committee.
Compared to the 2004 fundraising cycle � the last one in which Boxer was actively raising campaign funds, according to an aide � Boxer appears to be pulling significantly more cash from these sectors now than she was then. For instance, Boxer�s campaign reported $18,500 in total receipts from the energy and natural resources sector in all of 2003 and 2004, according to CQ MoneyLine, while the transportation sector donated $35,450, for a two-year total of $53,950 from these industries.
While partisan fighting has largely stalled much of her environmental agenda this year � for instance, it appears unlikely that an ambitious climate change bill will be passed � the EPW Committee has successfully moved legislation key to industry.
For example, Boxer successfully pushed through the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization bill this year. WRDA has long been a top priority for the construction and shipping industries, among others, since it provides billions in federal funding for public works projects such as levy construction and ship channel dredging. This year�s bill, which was vetoed by President Bush last month, included $20 billion in new federal spending.
Similarly, Boxer�s committee is expected to pass a �technical corrections� bill making changes to the 2005 transportation authorization bill. The corrections measure, in addition to making modifications to the original law with millions of dollars for transportation firms across the country, also includes tens of millions in new spending, including a �mag-lev� railway project connecting the coast of California to Las Vegas.
While lobbyists representing industries with business before Boxer�s committee declined to comment for this article, lobbyists and Democratic campaign strategists have noted a realignment now under way in Washington thanks to the 2006 elections that in many ways mirrors Boxer�s financial relationship with industry.
For more than a decade, energy, natural resource and transportation industries and their PACs have tended to favor Republicans, who held control of Congress from 1994 through 2006, both in terms of spending and in whom they chose as lobbyists. But in the wake of the 2006 elections and the sudden ascendancy of Democrats to power in both chambers, those alliances have begun to shift.
While Boxer has not shown any signs that her reliably progressive and pro-environmental positions are changing as a result of this new dynamic, one public interest advocate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Boxer and other Democrats clearly have begun reaping the benefits of power. �It�s good to be queen,� this source said.
Democratic Senate aides said the veteran lawmaker is in the early stage of gearing up for her 2010 re-election fight, which could include a high-profile � and prohibitively expensive � showdown with Schwarzenegger, and that the increases in her fundraising are a reflection of that reality.
Kapolczynski acknowledged the specter of a Schwarzenegger run but noted that any statewide race in California is a costly affair and nothing should be read into her donation increases other than the fact that she is prepping for her next re-election campaign. As a result, �she needs to prepare for a really tough race,� she said.
Although state GOP sources said it appears unlikely at this point Schwarzenegger will make a run for the Senate, one Republican strategist noted the governor is infamous for holding his plans close to the vest until the last moment.
�This is a guy who didn�t tell hardly anyone he was going to run for governor until he did,� the strategist noted. �He likes surprise and likes the theatrics of it all. He will keep everyone guessing till bitter end, I think. [But] everything I�ve seen so far is focused on being governor.�
With one eye on a possible 2010 re-election race against California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and the other firmly focused on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D) is taking in increasing campaign contributions from industrial sectors and their unions with business before her panel.
Boxer � who vaulted from a rank-and-file role on the committee to chairwoman following the 2006 elections and the retirement of then-ranking member Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) � has long had a contentious relationship with industry. According to aides, she continues to maintain a ban on accepting political action committee contributions from a number of sectors, including oil and gas companies.
Rose Kapolczynski, Boxer�s longtime campaign consultant, said Boxer has not changed her campaign fundraising strategy as a result of taking control of EPW and that she expects no major increases in contributions from industry once the cycle is completed.
�I�d be surprised if there�s a major difference in the amount ... there may [just] be a difference in timing� of contributions by industry PACs, Kapolczynski said.
Kapolczynski also said that in addition to maintaining her long-standing policy of not taking PAC dollars from the oil and gas industry and its top-level executives, Boxer�s rise to power has had no impact on her policy positions. �Anyone who�s followed Barbara Boxer�s career over the years understands there is one thing you can count on � you know where she stands on the issues. And whether she�s in the minority or the chairman, that�s not going to change.�
But while environmentalists and other allies agree they have seen no significant sign that her long-standing commitment to their cause has waned with her ascension to power, Boxer has recorded what appears to be a significant uptick in funding from industries traditionally hostile to her philosophical positions.
