minimalist
08-06 11:46 AM
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US. EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
Well, then why are they allocating Visas to EB3s. They should give all visas to EB2 and then only go to EB3.
Your statement that EB2 requires higher qualification is correct. But the number of jobs requiring those qualifications are less.Doesn't mean people taking up jobs that fall into EB3 category have inferior qualifications. Think of it this way. There may be many people who may be qualified to be a CEO but there will be only one CEO for company.
EB3 has a lot more applicants because of the 245 cases that were filed in 2001. So get off the pedestal and think normally.
So you are an undesirable/inferior when compared to people in EB1? If you feel so then you have serious self esteem issues.
Don't try to spread such inferiority complex.
Well, then why are they allocating Visas to EB3s. They should give all visas to EB2 and then only go to EB3.
Your statement that EB2 requires higher qualification is correct. But the number of jobs requiring those qualifications are less.Doesn't mean people taking up jobs that fall into EB3 category have inferior qualifications. Think of it this way. There may be many people who may be qualified to be a CEO but there will be only one CEO for company.
EB3 has a lot more applicants because of the 245 cases that were filed in 2001. So get off the pedestal and think normally.
So you are an undesirable/inferior when compared to people in EB1? If you feel so then you have serious self esteem issues.
Don't try to spread such inferiority complex.
wallpaper Zidane Epic wallpaper by
dealsnet
01-07 03:10 PM
Jesus didn't change any commandments. Read bible and comment. He said about the summary for the 10 commnandment. He said 1. love your God 2. Love your neighbour. It contains all commandments. Read the commandments. You will see it contains these 2 meanings only.
Jesu's birth, life and cruxification are done according to the prophesy in old textment. If you have time read it. Christians didn't changed old testment. But most of the jews not recognise him during the time. Those recognise him convert to christianity. They suffered because of their non belief. But details in the bible for the second coming of jesus and the nation of Israel to prepare for his coming, so the present day jews are supported by God. In the end they all belive the mesiah.
About trinity, we human cannot understand the complexity of God. We still cannot understand or expalin the nature mysteries, how we can understand God in detail??. But God revealed some details to his people through prophet. Malachi is the last prophet. It is the last book in the old testment. After that mesiah was come to the world. God was revealed to human. So no arab can claim to be last prophet. It is blasphamy to claim as phrophet by any one.
Buddy.. I'm not trying to argue with you.. just hope you get more information about what you are talking about.
1- Coptic tradition claims that St. Mark brought Christianity to Egypt around 50 CE. A small community of Christians developed in Alexandria in the late first century, and became more numerous by the end of the second century. Some similarities in beliefs helped Christianity to be accepted by Egyptians, including the beliefs that the Egyptian god Osiris was both human and god, the resurrection of Osiris, and the godly triad of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
During the third and fourth centuries, the Romans persecuted various religious dissidents, especially Christians. The emperor Diocletian attempted to restructure and unify the Empire, and instigated some harsh reforms which led to rebellion among the Egyptians. Diocletian then began extensive persecutions of Christians, which was referred to by Copts as the Era of Martyrs. The year of Diocletian's accession (284 CE) was designated Year One in the Coptic Christian calendar in order to observe the tragedies. Christianity was threatening to the Roman Empire because its strong monotheistic belief "made it impossible for its serious adherents to acknowledge the Roman emperor as a deity" (Carroll 1988). Also, many important leadership positions in Egyptian society and the military were held by Christians.
2- According to Jews, god would never change the commandments of the old testament which jesus did.. so for them he was blasphemous.. you just shrug this off as a christian.. by the same token why do u think muslims would care what u think of Mohamed?
Speak for yourself and stop talking on behalf of god.
Jesu's birth, life and cruxification are done according to the prophesy in old textment. If you have time read it. Christians didn't changed old testment. But most of the jews not recognise him during the time. Those recognise him convert to christianity. They suffered because of their non belief. But details in the bible for the second coming of jesus and the nation of Israel to prepare for his coming, so the present day jews are supported by God. In the end they all belive the mesiah.
About trinity, we human cannot understand the complexity of God. We still cannot understand or expalin the nature mysteries, how we can understand God in detail??. But God revealed some details to his people through prophet. Malachi is the last prophet. It is the last book in the old testment. After that mesiah was come to the world. God was revealed to human. So no arab can claim to be last prophet. It is blasphamy to claim as phrophet by any one.
