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.
wallpaper will smith oldest son
nogc_noproblem
08-05 02:10 PM
When a physician remarked on a new patient's extraordinarily ruddy complexion...
... he said, "High blood pressure, Doc. It comes from my family."
"Your mother's side or your father's?" I asked.
"Neither," he replied. "It's from my wife's family."
"Oh, come now," I said. "How could your wife's family give you high blood pressure?"
He sighed. "You oughta meet 'em sometime, Doc!"
... he said, "High blood pressure, Doc. It comes from my family."
"Your mother's side or your father's?" I asked.
"Neither," he replied. "It's from my wife's family."
"Oh, come now," I said. "How could your wife's family give you high blood pressure?"
He sighed. "You oughta meet 'em sometime, Doc!"
NeverEndingH1
12-17 04:10 PM
LOL!
Since everyone is posting what they want, I guess I can also just post anything here....
.
Since everyone is posting what they want, I guess I can also just post anything here....
.
2011 (6) Trey Smith son of actor
Macaca
05-20 06:21 PM
Diplomatically Insulting the Chinese (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/diplomatically-insulting-the-chinese-5329) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The National Interest
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
more...
cygent
10-03 12:48 PM
Excellent post dtekkedil
You reiterate exactly what I have in my mind
My thoughts and feelings exactly on the GC side!! Absolutely agree with the bold one liner.
You reiterate exactly what I have in my mind
My thoughts and feelings exactly on the GC side!! Absolutely agree with the bold one liner.
dealsnet
01-07 04:49 PM
You lived in India and hate India, because of your wicked religion.
Equating Bombay with Palastine is only a traitor can do.
Even passive support is act of betrayel.
Evil will be destoyed, it is God's will. They are preparing the kids for suicide bomber. So it is their fate to die little early, without harming any one.
Any way your religion and its founder are blasphamy for real children of God.
Only retard minded can follow it. Do suicide bomb to get 72 virgins. If any one of the virgin is a lesbian, what will do ?. If the guy is old, do he get viagara???They don't know in heaven no sex. No flesh, people in spiritual state.
I know you won't respond me anymore. Because you know your believe/ideology/prophecy/unjust acts will be exposed here.
Equating Bombay with Palastine is only a traitor can do.
Even passive support is act of betrayel.
Evil will be destoyed, it is God's will. They are preparing the kids for suicide bomber. So it is their fate to die little early, without harming any one.
Any way your religion and its founder are blasphamy for real children of God.
Only retard minded can follow it. Do suicide bomb to get 72 virgins. If any one of the virgin is a lesbian, what will do ?. If the guy is old, do he get viagara???They don't know in heaven no sex. No flesh, people in spiritual state.
I know you won't respond me anymore. Because you know your believe/ideology/prophecy/unjust acts will be exposed here.
more...
sroyc
08-06 10:41 AM
I'm not a lawyer but I think it'll be hard to prove that A qualifies for EB2 given that he/she does not have a Masters or 5 years of experience in a related field.
Regarding the EB1 spillover - yes, it's a valid question but the fuzziness of the law gives them enough room to interpret it either way.
Okay lets take your example. A & B are graduates with a Bachelors degree (A is a Mechanical and B is Computer Science). A decides to pursue higher study in Mechanical field and B takes up a Software job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school. A joins a software company (His Masters in Mechanical is worth nothing now). EB2 is filed for A just because he has a Masters, B is also eligible for EB2 by that time. Why can't B get a earlier PD? Atleast B got relevant industry experience. How come A is superior than B?
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
Regarding the EB1 spillover - yes, it's a valid question but the fuzziness of the law gives them enough room to interpret it either way.
Okay lets take your example. A & B are graduates with a Bachelors degree (A is a Mechanical and B is Computer Science). A decides to pursue higher study in Mechanical field and B takes up a Software job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school. A joins a software company (His Masters in Mechanical is worth nothing now). EB2 is filed for A just because he has a Masters, B is also eligible for EB2 by that time. Why can't B get a earlier PD? Atleast B got relevant industry experience. How come A is superior than B?
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
2010 Will has an older son, Trey
bfadlia
01-06 12:57 PM
Discussion of non EB related issues should be stopped.
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
I agree with you in principle..
but then again several thread of same sort have been running for weeks with mostly flaming content while being blessed by admins and senior members.. what makes one conflict employment related and another not much so?
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
I agree with you in principle..
but then again several thread of same sort have been running for weeks with mostly flaming content while being blessed by admins and senior members.. what makes one conflict employment related and another not much so?
more...
gimme_GC2006
04-13 09:36 PM
Dear friend - looks like ur sugar levels are going up and down - hang in there. I think you will be fine. Thanks for sharing your experiences with people here.
hehhehe..yeah my sugar levels and stock market indexes have synchronized themselves very well now..next up/down is always a guess :p
hehhehe..yeah my sugar levels and stock market indexes have synchronized themselves very well now..next up/down is always a guess :p
hair Will smith football images
niklshah
01-07 10:35 AM
Those who said, Hamas was hiding inside school and firing rockets, go check the fact in CNN.