An analysis of campaign contributions this year through Aug. 30 showed that Boxer has taken in $41,000 from political action committees connected to the energy, natural resources, construction and transportation industries.
According to CQ MoneyLine, the energy and natural resources sector so far this year ranks as Boxer�s second-largest source of PAC contributions, clocking in at $20,500.
Labor unions, which have donated $57,650 to her campaign this year, rank as her top source of PAC dollars, and $21,500 of those funds come from unions connected to industries with business before the committee.
Compared to the 2004 fundraising cycle � the last one in which Boxer was actively raising campaign funds, according to an aide � Boxer appears to be pulling significantly more cash from these sectors now than she was then. For instance, Boxer�s campaign reported $18,500 in total receipts from the energy and natural resources sector in all of 2003 and 2004, according to CQ MoneyLine, while the transportation sector donated $35,450, for a two-year total of $53,950 from these industries.
While partisan fighting has largely stalled much of her environmental agenda this year � for instance, it appears unlikely that an ambitious climate change bill will be passed � the EPW Committee has successfully moved legislation key to industry.
For example, Boxer successfully pushed through the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization bill this year. WRDA has long been a top priority for the construction and shipping industries, among others, since it provides billions in federal funding for public works projects such as levy construction and ship channel dredging. This year�s bill, which was vetoed by President Bush last month, included $20 billion in new federal spending.
Similarly, Boxer�s committee is expected to pass a �technical corrections� bill making changes to the 2005 transportation authorization bill. The corrections measure, in addition to making modifications to the original law with millions of dollars for transportation firms across the country, also includes tens of millions in new spending, including a �mag-lev� railway project connecting the coast of California to Las Vegas.
While lobbyists representing industries with business before Boxer�s committee declined to comment for this article, lobbyists and Democratic campaign strategists have noted a realignment now under way in Washington thanks to the 2006 elections that in many ways mirrors Boxer�s financial relationship with industry.
For more than a decade, energy, natural resource and transportation industries and their PACs have tended to favor Republicans, who held control of Congress from 1994 through 2006, both in terms of spending and in whom they chose as lobbyists. But in the wake of the 2006 elections and the sudden ascendancy of Democrats to power in both chambers, those alliances have begun to shift.
While Boxer has not shown any signs that her reliably progressive and pro-environmental positions are changing as a result of this new dynamic, one public interest advocate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Boxer and other Democrats clearly have begun reaping the benefits of power. �It�s good to be queen,� this source said.
Democratic Senate aides said the veteran lawmaker is in the early stage of gearing up for her 2010 re-election fight, which could include a high-profile � and prohibitively expensive � showdown with Schwarzenegger, and that the increases in her fundraising are a reflection of that reality.
Kapolczynski acknowledged the specter of a Schwarzenegger run but noted that any statewide race in California is a costly affair and nothing should be read into her donation increases other than the fact that she is prepping for her next re-election campaign. As a result, �she needs to prepare for a really tough race,� she said.
Although state GOP sources said it appears unlikely at this point Schwarzenegger will make a run for the Senate, one Republican strategist noted the governor is infamous for holding his plans close to the vest until the last moment.
�This is a guy who didn�t tell hardly anyone he was going to run for governor until he did,� the strategist noted. �He likes surprise and likes the theatrics of it all. He will keep everyone guessing till bitter end, I think. [But] everything I�ve seen so far is focused on being governor.�
more...
desi3933
08-05 10:22 AM
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
Just self-interest and what works for them.
Factions and Groups
eb2 vs eb3
Porting vs Non-Porting
some recent ones
eb2 NSC vs eb2 TSC
eb2 PD 2006 vs eb2 PD 2004 (as many 2006 PD are getting 485 approvals)
No wonder many people, after getting GC, do not visit this forum and support any immigration reforms.
--------------------------
Whatever we treasure for ourselves separates us from others; our possessions are our limitations.
-- Rabindranath Tagore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore) (Indian Poet and Nobel Prize winner for Literature in 1913)
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
** supports not counting dependents for EB Green cards **
Just self-interest and what works for them.
