Beemar
12-26 11:31 PM
Pakistan's nukes' user manuals are in Chinese language. How will they know how to fire them?
BUNCH OF IDIOTS WAKE UP. PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR STATE.
WAR IS NO SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM.
BUNCH OF IDIOTS WAKE UP. PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR STATE.
WAR IS NO SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM.
wallpaper lucy liu boyfriend
Ramba
07-14 05:33 PM
What you have said is completely incorrect. EB3I stands to benefit the most from visa recapture legislation. The last time visas were recaptured was in 2000 through the AC21 legislation and as a result of the 230K or so visas that were added to the pool, the USCIS was able to keep PDs for all EB categories, EB1/2/3, EBI/C/ROW, everything current for nearly 4 yrs until 2005 when those extra numbers ran out and retrogression hit. I should know, I could have filed since 2002 but delayed because my less than knowlegable lawyer advised me when you file does not matter. I did not know didly about PD in those days.
Anyway, when you say visa recapture does not hep EB3I, that is patently FALSE. En Contraire, it is the ONLY thing that can help that category.
I 100% agree. When AC21 recaptured about 100K visas numbers in 2000, all the numbers were used to clear the backlogs in EB3 (and there were no backlogs in EB2). Infact, all the recuptured numbes came from EB2 and EB1 pool that were unused in 1998 and 1999. Thats why EB3 was current till 2004. Once AC21 numbers gone, DOS retrogressed both EB3 and EB2. In fact DOS did very big favor to EB3 by using EB2 numbers. Till 2006, DOS misinterpreted the AC21 law and allowed vertical spillover (EB2-ROW -->EB3-ROW). In 2007 they realized the mistake and interpreting the AC21 law correctly and allocating all 40,000 EB2 numbers only in EB2 catagory plus unused numbers from EB1 as per INA. As per INA, if anything left in EB2, then only it goes to EB3-ROW.
Anyway, when you say visa recapture does not hep EB3I, that is patently FALSE. En Contraire, it is the ONLY thing that can help that category.
I 100% agree. When AC21 recaptured about 100K visas numbers in 2000, all the numbers were used to clear the backlogs in EB3 (and there were no backlogs in EB2). Infact, all the recuptured numbes came from EB2 and EB1 pool that were unused in 1998 and 1999. Thats why EB3 was current till 2004. Once AC21 numbers gone, DOS retrogressed both EB3 and EB2. In fact DOS did very big favor to EB3 by using EB2 numbers. Till 2006, DOS misinterpreted the AC21 law and allowed vertical spillover (EB2-ROW -->EB3-ROW). In 2007 they realized the mistake and interpreting the AC21 law correctly and allocating all 40,000 EB2 numbers only in EB2 catagory plus unused numbers from EB1 as per INA. As per INA, if anything left in EB2, then only it goes to EB3-ROW.
rajuram
07-15 01:11 AM
EB3 India guys, please send out the letter. We need to get our concerns out there. May be some one will listen. Please send a copy to Zoe Lofergen also.
Only the squeaking wheel gets the oil. Wake up, please. Otherwise we all will be still waiting while the others are getting their citizenship!!!!
Only the squeaking wheel gets the oil. Wake up, please. Otherwise we all will be still waiting while the others are getting their citizenship!!!!
2011 Lucy Liu Pictures, Images amp;
chanduv23
05-17 07:13 AM
Behave like a high skilled person. Do not use bad words just because someone is against your opinion. Again if you use everything is appilcable to you. That means you are losing track and you do not have valid argument. You do not have sense that this thread is not for discussion for gc. This thread is about the H1b issue and Durbin bill. This my last reply for you. I will ignore you hereafter if you behave like this. I wasted my time for replying you. So you also do not reply my arguments.
Look at the bigger picture, my dear friend. The biggest thing in life that drives a man's opinion is not education or skill or awareness, it is purely perception. A good example is of the man who shot his wife as soon as she opened the door for him and all the while he was thinking that there is an intruder at home. This was his perception.
A public system always has issues and loopholes and a business is created basic on public systems like h1b or GC etc.... thats how public systems are. You are no special. Take example of American Idol. No matter how good you are, you can be voted out. You are exactly in a public system. In a pubilc system everyone goes through something that is called reality check and this will happen to anyone. If rich people think their kids must never gop through this and protect them, at some stage they have to come in terms with reality.