Buddy.. I'm not trying to argue with you.. just hope you get more information about what you are talking about.
1- Coptic tradition claims that St. Mark brought Christianity to Egypt around 50 CE. A small community of Christians developed in Alexandria in the late first century, and became more numerous by the end of the second century. Some similarities in beliefs helped Christianity to be accepted by Egyptians, including the beliefs that the Egyptian god Osiris was both human and god, the resurrection of Osiris, and the godly triad of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
During the third and fourth centuries, the Romans persecuted various religious dissidents, especially Christians. The emperor Diocletian attempted to restructure and unify the Empire, and instigated some harsh reforms which led to rebellion among the Egyptians. Diocletian then began extensive persecutions of Christians, which was referred to by Copts as the Era of Martyrs. The year of Diocletian's accession (284 CE) was designated Year One in the Coptic Christian calendar in order to observe the tragedies. Christianity was threatening to the Roman Empire because its strong monotheistic belief "made it impossible for its serious adherents to acknowledge the Roman emperor as a deity" (Carroll 1988). Also, many important leadership positions in Egyptian society and the military were held by Christians.
2- According to Jews, god would never change the commandments of the old testament which jesus did.. so for them he was blasphemous.. you just shrug this off as a christian.. by the same token why do u think muslims would care what u think of Mohamed?
Speak for yourself and stop talking on behalf of god.
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
2011 Sony PSP Wallpaper:Zidane#39;s
sledge_hammer
12-17 04:31 PM
You're from Camaroon, what are you getting all worked up about?
I told you guys.. This site name should HIV-Hindu Immigration VoiceNow
I told you guys.. This site name should HIV-Hindu Immigration VoiceNow
more...
Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
iwantmygreen
04-15 01:50 PM
NoJoke you are a genius. I think NKR & Kaiserose intentions are to just hurt others emotions.
more...
GC_US_64
12-26 05:08 PM
CNBC. They are also airing a programme on immigration at 8pm eastern.
2010 Brown Wallpaper for Zinedine
NKR
03-25 04:11 PM
not as easy as you say.
when you actually sell - you need to get it cleaned - empty and it stays on th block for sometime. about parents - your remark again would be different for different people.
would you be able to care for yr parents more if you are renting or if you own a house with big bills ?? with renting, you can leave at a day or 2 days notice !! with house - not so easy ! . with renting you can probably stay there for a longer time - if u have a house maybe not. This is another big reason I chose to rent even though someone in India is taking care of the elders. GC matters here too - maybe u can take longer vacations if u have GC and a house. but on EAD --renting seems to be the way :-).
as for kids - till the age of 5 - 6, apt and house does not really make much difference for kids ..they just need a place to jump / spoil walls / have friends and play in park / school.
ofcourse the foreclosures and firesale deals may change things - hey if you can get a house for half its cost and if you have the guts / courage to go through the whole thing ..then why not. people need to be careful too ..if people are still staying in the house ...it is a nightmare to remove them...bank repos or thru agents would be safer
Nobody said it is easy mate. If you are paranoid and want to be safe and prepare for the worst case (like getting fired or your 485 getting rejected) then don�t buy a house. It is a long haul and no one knows when his/her PD would become current. By the time one gets GC, the kids would have grown up and missed their childhood. Read my previous 3 posts. My suggestion was for the person who started this thread and for his situation only. I know each and every person�s situation is different. Like I said if I was in CA, probably I would be renting too.
when you actually sell - you need to get it cleaned - empty and it stays on th block for sometime. about parents - your remark again would be different for different people.
would you be able to care for yr parents more if you are renting or if you own a house with big bills ?? with renting, you can leave at a day or 2 days notice !! with house - not so easy ! . with renting you can probably stay there for a longer time - if u have a house maybe not. This is another big reason I chose to rent even though someone in India is taking care of the elders. GC matters here too - maybe u can take longer vacations if u have GC and a house. but on EAD --renting seems to be the way :-).
as for kids - till the age of 5 - 6, apt and house does not really make much difference for kids ..they just need a place to jump / spoil walls / have friends and play in park / school.
ofcourse the foreclosures and firesale deals may change things - hey if you can get a house for half its cost and if you have the guts / courage to go through the whole thing ..then why not. people need to be careful too ..if people are still staying in the house ...it is a nightmare to remove them...bank repos or thru agents would be safer
Nobody said it is easy mate. If you are paranoid and want to be safe and prepare for the worst case (like getting fired or your 485 getting rejected) then don�t buy a house. It is a long haul and no one knows when his/her PD would become current. By the time one gets GC, the kids would have grown up and missed their childhood. Read my previous 3 posts. My suggestion was for the person who started this thread and for his situation only. I know each and every person�s situation is different. Like I said if I was in CA, probably I would be renting too.
more...
axp817
03-27 03:44 PM
ok..My docs have been received by AO.