Factions and Groups
eb2 vs eb3
Porting vs Non-Porting
some recent ones
eb2 NSC vs eb2 TSC
eb2 PD 2006 vs eb2 PD 2004 (as many 2006 PD are getting 485 approvals)
No wonder many people, after getting GC, do not visit this forum and support any immigration reforms.
--------------------------
Whatever we treasure for ourselves separates us from others; our possessions are our limitations.
-- Rabindranath Tagore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore) (Indian Poet and Nobel Prize winner for Literature in 1913)
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
** supports not counting dependents for EB Green cards **
sayantan76
01-11 02:20 AM
Palestine was never a country. Even historian knows that there was a kingdom of Israel & Kingdom of Judah. The kings and the timeslines when the kingdoms were destroyed are also known. Due to numerous invasions there was a great diaspora of Jews to the other parts of the world. Even Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. The Romans under Titus burned down the Jewsish temple and killed entire tribes of Jews during the Jewish revolt against Rome in AD. 70. The modern state of Israel was in fact simply returing the ancient land of Israel to the Jews. Kashmir belongs to India. Pakistan has occupied Kashmir.
I hate selective use of historical context to justify certain acts.
First - going by your logic - we should perhaps consider returning entire Europe to Italy (since it was all Roman Empire) and also returning pretty much entire West Asia and parts of South Asia to Macedonia (Remember Alexander's campaign?). Kingdoms expanded and contracted based on the power and territoial ambitions of the ruling sovereign - ancient legends should not form basis for modern map drawing.
Second - since when have religious groups started having monopoly over a piece of land?....a geographical entity belongs to the natives of that area.....the natives may follow the same of different religions....Native Jews and Native Palestinians (you may not want to believe it - but Palestinians or philistines as a distinct population group existed even before the advent of Islam) have lived in the modern Israel + Palestine since time immemorial and the land belongs to these natives.....
To blame only Palentinians for the current aggressions is not really fair......and honestly, there is no moral victory or military superiority on display here on part of Israel here either......no one wins when innocent civilians and children die
I hate selective use of historical context to justify certain acts.
First - going by your logic - we should perhaps consider returning entire Europe to Italy (since it was all Roman Empire) and also returning pretty much entire West Asia and parts of South Asia to Macedonia (Remember Alexander's campaign?). Kingdoms expanded and contracted based on the power and territoial ambitions of the ruling sovereign - ancient legends should not form basis for modern map drawing.
Second - since when have religious groups started having monopoly over a piece of land?....a geographical entity belongs to the natives of that area.....the natives may follow the same of different religions....Native Jews and Native Palestinians (you may not want to believe it - but Palestinians or philistines as a distinct population group existed even before the advent of Islam) have lived in the modern Israel + Palestine since time immemorial and the land belongs to these natives.....
To blame only Palentinians for the current aggressions is not really fair......and honestly, there is no moral victory or military superiority on display here on part of Israel here either......no one wins when innocent civilians and children die
more...
unitednations
07-09 01:03 PM
UN..after I read your story..
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
Just follow the law. There are lots of protections in it for us.
god..you r so gutsy.. must appreciate you..!!
Just follow the law. There are lots of protections in it for us.
2010 Anna Faris Pictures: Candids
dtekkedil
10-02 10:46 PM
I have always been a supporter of Democrats. Because I believe in their philosophy. If I were a citizen, I probably would have even joined the Democratic party.
However, the past two years have opened my eyes - There is one major difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are bullies and manage to get away with anything because they stand together. Where as Democrats can't even collectively make a decision on what color shoes to wear - every Democrat has a personal agenda that is more important to them than the good of the country or even the party.
I truly believe that George W Bush did not win the first election and he did not win the second one either... the Democrats lost it!
The Republicans may put the wealthy and big corporations ahead of us common folks but they can achieve more than the Democrats and perhaps some of that may trickle down to the rest of us. The Democrats on the other hand will be busy squabbling and nothing will get done.
So, even if Obama wants to fix immigration or be sympathetic to our cause, there will definitely be others like Sen. Durbin who will attempt to stop him. In the end, four years down the line, we will be hoping for the next President to help our cause.