I am in full support of American friends who lost their jobs, and I think we must do everything we can to help them get a job. But when it comes to businesses, the logic is different. They will try to get the best deal. Everyone knows the system and its loopholes and will do best to get more competitive and get better.
Open yourself up and come out of your narrow minded approach, you will see a different world.
One thing I noticed in likes of you. You people are jelous of desi consulting companies because of their misuse of loopholes and making great money and driving ferraris. Well, if you have an option to do that, you must and if you can you must, so many American people mix hands with desi body shops on partnerships and involve in this business. While an abuse of visa may affect you, you must work hard to stop that abuse. Just to protect your self interest you are blaming them, is not right.
Look at the bigger picture, my dear friend. The biggest thing in life that drives a man's opinion is not education or skill or awareness, it is purely perception. A good example is of the man who shot his wife as soon as she opened the door for him and all the while he was thinking that there is an intruder at home. This was his perception.
A public system always has issues and loopholes and a business is created basic on public systems like h1b or GC etc.... thats how public systems are. You are no special. Take example of American Idol. No matter how good you are, you can be voted out. You are exactly in a public system. In a pubilc system everyone goes through something that is called reality check and this will happen to anyone. If rich people think their kids must never gop through this and protect them, at some stage they have to come in terms with reality.
I am in full support of American friends who lost their jobs, and I think we must do everything we can to help them get a job. But when it comes to businesses, the logic is different. They will try to get the best deal. Everyone knows the system and its loopholes and will do best to get more competitive and get better.
Open yourself up and come out of your narrow minded approach, you will see a different world.
One thing I noticed in likes of you. You people are jelous of desi consulting companies because of their misuse of loopholes and making great money and driving ferraris. Well, if you have an option to do that, you must and if you can you must, so many American people mix hands with desi body shops on partnerships and involve in this business. While an abuse of visa may affect you, you must work hard to stop that abuse. Just to protect your self interest you are blaming them, is not right.
more...
gc28262
03-24 03:03 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
All your assumptions about H1B is only for full time jobs is flawed. USCIS has not said that. There is no law that says that.
BTW why do you think LCA requirements are meant only for consulting companies ? It is applicable to all H1B candidates. That has been the law for a long time. Nothing new here for you to be happy about.
Your posts are driven by your ignorance than any legal base. You need to educate yourself in immigration perspective.
Why USCIS audits are focused on consulting companies ?
It is not because consulting is not allowed on H1B. It is because they figured out that H1B violation are more prominent among small companies.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
All your assumptions about H1B is only for full time jobs is flawed. USCIS has not said that. There is no law that says that.
BTW why do you think LCA requirements are meant only for consulting companies ? It is applicable to all H1B candidates. That has been the law for a long time. Nothing new here for you to be happy about.
Your posts are driven by your ignorance than any legal base. You need to educate yourself in immigration perspective.
Why USCIS audits are focused on consulting companies ?
It is not because consulting is not allowed on H1B. It is because they figured out that H1B violation are more prominent among small companies.
Macaca
02-15 10:37 AM
First 2 paras from Justice Official Bought Vacation Home With Oil Lobbyist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401913.html), By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post Staff Writers, Thursday, February 15, 2007
A senior Justice Department official who recently resigned her post bought a nearly $1 million vacation home with a lobbyist for ConocoPhillips months before approving consent decrees that would give the oil company more time to pay millions of dollars in fines and meet pollution-cleanup rules at some of its refineries.
Sue Ellen Wooldridge, former assistant attorney general in charge of environment and natural resources, bought a $980,000 home on Kiawah Island, S.C., last March with ConocoPhillips lobbyist Don R. Duncan. A third owner of the house is J. Steven Griles, a former deputy interior secretary, who has been informed he is a target in the federal investigation of Jack Abramoff's lobbying activities.
A senior Justice Department official who recently resigned her post bought a nearly $1 million vacation home with a lobbyist for ConocoPhillips months before approving consent decrees that would give the oil company more time to pay millions of dollars in fines and meet pollution-cleanup rules at some of its refineries.
Sue Ellen Wooldridge, former assistant attorney general in charge of environment and natural resources, bought a $980,000 home on Kiawah Island, S.C., last March with ConocoPhillips lobbyist Don R. Duncan. A third owner of the house is J. Steven Griles, a former deputy interior secretary, who has been informed he is a target in the federal investigation of Jack Abramoff's lobbying activities.
more...
QuietFlowsTheDon
04-15 06:42 PM
if you are in DFW metroplex it is a good time to buy.
prices are holding up in most suburbs. interest rates are pretty good right now.
when you look at the inflation rates, interest rate could probably go up.
so if you have been thinking about owning a home for some time, i would say this is the best time in the last couple of years.
prices are holding up in most suburbs. interest rates are pretty good right now.
when you look at the inflation rates, interest rate could probably go up.
so if you have been thinking about owning a home for some time, i would say this is the best time in the last couple of years.
2010 this past week, Lucy Liu
nojoke
04-15 06:18 PM
kaiserose & NKR have made some mistakes by buying a costly home & wouldn't admit.
May God Bless you guys.
:D:D
May God Bless you guys.
:D:D
more...
amitga
01-28 10:33 AM
There has never been a mention of the H1b visas approved and those that do not fall under the quota....
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
Can't Lou be sued for intentionally having false information in his book. At lease we should all add negative comments about his book on Amazon.com reviews. His book rating on Amazon is 4 and we should add 30-40 comments to bring the rating to at least 2-3 star.
Lou's Book (http://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-Class-Government-Business/dp/0670037923/sr=8-1/qid=1170001461/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9355488-1919237?ie=UTF8&s=books)
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
Can't Lou be sued for intentionally having false information in his book. At lease we should all add negative comments about his book on Amazon.com reviews. His book rating on Amazon is 4 and we should add 30-40 comments to bring the rating to at least 2-3 star.
Lou's Book (http://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-Class-Government-Business/dp/0670037923/sr=8-1/qid=1170001461/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9355488-1919237?ie=UTF8&s=books)
hair Lucy Liu Boyfriend
smisachu
12-28 08:22 PM
As I have said in my post, the pak civilian govt is not at fault; at least now. The terrorists have over run Pakistan and on a long term basis it is not only bad for India but for Pakistan itself. I am pretty sure you realize it now.
The techonology needed to deliver and set off a nuke is not something that could be purchased and used out of the box, Pak does not have the full capability even according to paks own accounts. Now let us neglect this point, it will be highly unlikely that Pak will use a nuke even if it could. The consiquences of nuking in the modren world is dire and no one in Pak or India have the balls to do something like that. Pak depends on US funding heavily and it cannot afford to cut off such a source by using nukes.
Finally- my question to you is why dosent Pak simply kill all these crazy SOB's and hand over the terrorists to India so they can hang them. We all know where these guys are so let's not pretend that Pak is "searching" for them. So instead of defending terrorism I really want see Pakistanis stand up and tell their government to either fry the damn terrorists or be fryed!! You are feeling the pinch of supporting religious fanatics now, this is the time to clense your self socially.
Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
The techonology needed to deliver and set off a nuke is not something that could be purchased and used out of the box, Pak does not have the full capability even according to paks own accounts. Now let us neglect this point, it will be highly unlikely that Pak will use a nuke even if it could. The consiquences of nuking in the modren world is dire and no one in Pak or India have the balls to do something like that. Pak depends on US funding heavily and it cannot afford to cut off such a source by using nukes.
Finally- my question to you is why dosent Pak simply kill all these crazy SOB's and hand over the terrorists to India so they can hang them. We all know where these guys are so let's not pretend that Pak is "searching" for them. So instead of defending terrorism I really want see Pakistanis stand up and tell their government to either fry the damn terrorists or be fryed!! You are feeling the pinch of supporting religious fanatics now, this is the time to clense your self socially.
Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
more...
akela_topchi
01-09 06:16 PM
Despite of several warnings by Israel, Hamas (that is elected by Palestine people) was launching rockets on the civilian population of Isreal. (and hardly any in Islamic world condemned it)
What were they thinking? They were just provoking Israel, and when it retaliated, suddenly all those Palestine and Hamas sympathizers are crying foul asking for mediation and intervention. I would say Israel has a right to wipe out any element that was involved in attacking their civilian population.
If some cowards are hiding behind their own women and children and launching attacks, rockets on Israelis then shouldn't they be asked to stop using innocent civilians for cover and fight like soldiers?
What were they thinking? They were just provoking Israel, and when it retaliated, suddenly all those Palestine and Hamas sympathizers are crying foul asking for mediation and intervention. I would say Israel has a right to wipe out any element that was involved in attacking their civilian population.
If some cowards are hiding behind their own women and children and launching attacks, rockets on Israelis then shouldn't they be asked to stop using innocent civilians for cover and fight like soldiers?
hot Angel co-star Lucy Liu was
DallasBlue
07-08 09:48 PM
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
more...
house most fabulous woman that
javadeveloper
07-18 11:32 PM
First time I came to US on 12/15/2000 and left US after 86 days that is on 3/10/2001 , during this period I didn't had any paystubs. I re-entered to US on 12/15/2002(this is my latest entry into US) , I don't have paystubs from 12/15/2002 to 2/14/2000(60 days) ,i have paystubs from 2/15/2003 to 4/15/2003 and again I don't have paystubs from 4/16/2003 to 9/30/2003(165 days).After that I have continuous paystubs.Does it mean that I was out of status for more than 180 days(i.e 60+165=225 or 86+60+165=311) or I was out of status for just 165 days .Maximum continious days that i stayed in US without paystubs are 165.One more thing my employer(s) didn't generated my payslips though i really worked for some days...Someone please clarify...
Thanks In Advance
Thanks In Advance
tattoo lucy liu Pictures, Photos amp;
GCInThisLife
07-19 02:17 PM
UN,
Sorry for sending the PM.
This link was provided in another thread regarding H1B status. Not entirely sure what it means.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : Must an H-1B alien be working at all times?
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Sorry for sending the PM.
This link was provided in another thread regarding H1B status. Not entirely sure what it means.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : Must an H-1B alien be working at all times?
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
more...
pictures Evan Rachel Wood, Lucy Liu
hpandey
06-26 03:33 PM
Would you share what calculator are you using.
I used one here:
Mortgage Calculator - Bankrate.com (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx)
Loan Amount: 600K (Note much less than million dollars)
Period: 30 years fixed
Interest Rate: 5% (On the lower side using historical averages)
Monthly Payment: 3220.93
Total Interest Paid across 30 years: 559,534.71
In general the thumb rule is across 30 years you will always pay interest which is approx equal to the principal you signed up for.
Am i missing something here ?
Good figure to make 600K loan .. that must mean people are buying at least a 650,000 house across the whole of US . You are talking about prices going down across economy you should take the average home value also across US which is definately not 600K or else most of people will never be able to buy a house.
I am taking about a home of an average 450K ( even that is more than the US average ) and at least 10 % down.
I don't think even anyone here would buy a 600K house in this economy to say the least !
Lets stick to real world calculations.
I used one here:
Mortgage Calculator - Bankrate.com (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx)
Loan Amount: 600K (Note much less than million dollars)
Period: 30 years fixed
Interest Rate: 5% (On the lower side using historical averages)
Monthly Payment: 3220.93
Total Interest Paid across 30 years: 559,534.71
In general the thumb rule is across 30 years you will always pay interest which is approx equal to the principal you signed up for.
Am i missing something here ?
Good figure to make 600K loan .. that must mean people are buying at least a 650,000 house across the whole of US . You are talking about prices going down across economy you should take the average home value also across US which is definately not 600K or else most of people will never be able to buy a house.
I am taking about a home of an average 450K ( even that is more than the US average ) and at least 10 % down.
I don't think even anyone here would buy a 600K house in this economy to say the least !
Lets stick to real world calculations.
dresses lucy liu and pokwang
waitnwatch
05-24 12:17 PM
Did the brownback amendment pass with the CIR?
Please spend some time on this website....browse around, get acquainted, find the right threads and you will automatically find your answers. There is no 1800 number to call for assistance here............
Please spend some time on this website....browse around, get acquainted, find the right threads and you will automatically find your answers. There is no 1800 number to call for assistance here............
more...
makeup Actress Lucy Liu leaves the Ed
HawaldarNaik
01-03 01:47 AM
I just saw a outstanding movie called 'Wednesday', and i got thinking. In a way i would say we have to thank our neighbouring country because they have done what we the people of India could not for the past 60 years
They with their heinous attacks like 26/11, have started the process of cleansing with regards to Indian red tape, administration and politics. A case in point is the murder of the pwd engineer in UP, which initially was played down by the CM of that state, but after she realized that post 26/11, the entire nation is demanding accountability of every single beaurcrat, she backed off and started the judicial process moving
Off course she may still try to circumvent the law with all her efforts, but i doubt if she will cause other politicians and administrators like her have now understood that the common man who till now had a chalta hai attitude has now decided to stand up and ensure that the process of cleansing which leads to accountability has started.
Now it is up to us to make sure that we continue this process improvement, so that no country will dare to do such acts in future
As i said in my first post...we have to first clean up our act....
As the great poet Kabir said....'I went out to search for the bad every where outside of me...but after deep introspection...i realized that first I had to improve....and remove the bad from within'
Lets keep focussed and clean ourselves and our people...automatically we will see improvement.....
They with their heinous attacks like 26/11, have started the process of cleansing with regards to Indian red tape, administration and politics. A case in point is the murder of the pwd engineer in UP, which initially was played down by the CM of that state, but after she realized that post 26/11, the entire nation is demanding accountability of every single beaurcrat, she backed off and started the judicial process moving
Off course she may still try to circumvent the law with all her efforts, but i doubt if she will cause other politicians and administrators like her have now understood that the common man who till now had a chalta hai attitude has now decided to stand up and ensure that the process of cleansing which leads to accountability has started.
Now it is up to us to make sure that we continue this process improvement, so that no country will dare to do such acts in future
As i said in my first post...we have to first clean up our act....
As the great poet Kabir said....'I went out to search for the bad every where outside of me...but after deep introspection...i realized that first I had to improve....and remove the bad from within'
Lets keep focussed and clean ourselves and our people...automatically we will see improvement.....
girlfriend lucy liu boyfriend
rameshvaid
07-14 05:23 PM
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
I mailed letter today..
RV
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
I mailed letter today..
RV
hairstyles Demi Moore, Lucy Liu,
NKR
08-06 11:32 AM
The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
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.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn�t sound right here�
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
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.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn�t sound right here�
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
mariner5555
04-14 02:16 PM
I cannot agree more. I have been trying to drill this into some peoples brain but they are so adamant on renting and has made this thread into a rent vs buy argument. I finally gave up. I am not saying that this is the right time to buy. Fast forward 2 or 2+ years, lets assume the market is good. Then when it comes to rent vs buy I advocate buying a house.
Let�s say you have a small kid and you are living in an apartment, after 10 years you save enough money to buy a big house and you then eventually you buy it. Then you ask the your kid �do you like the house?�. He will reply �it�s very nice dad, but can you give you give my childhood now?.�. Go figure out guys. If you are not planning on going back for a very long time then at-least get a life in the country you reside and when the housing market is good.
wow you come back to the same argument again ..and you tell others. maybe you should ask your child ..would you prefer that I spend more time with you or is it o.k if I see you only on weekends.
you are saying the others are not understanding your point ..but at the same time you are not understanding the other side of argument.
basically you are equating a bigger house means better childhood ..which is plain wrong. maybe your case or for few lucky people that maybe the case ..but I suspect for 99 percent of people ..maintaining and buying homes means they have to slog harder and that means less time for kids !!
Let�s say you have a small kid and you are living in an apartment, after 10 years you save enough money to buy a big house and you then eventually you buy it. Then you ask the your kid �do you like the house?�. He will reply �it�s very nice dad, but can you give you give my childhood now?.�. Go figure out guys. If you are not planning on going back for a very long time then at-least get a life in the country you reside and when the housing market is good.
wow you come back to the same argument again ..and you tell others. maybe you should ask your child ..would you prefer that I spend more time with you or is it o.k if I see you only on weekends.
you are saying the others are not understanding your point ..but at the same time you are not understanding the other side of argument.
basically you are equating a bigger house means better childhood ..which is plain wrong. maybe your case or for few lucky people that maybe the case ..but I suspect for 99 percent of people ..maintaining and buying homes means they have to slog harder and that means less time for kids !!