AO? Adjudicating officer?
Good luck, keep us posted.
AO? Adjudicating officer?
Good luck, keep us posted.
hair zinedine-zidane-wallpaper
ImmInd
08-05 10:59 AM
My Friend 'Rolling_Flood':
Please remember that EB2 is better than EB3. As someone mentioned, people always want to move up in all activities (work, life, anything).
And, please remember what will happen if you (iff you are in EB2 now) fall down due to some issues in EB2 case documents or filing, etc ? You may start with EB3 again and we will not tell you at that time saying ' you are EB3 guy and low skilled category'. We still feel bad for you.
I have Masters, more then 5 yrs exp (at that time of filing) and EB2 Title - but, my employer has some restrictions which limits them to not file in EB2. I ended up in EB3 :)
I do not intend to attack - but, we are trying to just explain... Again, I am not affended !!! Please read and think before you post something like this...
Please remember that EB2 is better than EB3. As someone mentioned, people always want to move up in all activities (work, life, anything).
And, please remember what will happen if you (iff you are in EB2 now) fall down due to some issues in EB2 case documents or filing, etc ? You may start with EB3 again and we will not tell you at that time saying ' you are EB3 guy and low skilled category'. We still feel bad for you.
I have Masters, more then 5 yrs exp (at that time of filing) and EB2 Title - but, my employer has some restrictions which limits them to not file in EB2. I ended up in EB3 :)
I do not intend to attack - but, we are trying to just explain... Again, I am not affended !!! Please read and think before you post something like this...
more...
unitednations
03-24 11:39 AM
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
I had little knowledge of immigration and of the type of people on h-1b and the type of companies who sponsor greencards when I first started perusing immigration boards. I thought many people were like me.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
I had little knowledge of immigration and of the type of people on h-1b and the type of companies who sponsor greencards when I first started perusing immigration boards. I thought many people were like me.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
hot wallpapers zidane. wallpaper
thuristic
04-18 05:44 PM
Lou Dobbs at CNN is doing a quick vote to justify his oppinions against amnesty. So far, the majority of the vote is "against" rather than "for". I myself am not a big fan of the proposal becauses it deminishes efforts put in by legal immigrats like ourselves but regardless consider it necessary for us to support as it currently is the only bill alive including retrogression relief along with amnesty.
Media generates publicity by twisting a small fraction of reality. Imagine what Lou would say if he gets a unanimous vote against amnesty. I am sure he will make the best of it to promote negativism towards any relief efforts regardless of it being amnesty or retrogression relief. Please go to the URL below and cast your support vote!
Question: Do you believe Congress should first demand that our borders and ports be secured before taking up immigration reform?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Media generates publicity by twisting a small fraction of reality. Imagine what Lou would say if he gets a unanimous vote against amnesty. I am sure he will make the best of it to promote negativism towards any relief efforts regardless of it being amnesty or retrogression relief. Please go to the URL below and cast your support vote!
Question: Do you believe Congress should first demand that our borders and ports be secured before taking up immigration reform?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
more...
house wallpapers zidane. tribal
Macaca
01-28 09:01 AM
Lou Dobbs does not present all facts. He presents facts to support his agenda; he is against legal immigration. He is NOT a news reporter. This is very obvious. Most balanced minds ignore his rants.
He is the only one on CNN who presents his opinions. I think he has a special contract. CNN wants viewers with his opnion.
He is the only one on CNN who presents his opinions. I think he has a special contract. CNN wants viewers with his opnion.
tattoo Zinedine Zidane Wallpaper
lfwf
08-06 03:38 PM
Dude, I did not personally bash anyone let alone give you a red dot, I was just putting forth my opinions which you and some of our ilk did not like which is fair enough.
You guys saying guys with Masters are from heaven compared to EB3 guys getting 5+ years experience is like personally bashing each and everyone who falls in that category.
You repeatedly insist on looking at things that way. No one is from heaven and no one is precluding Bs+5 from applying for EB2. They should, why not?
