imvoice1234
01-08 12:36 PM
Muslims are cowerds. They never come out in open and attack. They take the means of Jihad etc....
No matter how highly educated they are. Their basic nature remains the same. Every Muslim country u name it has a problem with either their neighbouts. They do not belive in harmony an co existance. surprisingly they also fight among themselves.
Read the link below on how mean they are.
http://www.rense.com/general29/FAHD.HTM
Now this article states the Israel - Palestine conflict clearly.
God bless Israel. God has always been with Israel.
No matter how highly educated they are. Their basic nature remains the same. Every Muslim country u name it has a problem with either their neighbouts. They do not belive in harmony an co existance. surprisingly they also fight among themselves.
Read the link below on how mean they are.
http://www.rense.com/general29/FAHD.HTM
Now this article states the Israel - Palestine conflict clearly.
God bless Israel. God has always been with Israel.
wallpaper Free Love is like Music
logiclife
11-15 10:55 AM
Today's entire column written by Lou Dobbs is something that our dear Lou is really familiar with.
No, its not middle class.
No, its not the illegal immigration or the minimum wage.
And no, its not outsourcing and corporate greed.
Its ...tada..LOU DOBBS.
So today, on CNN.com Lou Dobbs presents : Lou Dobbs. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html)
See, this the first sign a journalist is losing traction and becoming pathetic. He starts talking about himself/herself.
That's why, like I said before in a previous thread, there is nothing to worry about from this guy, he is really George Costanza of CNN, only less funny and a little more portly.
-Enjoy-
No, its not middle class.
No, its not the illegal immigration or the minimum wage.
And no, its not outsourcing and corporate greed.
Its ...tada..LOU DOBBS.
So today, on CNN.com Lou Dobbs presents : Lou Dobbs. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html)
See, this the first sign a journalist is losing traction and becoming pathetic. He starts talking about himself/herself.
That's why, like I said before in a previous thread, there is nothing to worry about from this guy, he is really George Costanza of CNN, only less funny and a little more portly.
-Enjoy-
chintu25
08-08 06:54 PM
Boss: Where were you born ?
Santa: Oye Punjab.
Boss: Which part?
Santa: Oye, Kya which part? Whole body born in Punjab.
Santa: Oye Punjab.
Boss: Which part?
Santa: Oye, Kya which part? Whole body born in Punjab.
2011 girlfriend wallpaper love.
Macaca
12-21 09:53 AM
Despite �High Note,� Bush Scolds Congress as Wasteful (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21bush.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1198249370-yXwz0kW/+W6bJYa4zIwlqA) By STEVEN LEE MYERS | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Having beaten back most of the Democrats� legislative initiatives, President Bush chided Congress on Thursday for wasteful spending and announced that his budget director would seek ways to reverse some of the thousands of spending projects attached to a huge spending bill.
Mr. Bush said he and the Congress had ended the year �on a high note,� welcoming a new energy bill, provisions to help people struggling to refinance mortgages, a deferral of the alternative minimum tax that could have affected millions of middle-class taxpayers and an agreement on a $555 billion spending plan that avoided new taxes.
But reflecting the partisan divides that overshadowed those accomplishments, he promptly criticized Congress, citing a sluggish pace of work, refusal to adopt other pieces of legislation important to the White House and its affection for pet spending projects known as earmarks.
�The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year,� Mr. Bush said, returning to a near-constant theme of accusing the Democrats who control Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. �When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way to run this government.�
The flurry of activity virtually ending the first session of the 110th Congress left many issues unresolved, setting the stage for new confrontations when Congress returns after the holidays. They include expanding a federal health care program for children, extending legislation allowing intelligence agencies to monitor communications and approving more spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has so far agreed to $70 billion of the $196 billion the White House has requested in emergency spending for the wars.
Mr. Bush offered no indication that he would be any more compromising with the Democrats.
�Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people�s business,� he said. �The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years.�
For Mr. Bush and the White House, who began the year facing Democratic majorities in Congress, the mood near the end of the session was almost ebullient. After shoring up wavering support for Iraq from Republicans in the summer, the White House managed to keep the party united, defeating Democratic initiatives, even if failing to win Mr. Bush�s own proposals, most prominently changes in immigration laws.
�On taxes, and national security issues generally, Republicans are in lockstep,� the White House director of legislative affairs, Candi Wolff, said in an interview, describing the president�s ability to hold his party. �We could hold the House on most votes at 146, and therefore had the veto-sustaining strength to say that bad legislation can�t get through.�
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the budget director, James A. Nussle, would review 9,800 earmarks in the last spending bill, along with 2,100 more attached to a military spending bill passed earlier.
Mr. Nussle�s spokesman, Sean M. Kevelighan, said the administration could seek to cut or redirect some spending projects approved by Congress.
�There are potential options available,� Mr. Kevelighan said, adding that it was too soon to say what, if any, spending projects could be eliminated or changed.
Frustrated Democrats accused the president of hypocrisy for attacking them after years of increasing spending under a Republican-controlled Congress. They responded by saying the earmarks in current spending bill were far more transparent � and so less wasteful � than those passed by Republican majorities during Mr. Bush�s presidency.
�Nobody said we were going to end them,� Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview in which he boasted of two of his own earmarks for schools and the police in his district. �We said you�d know who put them in.�
WASHINGTON � Having beaten back most of the Democrats� legislative initiatives, President Bush chided Congress on Thursday for wasteful spending and announced that his budget director would seek ways to reverse some of the thousands of spending projects attached to a huge spending bill.
Mr. Bush said he and the Congress had ended the year �on a high note,� welcoming a new energy bill, provisions to help people struggling to refinance mortgages, a deferral of the alternative minimum tax that could have affected millions of middle-class taxpayers and an agreement on a $555 billion spending plan that avoided new taxes.
But reflecting the partisan divides that overshadowed those accomplishments, he promptly criticized Congress, citing a sluggish pace of work, refusal to adopt other pieces of legislation important to the White House and its affection for pet spending projects known as earmarks.
�The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year,� Mr. Bush said, returning to a near-constant theme of accusing the Democrats who control Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. �When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way to run this government.�
The flurry of activity virtually ending the first session of the 110th Congress left many issues unresolved, setting the stage for new confrontations when Congress returns after the holidays. They include expanding a federal health care program for children, extending legislation allowing intelligence agencies to monitor communications and approving more spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has so far agreed to $70 billion of the $196 billion the White House has requested in emergency spending for the wars.
Mr. Bush offered no indication that he would be any more compromising with the Democrats.
�Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people�s business,� he said. �The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years.�
For Mr. Bush and the White House, who began the year facing Democratic majorities in Congress, the mood near the end of the session was almost ebullient. After shoring up wavering support for Iraq from Republicans in the summer, the White House managed to keep the party united, defeating Democratic initiatives, even if failing to win Mr. Bush�s own proposals, most prominently changes in immigration laws.
�On taxes, and national security issues generally, Republicans are in lockstep,� the White House director of legislative affairs, Candi Wolff, said in an interview, describing the president�s ability to hold his party. �We could hold the House on most votes at 146, and therefore had the veto-sustaining strength to say that bad legislation can�t get through.�
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the budget director, James A. Nussle, would review 9,800 earmarks in the last spending bill, along with 2,100 more attached to a military spending bill passed earlier.
Mr. Nussle�s spokesman, Sean M. Kevelighan, said the administration could seek to cut or redirect some spending projects approved by Congress.
�There are potential options available,� Mr. Kevelighan said, adding that it was too soon to say what, if any, spending projects could be eliminated or changed.
Frustrated Democrats accused the president of hypocrisy for attacking them after years of increasing spending under a Republican-controlled Congress. They responded by saying the earmarks in current spending bill were far more transparent � and so less wasteful � than those passed by Republican majorities during Mr. Bush�s presidency.