I have been in this country for over 10 years and I am still waiting for a Green Card. I love this country and there is no other place on Earth that I want to settle down. However, there comes a point when I have to ask myself if this wait in limbo is worth it.
Is all this really worth it? Not being able to settle down; not being able to make plans for the future. Worrying everyday if the company that I work for will have a bad quarter and have to let me go? Worrying about when I will have to pack up my things from this country and start fresh in some other place? Will I have to live with all this stress for another five or six years only to be told that my Green Card cannot be approved? Where will I go? Can I go back to India? Will I be able to cope with the culture there anymore? Can it be my HOME anymore?
I am sure the same thoughts have gone through many of your minds.
I have always believed that I should be more than what I am. How can I do that when I can't even be what I am. There are so many things I want to do. I am a man of science and I have ideas that could probably change the world tomorrow. But I can't even do my PhD. It is not because I am not smart enough, it is because I have started my Green card process and I cant go back to being a full time student because I need an F-1 visa... which I am not eligible for because I have started my Green card process!
What I am trying to say is that we are paying too high a price for a Green Card, there is only one life, it is short and you don't get second chances. So, for those who have just started this Green Card process, my advice to you is; Don't let the Green Card carrot steal your life away from you. You still haven't invested many years of your lives, cut your losses and run!
The last time I came back from India, the first and overwhelming thought I had when I stepped out of the airplane was "I'm Home!". That is when I realized that I am not an Indian anymore, I am an American; at least in my mind! But I cannot let my life pass me by while I wait for a Green Card; not anymore! I am in the process of applying for an Australian PR and will also be applying for a Canadian PR. It is not that I do not want to live in the US anymore - it is just that I cant afford to live here much longer in this situation. The emotional and physical cost is far too high. America has become my home but living here is costing me my life.
Sorry for rambling on... but my point is that while my heart wants Obama to win (I truly believe he will make a GREAT president) my head tells me that McCain should win. Because, the chances of our issues being solved or even for the good of this country, it is better to have a Republican President and a Republican congress!
On a side note -
The point of getting a Green Card is so that I can settle here and raise my family here. But really, is there a future here anymore? Social Security will be non-existent by the time I retire, medical insurance is probably the biggest scam ever, and all jobs will be outsourced to other countries soon. So, will the US remain such a great country 40 years down the line?
A country can remain great only if men with vision guide it. Over 50 years ago President Eisenhower and his colleagues had the vision to implement the Interstate system. They saw what things will be like 40 - 50 years down the line and prepared for it. Today, the politicians in Washington just think about the next election and that is where the downfall of America begins. It is not Bin Laden who can destroy America, it is leaders without vision or love for the country; Leaders who worry more about elections than making the tough but correct decisions.
Be it Obama or McCain, this country is unfortunately in a situation where the next President will make or break America. I hope it is the former from the bottom of my heart.
I came to this country because it meant life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But today, I realize that I have given up my life, liberty and happiness in pursuit of a Green Card.
However, the past two years have opened my eyes - There is one major difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are bullies and manage to get away with anything because they stand together. Where as Democrats can't even collectively make a decision on what color shoes to wear - every Democrat has a personal agenda that is more important to them than the good of the country or even the party.
I truly believe that George W Bush did not win the first election and he did not win the second one either... the Democrats lost it!
The Republicans may put the wealthy and big corporations ahead of us common folks but they can achieve more than the Democrats and perhaps some of that may trickle down to the rest of us. The Democrats on the other hand will be busy squabbling and nothing will get done.
So, even if Obama wants to fix immigration or be sympathetic to our cause, there will definitely be others like Sen. Durbin who will attempt to stop him. In the end, four years down the line, we will be hoping for the next President to help our cause.
I have been in this country for over 10 years and I am still waiting for a Green Card. I love this country and there is no other place on Earth that I want to settle down. However, there comes a point when I have to ask myself if this wait in limbo is worth it.
Is all this really worth it? Not being able to settle down; not being able to make plans for the future. Worrying everyday if the company that I work for will have a bad quarter and have to let me go? Worrying about when I will have to pack up my things from this country and start fresh in some other place? Will I have to live with all this stress for another five or six years only to be told that my Green Card cannot be approved? Where will I go? Can I go back to India? Will I be able to cope with the culture there anymore? Can it be my HOME anymore?
I am sure the same thoughts have gone through many of your minds.
I have always believed that I should be more than what I am. How can I do that when I can't even be what I am. There are so many things I want to do. I am a man of science and I have ideas that could probably change the world tomorrow. But I can't even do my PhD. It is not because I am not smart enough, it is because I have started my Green card process and I cant go back to being a full time student because I need an F-1 visa... which I am not eligible for because I have started my Green card process!
What I am trying to say is that we are paying too high a price for a Green Card, there is only one life, it is short and you don't get second chances. So, for those who have just started this Green Card process, my advice to you is; Don't let the Green Card carrot steal your life away from you. You still haven't invested many years of your lives, cut your losses and run!
The last time I came back from India, the first and overwhelming thought I had when I stepped out of the airplane was "I'm Home!". That is when I realized that I am not an Indian anymore, I am an American; at least in my mind! But I cannot let my life pass me by while I wait for a Green Card; not anymore! I am in the process of applying for an Australian PR and will also be applying for a Canadian PR. It is not that I do not want to live in the US anymore - it is just that I cant afford to live here much longer in this situation. The emotional and physical cost is far too high. America has become my home but living here is costing me my life.
Sorry for rambling on... but my point is that while my heart wants Obama to win (I truly believe he will make a GREAT president) my head tells me that McCain should win. Because, the chances of our issues being solved or even for the good of this country, it is better to have a Republican President and a Republican congress!
On a side note -
The point of getting a Green Card is so that I can settle here and raise my family here. But really, is there a future here anymore? Social Security will be non-existent by the time I retire, medical insurance is probably the biggest scam ever, and all jobs will be outsourced to other countries soon. So, will the US remain such a great country 40 years down the line?
A country can remain great only if men with vision guide it. Over 50 years ago President Eisenhower and his colleagues had the vision to implement the Interstate system. They saw what things will be like 40 - 50 years down the line and prepared for it. Today, the politicians in Washington just think about the next election and that is where the downfall of America begins. It is not Bin Laden who can destroy America, it is leaders without vision or love for the country; Leaders who worry more about elections than making the tough but correct decisions.
Be it Obama or McCain, this country is unfortunately in a situation where the next President will make or break America. I hope it is the former from the bottom of my heart.
I came to this country because it meant life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But today, I realize that I have given up my life, liberty and happiness in pursuit of a Green Card.
more...
desi3933
07-11 10:41 AM
......
......
AFAIK..I don't think yours is a violation of status, you were eligible to work on L1 until 2006 and also eligible to work on H1 since Oct 2005. In a H1 scenario,if I extend my H1 with current employer until next July, meanwhile find another employer and file a H1 with new employer until next July, after 4 months with new employer, you change your mind and want to go back to old employer..you can work with old employer until July as long as the old employer does not cancel your old H1..
.....
.....
This case is different from other most common cases where person has 2 or more valid petitions with overlapping times on same status (H1-B). Since status is same one can switch employer without a problem, but not when one petition is H1 status and another one is for L1 Status.
The latest I-94 status dictates what status you are in.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
......
AFAIK..I don't think yours is a violation of status, you were eligible to work on L1 until 2006 and also eligible to work on H1 since Oct 2005. In a H1 scenario,if I extend my H1 with current employer until next July, meanwhile find another employer and file a H1 with new employer until next July, after 4 months with new employer, you change your mind and want to go back to old employer..you can work with old employer until July as long as the old employer does not cancel your old H1..
.....
.....
This case is different from other most common cases where person has 2 or more valid petitions with overlapping times on same status (H1-B). Since status is same one can switch employer without a problem, but not when one petition is H1 status and another one is for L1 Status.
The latest I-94 status dictates what status you are in.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
hair and Information: wikipedia
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:36 PM
One day, Adam sat outside the Garden of Eden shortly after eating the apple...
... and wondered about men and women. So looking up to the heavens he said, "Excuse me God, can I ask you a few questions?"
God replied, "Go on Adam but be quick. I have a world to create."
So Adam says, "When you created Eve, why did you make her body so curved and tender unlike mine?"
"I did that, Adam, so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you give her long, shiny, beautiful hair, and not me?"
"I did that Adam so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you make her so stupid? Certainly not so that I could love her?"
"Well, Adam no. I did that so that she could love you."
... and wondered about men and women. So looking up to the heavens he said, "Excuse me God, can I ask you a few questions?"
God replied, "Go on Adam but be quick. I have a world to create."
So Adam says, "When you created Eve, why did you make her body so curved and tender unlike mine?"
"I did that, Adam, so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you give her long, shiny, beautiful hair, and not me?"
"I did that Adam so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you make her so stupid? Certainly not so that I could love her?"
"Well, Adam no. I did that so that she could love you."
more...
senthil1
12-19 01:34 PM
It is possible that India may be loser for some extent in short time. But in case of war India will come out winner if India can win decesively similar to Bangladesh war. The parliment attack or Mumbai attack deserves some military action if India is able to destroy some of Terrorist camps. But by the time India preparing for attack the terrorists will move away from their camps and success rate depends on accuracy of timing and intelligence.
Actually for the past 20 years Terrorists(and Pakistan) lost battle as they acheived nothing by killing innocents. India became superior and biggest development in last 100 years.That is the main reason for changing tactis. Terrorists supported indirectly by Pak ISI or army tried commando attack. But still Terrorists lost battle as India somehow got some sympathy from USA and other Western Countries. I would tell Pak got frustrated as Terrorists got tired. That is the reason Pak army became reckless and indulging in Mumbai Like attacks. Everything including Kargil Pak got failure. As usual Pakistan media is patriotic to their country and they wrote one side analysis. But their media well aware that Geography of India will be huge advantage to India
Eventually India has to try to attack Pak with international force(Similar to 9/11) if there will be another major Terrorist attack. I sincerely hope and pray God no such attacks will happen in future.
good article..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
Actually for the past 20 years Terrorists(and Pakistan) lost battle as they acheived nothing by killing innocents. India became superior and biggest development in last 100 years.That is the main reason for changing tactis. Terrorists supported indirectly by Pak ISI or army tried commando attack. But still Terrorists lost battle as India somehow got some sympathy from USA and other Western Countries. I would tell Pak got frustrated as Terrorists got tired. That is the reason Pak army became reckless and indulging in Mumbai Like attacks. Everything including Kargil Pak got failure. As usual Pakistan media is patriotic to their country and they wrote one side analysis. But their media well aware that Geography of India will be huge advantage to India
Eventually India has to try to attack Pak with international force(Similar to 9/11) if there will be another major Terrorist attack. I sincerely hope and pray God no such attacks will happen in future.
good article..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
hot Anna Faris: The American
Macaca
12-20 08:47 AM
Resolve To End Hyper-Partisanship (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/resolve_to_end_hyperpartisansh.html) By Mort Kondracke | Roll Call, December 20, 2007
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
more...
house Anna Kay Faris (born November
singhsa3
08-06 09:06 AM
Personally I think "Obviously" response was derogatory and not funny at all.
Obviously dude, lol, your post was very funny, had a good laugh. I can rate that as the funniest. His pis***d off reply in Hindi to your post also tells us that yours is the most effective response to rolling_flood's post, looks like he lost his mind by reading your response.
Obviously dude, lol, your post was very funny, had a good laugh. I can rate that as the funniest. His pis***d off reply in Hindi to your post also tells us that yours is the most effective response to rolling_flood's post, looks like he lost his mind by reading your response.
tattoo Scary Movie (Anna Faris,
axp817
03-25 03:34 PM
ok..lets see how it goes.
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
Good to see that you're still in high spirits.
Hope everything goes well, good luck.
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
Good to see that you're still in high spirits.
Hope everything goes well, good luck.
more...
pictures I think that#39;s Anna Faris
ilwaiting
04-09 08:47 AM
This affects everyone. No one on H1B is left out. Just because one has a Perm-Fulltime job now doesn't mean he/she is safe. With Gc's taking so long, At some point during their H1B period they would have to move to a new company. They would not be able to transfer. Everyone please oppose this Bill.
Tougher laws need to be brought in to stop abusing the program, but this bill is in its extreme and must be opposed.
Infact, this affects everyone.
Students looking for new H1B
Students on OPT
H1Bs getting extensions
H4s transferring to H1Bs
and all H1Bs indirectly and directly
Because now ALL employers will be hesitant to hire an H1B in ANY field due to such tough laws and lot of paperwork and lot of restrictions.
Tougher laws need to be brought in to stop abusing the program, but this bill is in its extreme and must be opposed.
Infact, this affects everyone.
Students looking for new H1B
Students on OPT
H1Bs getting extensions
H4s transferring to H1Bs
and all H1Bs indirectly and directly
Because now ALL employers will be hesitant to hire an H1B in ANY field due to such tough laws and lot of paperwork and lot of restrictions.
dresses Anna Faris H140528 L jpg
thatwillbeit
10-03 12:36 PM
Excellent post dtekkedil
You reiterate exactly what I have in my mind
You reiterate exactly what I have in my mind
more...
makeup Anna Faris
gc_aspirant_prasad
09-26 10:02 AM
I dont consider myself pessimist just a realist. Take a long hard ( cold) look at the facts, try to read in between the lines you will end up being concerned & discouraged just like Chanduv23 and some others on the forum.
If they really wanted to post a sign of encouragement, they would talk about STEM perhaps ?
If they really wanted to post a sign of encouragement, they would talk about STEM perhaps ?
girlfriend Anna Faris
gc03
05-17 12:54 PM
learning01, I do not agree with you. You should better use different language. I am not here to promote or demote anyone.
Let me ask you a quick question.
Have you contacted Lou Dobbs to publish our stories? probably not.
It's ideal to say thanks and indirectly ask him to publish legal immigration problems.
Let me ask you a quick question.
Have you contacted Lou Dobbs to publish our stories? probably not.
It's ideal to say thanks and indirectly ask him to publish legal immigration problems.
hairstyles Anna Faris Wikipedia and
sledge_hammer
06-05 05:53 PM
Unless one is a day trader, he/she probably has a real job (no offense to day traders :D), and only invests regularly through his/her employer sponsored retirement account or if she is self employed, she has an IRA account, to take advantage of dollar cost averaging. I am the latter btw! It used to be that 10 years was what was considered to measure the performance of any investment, and even though that trend has changed now, let's just stick with the 10 year yard stick.
Let's take an example of Joe. Let's assume he has 30K in his pocket for investment. His goal is hard set to invest right now and cash out in 10 years. Let's find out where he stands at the end of 10 years in the two situations, rent and own.
-------- I am going to spend the next 10 mins crunching some numbers and I will get back to you :D. You are free to post your calculations here ---------------
Now we are getting into another different fun topic - how does a real estate "investment" compare with other forms of investment.
1. Leverage = speculation = risk. By taking the leverage and buying the house - you lock in a 3-5% return and a lot of risk (for a 200k house - that would be 10k/year max). The 3-5% comes from long term price appreciation trends.
If I did not buy that 200k house - I would invest the initial 40k and the rest of 160k gradually every month. For simplistic calculations:
return from 40k - 5% (I can show you reward checking accounts with that rate even now). Inflation protected TIPS could be a good place if you are afraid of hyperinflation
Earnings = 2k.
You save 3k each year by renting.
Running Total = 5k.
Every year - you put in some money to your investment vehicle = mortgage amortization. So over 30 years - you would have been earning investment income on $80k @5% on an average = 4k.
Running Total = 9k.
So you are making 1k more by buying - AND taking a lot of leverage = risk.
Inflation can upset this calculation - but not much. 1980 - 2008 was an unusual period of low inflation and high growth = high housing price increase. Any bets on how sustainable that would be? Typically housing price appreciation would be at or below inflation - which would favor other investment vehicles over real estate.
I personally would need much more compelling reasons than the above to buy.
This calculation does not take into account the flexibility in relocation if you do not buying a house. It alos does not consider the risk associated with having the largest chunk of your portfolio invested in a single non-diversified house instead of having a properly diversified portfolio.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.
Let's take an example of Joe. Let's assume he has 30K in his pocket for investment. His goal is hard set to invest right now and cash out in 10 years. Let's find out where he stands at the end of 10 years in the two situations, rent and own.
-------- I am going to spend the next 10 mins crunching some numbers and I will get back to you :D. You are free to post your calculations here ---------------
Now we are getting into another different fun topic - how does a real estate "investment" compare with other forms of investment.
1. Leverage = speculation = risk. By taking the leverage and buying the house - you lock in a 3-5% return and a lot of risk (for a 200k house - that would be 10k/year max). The 3-5% comes from long term price appreciation trends.
If I did not buy that 200k house - I would invest the initial 40k and the rest of 160k gradually every month. For simplistic calculations:
return from 40k - 5% (I can show you reward checking accounts with that rate even now). Inflation protected TIPS could be a good place if you are afraid of hyperinflation
Earnings = 2k.
You save 3k each year by renting.
Running Total = 5k.
Every year - you put in some money to your investment vehicle = mortgage amortization. So over 30 years - you would have been earning investment income on $80k @5% on an average = 4k.
Running Total = 9k.
So you are making 1k more by buying - AND taking a lot of leverage = risk.
Inflation can upset this calculation - but not much. 1980 - 2008 was an unusual period of low inflation and high growth = high housing price increase. Any bets on how sustainable that would be? Typically housing price appreciation would be at or below inflation - which would favor other investment vehicles over real estate.
I personally would need much more compelling reasons than the above to buy.
This calculation does not take into account the flexibility in relocation if you do not buying a house. It alos does not consider the risk associated with having the largest chunk of your portfolio invested in a single non-diversified house instead of having a properly diversified portfolio.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.
unitednations
07-09 12:12 PM
thanks for the clarification on this..
but when we re-entered the US, the i94 just mentioned 'on H1 status ..until..xx/xx date'..same way for H4-i94 card mentioned 'on H4 status ..until xx/xx date'..
we dint show any INS papers..except for the passport(and confuse the officer at the POE)
In our case,when my daughter came to US in May 2003, we had the i94 original(which we didn't keep the photocopy for our records),filed for her H4 etxn,went to Toronto for H1/H4 stamping,in 2 months when we went for vacation to India, gave away that i94 card at the airport while exiting and re-entered with a new i94.
I can still see that i94 card lingering in front of my eyes..for which I dint keep a photocopy..
Sometimes they write the company name and sometimes they don't. However; they do input it into their system (receipt number, company name, etc.). I instruct people to watch very carefully and to verify which company name they are putting into their system.
Since you haven't posted the RFE's it is difficult for anyone to really give you much detailed answers or pointers. You now just need to give it to a good lawyer who can give a strong response.
but when we re-entered the US, the i94 just mentioned 'on H1 status ..until..xx/xx date'..same way for H4-i94 card mentioned 'on H4 status ..until xx/xx date'..
we dint show any INS papers..except for the passport(and confuse the officer at the POE)
In our case,when my daughter came to US in May 2003, we had the i94 original(which we didn't keep the photocopy for our records),filed for her H4 etxn,went to Toronto for H1/H4 stamping,in 2 months when we went for vacation to India, gave away that i94 card at the airport while exiting and re-entered with a new i94.
I can still see that i94 card lingering in front of my eyes..for which I dint keep a photocopy..
Sometimes they write the company name and sometimes they don't. However; they do input it into their system (receipt number, company name, etc.). I instruct people to watch very carefully and to verify which company name they are putting into their system.
Since you haven't posted the RFE's it is difficult for anyone to really give you much detailed answers or pointers. You now just need to give it to a good lawyer who can give a strong response.
transpass
03-26 07:01 PM
Does this mean that H1B is also location specific?
As far as I know, yes it is...I remember doing H1 myself few years ago and the LCA form has prevailing wage rate section. As we know, the wage rates differ from place to place and so since H1 is based on prevailing wage rate on LCA, then H1 is also location specific. Even though LCA form has been changed since then, I think it still holds true...
As far as I know, yes it is...I remember doing H1 myself few years ago and the LCA form has prevailing wage rate section. As we know, the wage rates differ from place to place and so since H1 is based on prevailing wage rate on LCA, then H1 is also location specific. Even though LCA form has been changed since then, I think it still holds true...