The question is only: Is it fair for them to get that entire 5 years in their PD as a jump on those who filed EB2 after an advanced degree. That's it. Nothing more or less than that. Please don't read needless nonsense into this. I have no interest in inferior, superior, holier, more genuine etc.
Nor am i bashing experience and all that. the question simply whether the advantage for going from EB3 to Eb2 should be magnified by allowing the old PD to be ported with it. This kind of situation puts people like me (7 years of education! multiple degrees...) at a serious disadvantage. We would potentially have to wait for every single EB3 that came to the US >5 years ago (even well after we came) to get their GC before ever standing a chance.
Because they would all be BS+5....and we can't match their PDs. And we have waited as long or more.
You guys saying guys with Masters are from heaven compared to EB3 guys getting 5+ years experience is like personally bashing each and everyone who falls in that category.
You repeatedly insist on looking at things that way. No one is from heaven and no one is precluding Bs+5 from applying for EB2. They should, why not?
The question is only: Is it fair for them to get that entire 5 years in their PD as a jump on those who filed EB2 after an advanced degree. That's it. Nothing more or less than that. Please don't read needless nonsense into this. I have no interest in inferior, superior, holier, more genuine etc.
Nor am i bashing experience and all that. the question simply whether the advantage for going from EB3 to Eb2 should be magnified by allowing the old PD to be ported with it. This kind of situation puts people like me (7 years of education! multiple degrees...) at a serious disadvantage. We would potentially have to wait for every single EB3 that came to the US >5 years ago (even well after we came) to get their GC before ever standing a chance.
Because they would all be BS+5....and we can't match their PDs. And we have waited as long or more.
more...
pictures Zinedine-Zidane-wallpaper-23-
nogc_noproblem
08-06 09:55 PM
An old man went to the Wizard to ask him if he could remove a curse he had been living with for the last 40 years. The Wizard said, "Maybe, but you will have to tell me the exact words that were used to put the curse on you." The old man says without hesitation, "I now pronounce you man and wife."
dresses Zidane wallpaper
dontcareanymore
08-05 02:16 PM
Good points, but let me put a counter argument. Two people , one is named SunnySurya and the other is named Mr XYZ. Both came to the USA at the same time in 1999. The difference was SunnySurya came here for his masters and the other guy came here through shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
And let me add another twist to the story.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
And let me add another twist to the story.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
more...
makeup Zinedine Zidane 5
ilwaiting
04-09 11:09 AM
Looks like everyone want to talk about their specific selfish advantages and ignore the problem on a whole if this bill passes.
I think this bill ironically works out well for doctors and researchers!
We are not consultants.Most of the times we stick to one place. Either doing residency or postdoc we are usually in one place. Most universities are very rigorous with the labour certification process and residency is obtained via "match".
The consulting companies have been responsible for for flooding the GC process. Consequently researchers and doctors have to wait with the rest of the crowd. This new bills will turn out to be very advantageous to doctors and scientists ( in nonprofit organizations).
Would like to hear opinions for and against this view......
I think this bill ironically works out well for doctors and researchers!
We are not consultants.Most of the times we stick to one place. Either doing residency or postdoc we are usually in one place. Most universities are very rigorous with the labour certification process and residency is obtained via "match".
The consulting companies have been responsible for for flooding the GC process. Consequently researchers and doctors have to wait with the rest of the crowd. This new bills will turn out to be very advantageous to doctors and scientists ( in nonprofit organizations).
Would like to hear opinions for and against this view......