�Nobody said we were going to end them,� Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview in which he boasted of two of his own earmarks for schools and the police in his district. �We said you�d know who put them in.�
more...
Dhundhun
08-06 10:23 PM
This is joke on myself on my H1B life:
Creater God was busy in creation; there was very long queue for every species- humans, animals, birds, insets, etc. I was in queue of animals. Being slightly smarter, I jumped the queue and joined the queue of humans. God by mistake made me human. Soon He realized me jumping the line and cursed me as punishment to work on H1 Visa like animals.
After sometimes He realized His mistake. It was His mistake to make me human, so He blessed – OK, one fine day, when you lived through your animal's life, you will get GC, afterwards you get back again human life.
Still waiting for that fine day.
Creater God was busy in creation; there was very long queue for every species- humans, animals, birds, insets, etc. I was in queue of animals. Being slightly smarter, I jumped the queue and joined the queue of humans. God by mistake made me human. Soon He realized me jumping the line and cursed me as punishment to work on H1 Visa like animals.
After sometimes He realized His mistake. It was His mistake to make me human, so He blessed – OK, one fine day, when you lived through your animal's life, you will get GC, afterwards you get back again human life.
Still waiting for that fine day.
gcisadawg
12-27 01:31 AM
Why do you want to involve the world in a matter between Pakistan and India?
I see what you are saying. But I don't think I agree with you.
The world probably doesn't give much of a damn about it. At the end of the day, a few million nuked and dead Pakistanis and Indians are not going to be the West's headache. They will be the headache for India and Pakistan. So, nukes DO impact the options.
Yes, there would be a few million nuked pakistanis and Indians. As you said, if the world doesn't give a damn why would Rice, Brown, US Military JCOS and a bunch of others visited India and urged it to restrain caution. I challnge the Indian Govt. to widely publish the statement " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"...See how the world reacts.
The world is more worried about Militants getting their hands on Nukes and has some confidence in India's caution. Madeline Albright recently said pakistan is like a migraine for the world. How many times we have seen stories where leaders after leader, strategists after strategists express concerns that Militants may get the nuke trigger. I believe the world has a stake in neutralizing Pak's Nukes. Do you believe the Nukes are partially controlled by US at present? Or is it Zardari who has the complete control?
I see what you are saying. But I don't think I agree with you.
The world probably doesn't give much of a damn about it. At the end of the day, a few million nuked and dead Pakistanis and Indians are not going to be the West's headache. They will be the headache for India and Pakistan. So, nukes DO impact the options.
Yes, there would be a few million nuked pakistanis and Indians. As you said, if the world doesn't give a damn why would Rice, Brown, US Military JCOS and a bunch of others visited India and urged it to restrain caution. I challnge the Indian Govt. to widely publish the statement " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"...See how the world reacts.
The world is more worried about Militants getting their hands on Nukes and has some confidence in India's caution. Madeline Albright recently said pakistan is like a migraine for the world. How many times we have seen stories where leaders after leader, strategists after strategists express concerns that Militants may get the nuke trigger. I believe the world has a stake in neutralizing Pak's Nukes. Do you believe the Nukes are partially controlled by US at present? Or is it Zardari who has the complete control?
more...
Macaca
10-02 11:02 AM
As China Opens, U.S. Lobbyists Get Ready to Move In (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101672.html?hpid=sec-business) By Ariana Eunjung Cha | Washington Post Foreign Service, October 2, 2007
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
2010 Free Love Wallpaper for your
abracadabra102
12-27 08:35 PM
My comments in green.
I myself am originally from Mumbai so please dont doubt the deep sense of outrage that I feel. But amid all this talk about going to war, here are a few things to ponder
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
This is not that easy. India has much larger air force and it is very likely that Pakistani air fields are destroyed before it can destroy all of India's air fields. Yes india will sustain some damage and Pakistan will suffer much greater damage as our air force is at least twice as large, and most of those shiny Pakistani F-16s can't fly for lack of spares.
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
A failed Pakistan state is not in our interest either. A rogue state on our borders is much more dangerous than a stable country. An India victory in an Indo-Pak war is likely to weaken pakistani military control over that country and restore proper democracy in Pakistan
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
Yes wars are terrible, but look at it this way. If we do nothing, it emboldens the terrorists attacking us. They keep on striking major metros at random and this will create a very unstable environment for investment and we will loose much of the economic momentum we gained the last few years. We will bleed slowly if we just wait and watch. This is the cost of doing nothing and may turn out to be costlier than going to war (provided we win it and it is reasonable to assume India is most certain to win this war).
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
I totally agree with you on this.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
They are already working together. I, for one, do not believe all that crap Pakistan has been feeding the world/US that they are fighting Taliban/terrorists/etc. It is all smoke and mirrors to save their skin. This is basically Mush's plan and worked wonderfully so far.
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
We should certainly improve intelligence apparatus and and start covert operations, but that alone may not be enough.
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.
Nice discussion. At least takes the mind of that Feb bulletin :D
I myself am originally from Mumbai so please dont doubt the deep sense of outrage that I feel. But amid all this talk about going to war, here are a few things to ponder
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
This is not that easy. India has much larger air force and it is very likely that Pakistani air fields are destroyed before it can destroy all of India's air fields. Yes india will sustain some damage and Pakistan will suffer much greater damage as our air force is at least twice as large, and most of those shiny Pakistani F-16s can't fly for lack of spares.
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
A failed Pakistan state is not in our interest either. A rogue state on our borders is much more dangerous than a stable country. An India victory in an Indo-Pak war is likely to weaken pakistani military control over that country and restore proper democracy in Pakistan
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
Yes wars are terrible, but look at it this way. If we do nothing, it emboldens the terrorists attacking us. They keep on striking major metros at random and this will create a very unstable environment for investment and we will loose much of the economic momentum we gained the last few years. We will bleed slowly if we just wait and watch. This is the cost of doing nothing and may turn out to be costlier than going to war (provided we win it and it is reasonable to assume India is most certain to win this war).
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
I totally agree with you on this.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
They are already working together. I, for one, do not believe all that crap Pakistan has been feeding the world/US that they are fighting Taliban/terrorists/etc. It is all smoke and mirrors to save their skin. This is basically Mush's plan and worked wonderfully so far.
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
We should certainly improve intelligence apparatus and and start covert operations, but that alone may not be enough.
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.
Nice discussion. At least takes the mind of that Feb bulletin :D
more...
Marphad
12-18 12:10 PM
Well, all of the above were done to Kashmiri Pandits by terrorists. Yet we don't find any terrorists among the Pandits, who are the real victims of the Kashmir situation.
Stop trying to find excuses for terrorism. Stop this perverted sympathy for terrorists.
Well said!
Stop trying to find excuses for terrorism. Stop this perverted sympathy for terrorists.
Well said!
hair Valentines Day love wallpapers
nogc_noproblem
08-29 08:59 PM
"Love" stamps
A guy walks into a post office one day to see a middle-aged, balding man standing at the counter methodically placing "Love" stamps on bright pink envelopes with hearts all over them. He then takes out a perfume bottle and starts spraying scent all over them. His curiosity getting the better of him, he goes up to the balding man and asks him what he is doing.
The man says: "I'm sending out one thousand Valentine cards signed: 'Guess who?'"
"But why?" asks the man.
"I'm a divorce lawyer." the man replies.
A guy walks into a post office one day to see a middle-aged, balding man standing at the counter methodically placing "Love" stamps on bright pink envelopes with hearts all over them. He then takes out a perfume bottle and starts spraying scent all over them. His curiosity getting the better of him, he goes up to the balding man and asks him what he is doing.
The man says: "I'm sending out one thousand Valentine cards signed: 'Guess who?'"
"But why?" asks the man.
"I'm a divorce lawyer." the man replies.
more...
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
hot A beautiful collection of Love
nogc_noproblem
08-06 11:34 PM
A little old lady goes to the doctor and says ...
..., "Doctor, I have this problem with gas, but it doesn't really bother me too much. They never smell and are always silent. As a matter of fact, I've farted at least 20 times since I've been here in your office. You didn't know I was farting because they don't smell and are silent."
The doctor says, "I see. Here's a prescription. Take these pills 3 times a day for seven days and come back to see me next week."
The next week the lady goes back. "Doctor," she says, "I don't know what the hell you gave me, but now my farts ... although still silent... stink terribly."
The doctor says, "Good! Now that we've cleared up your sinuses, let's start working on your hearing."
..., "Doctor, I have this problem with gas, but it doesn't really bother me too much. They never smell and are always silent. As a matter of fact, I've farted at least 20 times since I've been here in your office. You didn't know I was farting because they don't smell and are silent."
The doctor says, "I see. Here's a prescription. Take these pills 3 times a day for seven days and come back to see me next week."
The next week the lady goes back. "Doctor," she says, "I don't know what the hell you gave me, but now my farts ... although still silent... stink terribly."
The doctor says, "Good! Now that we've cleared up your sinuses, let's start working on your hearing."
more...
house Love Wallpaper
pitha
04-07 09:18 AM
It�s very easy and hip to blame everything in this world on desi companies but they are not completely to blame here. Consider this scenario. They are two ways to get H1,
1. You are already in US, i.e. converting from F1 to Practical training, Practical training to H1. This is an easy option for companies because you are already in US so they come to campus interviews or fly you to there company headquarters for the interviews.
2. Now what about the people who are outside the US. How are companies going to interview them, screen them and select them, you cannot give a job to somebody outside US by interviewing them on the phone, you cannot fly them to US for interview because it is costly and has visa issues. Desi companies have an advantage here because they are interviewing the people in India and those people are working for them before they file H1. Not just big desi companies like TCS, infosys, wipro etc take this route but even American companies like IBM operating in India are do this. Big companies like Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco do not get first crack at these filings but the labor pool is increased so they do have a chance to hire them when they come to US. People transfer all the time between companies when they are on H1. I know a lot of people who are working in Cisco and Microsoft who came to US on H1 through desi companies but later on accepted full time positions in Microsoft, Cisco and other companies.
Now I am not defending desi companies nor did I ever work for desi company but I am telling you the reality. Even mom and pop desi companies are doing some service by providing a medium for employees and employers through consulting services. The only and biggest gripe I have against desi companies is that they are exploiting the h1 employees by keeping bigger margins on the H1 hourly rate.
Now if you want to reform H1, you can do things like give H1 based on credentials like UK does, you get points based on years of experience, education level (Masters, phd, bachelors etc) and give the people the ability to change jobs at will during the period of H1, that will eliminate a lot of exploitation and make it easier for companies to hire people on h1. This will eleminate some mom and pop desi consulting companies which are the middle men.
The law makers (democrats) who introduced this so called law to reform H1 are actually trying to kill H1 in the name of reform. They don�t have the backbone to come out and say H1 should be abolished but instead they are taking the back door to kill the H1 through these draconian measures.
1. You are already in US, i.e. converting from F1 to Practical training, Practical training to H1. This is an easy option for companies because you are already in US so they come to campus interviews or fly you to there company headquarters for the interviews.
2. Now what about the people who are outside the US. How are companies going to interview them, screen them and select them, you cannot give a job to somebody outside US by interviewing them on the phone, you cannot fly them to US for interview because it is costly and has visa issues. Desi companies have an advantage here because they are interviewing the people in India and those people are working for them before they file H1. Not just big desi companies like TCS, infosys, wipro etc take this route but even American companies like IBM operating in India are do this. Big companies like Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco do not get first crack at these filings but the labor pool is increased so they do have a chance to hire them when they come to US. People transfer all the time between companies when they are on H1. I know a lot of people who are working in Cisco and Microsoft who came to US on H1 through desi companies but later on accepted full time positions in Microsoft, Cisco and other companies.
Now I am not defending desi companies nor did I ever work for desi company but I am telling you the reality. Even mom and pop desi companies are doing some service by providing a medium for employees and employers through consulting services. The only and biggest gripe I have against desi companies is that they are exploiting the h1 employees by keeping bigger margins on the H1 hourly rate.
Now if you want to reform H1, you can do things like give H1 based on credentials like UK does, you get points based on years of experience, education level (Masters, phd, bachelors etc) and give the people the ability to change jobs at will during the period of H1, that will eliminate a lot of exploitation and make it easier for companies to hire people on h1. This will eleminate some mom and pop desi consulting companies which are the middle men.
The law makers (democrats) who introduced this so called law to reform H1 are actually trying to kill H1 in the name of reform. They don�t have the backbone to come out and say H1 should be abolished but instead they are taking the back door to kill the H1 through these draconian measures.
tattoo wallpaper love
khelanphelan
05-24 12:11 PM
Did the brownback amendment pass with the CIR?
more...
pictures wallpapers of love. wallpapers
pthoko
07-11 10:48 AM
Your last action dictates the status you are in. As the last I-94 has H1 Status, you have 30 days to start working with new employer (or apply for CoS to stay on L1). It is usually a good idea to file H1 without Change of Status if you don't know the start date. In that case you have to re-enter US on that visa to get into that status.
I would always suggest the real dates on any form. Section 245(k) covers out-of-status issues. Why lie and caught for fraud when we have protection under law.
If caught for fraud, it can cause some very serious issues. I-485 can be denied just on this basis.
1. Re-entry erases out-of-status and puts one in valid status. As per section 245(k), one is required to be instatus (or out of status < 180 days) since last entry into US.
2. You were out-of-status, not unlawful presence (i.e. staying past due I-94 date). So visa can not denied on the basis of out-of-status.
3. Not sure about getting visa from Canada. Is it your first time for getting H1 visa stamp?
________________________
Not a legal advice.
Yes H1B is NOT Stamped yet.
I would always suggest the real dates on any form. Section 245(k) covers out-of-status issues. Why lie and caught for fraud when we have protection under law.
If caught for fraud, it can cause some very serious issues. I-485 can be denied just on this basis.
1. Re-entry erases out-of-status and puts one in valid status. As per section 245(k), one is required to be instatus (or out of status < 180 days) since last entry into US.
2. You were out-of-status, not unlawful presence (i.e. staying past due I-94 date). So visa can not denied on the basis of out-of-status.
3. Not sure about getting visa from Canada. Is it your first time for getting H1 visa stamp?
________________________
Not a legal advice.
Yes H1B is NOT Stamped yet.
dresses hot wallpaper love quotes in
learning01
05-24 10:20 AM
I had same thoughts today, as I did a few months ago in my post in this forum.
Let's ignore quoting Lou here (don't quote the devil). Let the Ad industry be happy with him. His audience reach has climbed from 400k to 900k because of his immigration rant. I guess he will land with a thud once this dust settles down.
He is just using this to play illegals vs legals. If you watch his lousy program, he is constantly ranting that this CIR bill will increase immigration by 100 million plus in the next few years. Some time back he also said that the CIR is a covert operation to increase H1Bs and legal immigration, not just about illegal immigrants. You can tune out what Lou says, he's doing what he can to improve his ratings.
Let's ignore quoting Lou here (don't quote the devil). Let the Ad industry be happy with him. His audience reach has climbed from 400k to 900k because of his immigration rant. I guess he will land with a thud once this dust settles down.
He is just using this to play illegals vs legals. If you watch his lousy program, he is constantly ranting that this CIR bill will increase immigration by 100 million plus in the next few years. Some time back he also said that the CIR is a covert operation to increase H1Bs and legal immigration, not just about illegal immigrants. You can tune out what Lou says, he's doing what he can to improve his ratings.
more...
makeup Love
file485
07-08 11:02 AM
unitednations..!!
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
girlfriend wallpaper love heart. love
andymajumder
05-15 11:59 PM
I agree completely with mbdriver. It is unfortunate that very qualified candidates who are really smart and have job offers from Fortune 500 companies are unable to get H1B visas (I have seen a couple of such cases in my company) because Indian consultancy companies are applying for H1B visas in bulk some of which they are not even using. This abuse of the system has to stop, I know of scores of people, even people from grad schools in US who have applied for H1B through consultants even though they do not have any genuine job. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some of these guys are actually paying the consultants a few thousands of dollars for sponsering their H1B. Kudos to Congress for trying to fix this problem and trying to get to the root of this problem rather than arbitarily increasing or shutting down H1B. I hope they do take actions to close these loopholes.
What do you about how I came to the country!? I came here to take a full-time job with an American employer. I get paid above minimum wage and had a solid offer for the job BEFORE the company submitted the H-1B application.
I do realize a lot of people will be out of a 'job' (or off the bench, depending on how you look at it) with the elimination of body shopping. But guess what -- they shouldn't even be here in the first place if they don't have full-time jobs. As said before, they clog up an otherwise great visa program.
I'll give you the reason they are concerned --- the visas for the coming fiscal year emptied out IN ONE DAY, obviously indicating the H-1B program is infected with abuse beyond anyone's expectations. They are out to put and end to that charade.
I don't know what the deal is with India, but apparently more than 40% of all H-1B applications come from India based companies, for 'employees' from India. For this reason congress recently got in contact with the biggest of these companies for an explanation. Hopefully these actions will pave the way for more legit visas for the rest of us. Now don't get me wrong -- I have absolutely nothing against people from India. In fact I have really good impressions with people from India in general. But I (and congress) expect them to obey the law like everybody else.
mbdriver
What do you about how I came to the country!? I came here to take a full-time job with an American employer. I get paid above minimum wage and had a solid offer for the job BEFORE the company submitted the H-1B application.
I do realize a lot of people will be out of a 'job' (or off the bench, depending on how you look at it) with the elimination of body shopping. But guess what -- they shouldn't even be here in the first place if they don't have full-time jobs. As said before, they clog up an otherwise great visa program.
I'll give you the reason they are concerned --- the visas for the coming fiscal year emptied out IN ONE DAY, obviously indicating the H-1B program is infected with abuse beyond anyone's expectations. They are out to put and end to that charade.
I don't know what the deal is with India, but apparently more than 40% of all H-1B applications come from India based companies, for 'employees' from India. For this reason congress recently got in contact with the biggest of these companies for an explanation. Hopefully these actions will pave the way for more legit visas for the rest of us. Now don't get me wrong -- I have absolutely nothing against people from India. In fact I have really good impressions with people from India in general. But I (and congress) expect them to obey the law like everybody else.
mbdriver
hairstyles wallpaper love. wallpaper
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.
.
unseenguy
06-24 08:27 AM
see my statement yesterday:
Even if I offer current owners 20% less , the math does not make sense for me. Hence I am expecting 30% -35% correction from current expectations of the owners.
Even if I offer current owners 20% less , the math does not make sense for me. Hence I am expecting 30% -35% correction from current expectations of the owners.
leoindiano
03-25 11:31 AM
Winner, You truly are with this comment....
On a lighter note, UN and Sledge, we charge you $ for post from now on in this thread...Running out of diskspace.....
On a lighter note, UN and Sledge, we charge you $ for post from now on in this thread...Running out of diskspace.....
No comments:
Post a Comment