U.N. 'sure' no militants at school hit by Israeli troops
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/07/israel.gaza.school/index.html
Human sheild, hiding in hospital, hiding in mosques, hiding in school - All are big lie and bullshit. Just to justify the killing of innocent lives.
oh every one saw your link u sent, did u see CNN when they were showing mumbai killings.. Palestine and Israel are fighting for land and occupation but what was fault of people in mumbai??? think hard man if this war needs to be stopped it has to be stopped from all the sides u cant blame single community or nation for this..........
U.N. 'sure' no militants at school hit by Israeli troops
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/07/israel.gaza.school/index.html
Human sheild, hiding in hospital, hiding in mosques, hiding in school - All are big lie and bullshit. Just to justify the killing of innocent lives.
oh every one saw your link u sent, did u see CNN when they were showing mumbai killings.. Palestine and Israel are fighting for land and occupation but what was fault of people in mumbai??? think hard man if this war needs to be stopped it has to be stopped from all the sides u cant blame single community or nation for this..........
more...
WantGCQuick
06-08 10:11 AM
I think nowadays you can get great deals in suwanee area, but in alpharetta area (ATLANTA) which is couple of exits towards the city on 400 highway.. are still selling for 400K..I am talking about 3000 sq ft, houses.. I got a quote for 420K with basement 3070 sqft.. with decent upgrades...
and these homes are closely built compared to the ones in suwanee area..
The homes prices never came down in these areas!!
and these homes are closely built compared to the ones in suwanee area..
The homes prices never came down in these areas!!
hot Will Smith#39;s Son Trey
milind70
07-10 12:51 AM
desi is correct...
Everytime you extend non immigrant status; you are extending the white I-94 card on your last entry.
However; if you leave after the last extension and you re-enter then the white I-94 card you receive at the border overrides all previous white I-94 cards; extension of stays.
This is where the problem occurs:
H-1b for company A visa is valid until July 2009 and the h-1b approval for a is also valid until july 2009. You come into USA on white I-94 card and they gave validity until July 2009.
Now; you file for change of employer and extend status until July 2010. The notice of action will have the same I-94 number as the date of your last entry.
Now; you go outside USA; on your way back in the port of entry officer mistakenly gives you a white I-94 card only valid until your visa expires (july 2009). Now; if you overstay July 2009 then you would have been considered to be unlawfully present from July 2009.
Bottom line: your last action generally overrules your stay.
Such mistakes can be corrected by CBP defered inspectors but they will only correct typo errors by the CBP at POE . For other mistakes u need to file Form I 102 with USCIS.
Everytime you extend non immigrant status; you are extending the white I-94 card on your last entry.
However; if you leave after the last extension and you re-enter then the white I-94 card you receive at the border overrides all previous white I-94 cards; extension of stays.
This is where the problem occurs:
H-1b for company A visa is valid until July 2009 and the h-1b approval for a is also valid until july 2009. You come into USA on white I-94 card and they gave validity until July 2009.
Now; you file for change of employer and extend status until July 2010. The notice of action will have the same I-94 number as the date of your last entry.
Now; you go outside USA; on your way back in the port of entry officer mistakenly gives you a white I-94 card only valid until your visa expires (july 2009). Now; if you overstay July 2009 then you would have been considered to be unlawfully present from July 2009.
Bottom line: your last action generally overrules your stay.
Such mistakes can be corrected by CBP defered inspectors but they will only correct typo errors by the CBP at POE . For other mistakes u need to file Form I 102 with USCIS.
more...
house will smith son trey smith.
go_guy123
07-28 03:39 PM
Asain-Americans seems to favor Obama overwhelmingly as per this survey. its interesting to read the survey - these immigrants who have gone thru the process themselves and might have friends/relatives in the process - didnt mention immigration as one of their important topic to decide on the vote. Understandably economy is the top topic but was expecting to see immigration atleast behind economy.
POLITICS-US: Asian Americans Tilt Heavily Toward Obama - IPS ipsnews.net (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44144)
Bulk come through family based/asylum etc and very little come through skilled immigration. As H1B you are better off with GOP.
GOP wants to restrict the family based as well....source of chain immigration.
POLITICS-US: Asian Americans Tilt Heavily Toward Obama - IPS ipsnews.net (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44144)
Bulk come through family based/asylum etc and very little come through skilled immigration. As H1B you are better off with GOP.
GOP wants to restrict the family based as well....source of chain immigration.
tattoo Will and Jada couldn#39;t contain
bfadlia
01-07 02:16 PM
Until AD 1100, everybody in Egypt are christians, the arabs conquer there and killed many and convert them. Few are left as christians. Now only 10%. Ask any egyptian christians. They need to pay JAZIA to be live as christians. The language COPTIC now only in church. Coptic sound similar to Latin. Abrabs imposed their language, where ever they conquer. They cut the tongue of people, who spoke native language. See in India, moguls made Urdu and make Arabic script for it.Egyptian christians are only real egyptians. Muslim egyptians are mixed people with Arab warriors. War children.
Real egyptians are here in USA, you can talk to them, they are nice people no terrorist, brain washed bastards. Go to a coptic chrch and see these people.
Same happened in Kashmir. Pandits are the real Kashmiris. The Kashmiri muslims are children of the Kashmiri women and arab invaders. Now they kicking real Indian pandits out from kashmir, and they live in own country as refugees.
In the end all terrorist, satanic nations wiped out at the second coming of Jesus. Those good muslims belive him will be saved. Others will go to hell.
I guess you meant 700 AD not 1100 AD.
Here's a something along your train of thought.. before 300 AD all egyptians worshipped the sun god "Ra" until a Roman emperor converted to Christianity and made it the official religion, he still persecuted christian egyptians because the coptic version of christianity differed from his.
Ra worshippers are the only true egyptians.. any idea where i can find them?
cheers.
Real egyptians are here in USA, you can talk to them, they are nice people no terrorist, brain washed bastards. Go to a coptic chrch and see these people.
Same happened in Kashmir. Pandits are the real Kashmiris. The Kashmiri muslims are children of the Kashmiri women and arab invaders. Now they kicking real Indian pandits out from kashmir, and they live in own country as refugees.
In the end all terrorist, satanic nations wiped out at the second coming of Jesus. Those good muslims belive him will be saved. Others will go to hell.
I guess you meant 700 AD not 1100 AD.
Here's a something along your train of thought.. before 300 AD all egyptians worshipped the sun god "Ra" until a Roman emperor converted to Christianity and made it the official religion, he still persecuted christian egyptians because the coptic version of christianity differed from his.
Ra worshippers are the only true egyptians.. any idea where i can find them?
cheers.
more...
pictures will smith son jaden smith.
funny
09-30 03:05 PM
How hard is it to figure out that people used AC21 and moved to another company, so the previous employer is out of the picture?. Why should the previous employer�s ability to pay matter?.
Beacuse somehow USCIS is not looking into AC21 documentation also most of the time you don't even know that your AC21 letter has been places in your file or not, on the other hand when an employer send out the revocation request it seems to reached USCIS and they deny the 485 with out calculating that its been 180 days since 485 is pending and also suppose a company filed 100 485 caes in July 2007 out of those 20 has changed the Job using Ac21, now the company is filing for 20 news GCs and in the I140 stage recievs rfe for Ability to Pay, the company will have to prove the A2Pay for 120 people as oppose to only 100 ( 80 old + 20 new) , so the lawyers must be suggesting to tell USCIS that the 20 people are not on our list and we should not be asked to prove Ability to PAY for these and hence the revocation and a 485 deniel. The only issue here is that USCIS acts quickly on I140 revocation cases becuase it reduces on case from the workload and they don't bother to calculate when was 180 days done for the poor guy.
does this make sense, I will like to know what other people think about it.
Beacuse somehow USCIS is not looking into AC21 documentation also most of the time you don't even know that your AC21 letter has been places in your file or not, on the other hand when an employer send out the revocation request it seems to reached USCIS and they deny the 485 with out calculating that its been 180 days since 485 is pending and also suppose a company filed 100 485 caes in July 2007 out of those 20 has changed the Job using Ac21, now the company is filing for 20 news GCs and in the I140 stage recievs rfe for Ability to Pay, the company will have to prove the A2Pay for 120 people as oppose to only 100 ( 80 old + 20 new) , so the lawyers must be suggesting to tell USCIS that the 20 people are not on our list and we should not be asked to prove Ability to PAY for these and hence the revocation and a 485 deniel. The only issue here is that USCIS acts quickly on I140 revocation cases becuase it reduces on case from the workload and they don't bother to calculate when was 180 days done for the poor guy.
does this make sense, I will like to know what other people think about it.
dresses hair Will Smith, son Trey,
sanju
12-17 04:38 PM
sledge_hammer, xyzgc, truthiness,
please remove bold text from your post in response to acool. In the words of Contessa Brewer, acool is a Fother Mucker.
.
please remove bold text from your post in response to acool. In the words of Contessa Brewer, acool is a Fother Mucker.
.
more...
makeup Do You Really Know Will Smith?
nojoke
04-21 04:19 PM
The trillion-dollar mortgage time bomb
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/21/news/economy/fannie_freddie/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/21/news/economy/fannie_freddie/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular
girlfriend hot Will Smith and Trey Smith
bazuka6
07-13 02:15 AM
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Sorry .. I don't understand ... You are complaining to DOS for USCIS and DOL discrepancies ? They don't care ..different departments really..
Had they cared July fiasco wouldn't have happened...
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Sorry .. I don't understand ... You are complaining to DOS for USCIS and DOL discrepancies ? They don't care ..different departments really..
Had they cared July fiasco wouldn't have happened...
hairstyles Will Smith was spotted at Oaks
Pagal
06-20 03:45 PM
Hello Hiralal,
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
pani_6
07-12 11:29 PM
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
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