girlfriend Download This Wallpaper
satishku_2000
05-16 12:41 AM
Law is giving them to right for their unfair practice. So congress is trying to fix the law. Most of them may be abiding law but using unfair practice which affects many people. So there is nothing wrong in fixing the law. Actually they should have applied H1b whenever they need. But they applied H1b for 1 or 2 years so that they will find a job later whereas companies which are having immediate requirement could not find H1b. Is this right practice though 100% legal
If congress so concerned about outsourcing to India or some other country , why dont they ban outsourcing completely by american companies. I think one of biggest user of outsourcing is US army that is directly controlled by U.S congress. :D
If congress so concerned about outsourcing to India or some other country , why dont they ban outsourcing completely by american companies. I think one of biggest user of outsourcing is US army that is directly controlled by U.S congress. :D
hairstyles house Zidane+tribal+wallpaper
akkakarla
07-15 11:28 AM
Let us be honest. A lot of us who came through body shops had to pay lawyer fee or had to take a cut in pay. Many of us had to sit in the bench for a long time with out pay. At the end of the day, not all of us are the best and the brightest but we are ready to work harder than the average Joe. With or without us this country will go forward. We are here to get a greencard and to become part of the melting pot. Please admit it my friends. I fully understands why many Americans are against us. We simply take their job. Then we insult them. Then we say, if we go back the American economy will go to hell. The companies are here for cheap labor. The congressmen who support them are the biggest receivers of their contribution. That is the reality. Let us not forget that. :D
You cannot make a definite conclusion that everyone come through Body Shops and Stay on Bench etc. There are many who came to do Masters and got good jobs on H1B. Because of few rare incidents you cannot generalise that everyone do the same. We Indians(atleast the indians I know) never felt that way of American economy will go to hell blah blah if we are not there. Maybe you feel that way then it shows your arrogance. We need to be careful not to dig grave by ourselves by posting or quoting rare incidents because Immigration Opposing people frequently visit these forums and take them as "Quote: An Indian Posted like this on that forum"
You cannot make a definite conclusion that everyone come through Body Shops and Stay on Bench etc. There are many who came to do Masters and got good jobs on H1B. Because of few rare incidents you cannot generalise that everyone do the same. We Indians(atleast the indians I know) never felt that way of American economy will go to hell blah blah if we are not there. Maybe you feel that way then it shows your arrogance. We need to be careful not to dig grave by ourselves by posting or quoting rare incidents because Immigration Opposing people frequently visit these forums and take them as "Quote: An Indian Posted like this on that forum"
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.
obviously
08-05 09:48 AM
... and dont forget that you drink from it too.
Take the $500 or $1000 and contribute to IV so that we can get a solid resolution.
No wonder illegals are so strong. United they stand. Pity 'highly educated' workers use their 'intelligence' for matters nefarious and counter-productive. No wonder we are in this situation to start with.
If there were a collective voice with strong bargaining power, we would have not been in this situation.
Law breakers are feared. Law abiding folks are derided.
Go on, feed Loo Dogs for yet another sensational story on why ALL immigrants need to go back.
Dont forget, for the average Joe anyone that does not 'look like them' can be a target for hate crime and resentment. PR about a case like this can only make the entire community weaker. If you happen to be Indian, what is to stop someone that is upset about immigrants not targeting you or your family? They wont know that YOU are their protector in chief, with the lawsuit stuck in your backpocket. You are but a symbol of the problem that you make out to be.
Seriously. I have been involved in very key discussions with very senior public figures. Their number one pet peeve: You guys are so divided, even if we wanted to help, we are unable to.
You just go on to prove their point.
It is understandable that you are upset about what you see as being 'unfair'... just extrapolate that to the Ron Hiras of the world and NumberUSAs of the world ... you are feeding the larger cause of hatred towards highly skilled workers ... by creating a false impression that highly skilled workers abuse the system...
Dont make your pillow peeves an issue that comes back to hurt ALL, including you. On many dimensions. This is serious stuff. Think about it.
Take the $500 or $1000 and contribute to IV so that we can get a solid resolution.
No wonder illegals are so strong. United they stand. Pity 'highly educated' workers use their 'intelligence' for matters nefarious and counter-productive. No wonder we are in this situation to start with.
If there were a collective voice with strong bargaining power, we would have not been in this situation.
Law breakers are feared. Law abiding folks are derided.
Go on, feed Loo Dogs for yet another sensational story on why ALL immigrants need to go back.
Dont forget, for the average Joe anyone that does not 'look like them' can be a target for hate crime and resentment. PR about a case like this can only make the entire community weaker. If you happen to be Indian, what is to stop someone that is upset about immigrants not targeting you or your family? They wont know that YOU are their protector in chief, with the lawsuit stuck in your backpocket. You are but a symbol of the problem that you make out to be.
Seriously. I have been involved in very key discussions with very senior public figures. Their number one pet peeve: You guys are so divided, even if we wanted to help, we are unable to.
You just go on to prove their point.
It is understandable that you are upset about what you see as being 'unfair'... just extrapolate that to the Ron Hiras of the world and NumberUSAs of the world ... you are feeding the larger cause of hatred towards highly skilled workers ... by creating a false impression that highly skilled workers abuse the system...
Dont make your pillow peeves an issue that comes back to hurt ALL, including you. On many dimensions. This is serious stuff. Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment