pitha
09-26 06:24 PM
Barack Obama the socialist with his protectionist\restrictionist measures will not create jobs but will destroy the capitalist america. In addition to "creating" jobs by stopping "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS", he will also "create" jobs by kicking you and me out of USA. Lookout for draconian H1b restrictions, points based system, removal of AC21 and amnesty for illegals by obama-kennedy-durbin CIR. Not sure MCcain would do anything for us but one thing for sure he wont be anti to eb folks. Just like Bush who might not have done anything for us but atleast during the july 2007 visa bulletin fiasco his administration (chertof, rice ) atleast reversed the July bulletin after the flower campaign. Durbin-obama would thrown the flowers on our face and kick us out.
Just Kidding - reading your post i was feeling like I'm reading a comment from Fox News. However i do respect your opinion and thanks for expressing it.
My Point is more long term - in the shorter term no major change can happen to economy even if Barack wins but eventually Economy would be stronger under Barack's leadership. He also stressed that he would stop "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS" which means companies like TATA or INFY or some Chinese company taking my Job ( or any American's Job ) away from US to INDIA or CHINA. If you are planning a future in US - you would not want your US job taken away by your brother at INDIA or CHINA and Barack will make sure that doesn't happen.
The Bottonline is he will create tons of Jobs at US , so unemployment will be very low , average peoples will be happy and however loud ANTI-IMMIGRANTS scream and shout no AMERICAN will pay attention. Our EB reforms will Pass much easily and we will be able to able to lead a much happier and content life with GREEN CARD.
Once again my Point is definitely Long Term - in the shorter duration Barack has to first fix the Mortgage Mess and do something with Iran by taking help from EUROPE.
Just Kidding - reading your post i was feeling like I'm reading a comment from Fox News. However i do respect your opinion and thanks for expressing it.
My Point is more long term - in the shorter term no major change can happen to economy even if Barack wins but eventually Economy would be stronger under Barack's leadership. He also stressed that he would stop "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS" which means companies like TATA or INFY or some Chinese company taking my Job ( or any American's Job ) away from US to INDIA or CHINA. If you are planning a future in US - you would not want your US job taken away by your brother at INDIA or CHINA and Barack will make sure that doesn't happen.
The Bottonline is he will create tons of Jobs at US , so unemployment will be very low , average peoples will be happy and however loud ANTI-IMMIGRANTS scream and shout no AMERICAN will pay attention. Our EB reforms will Pass much easily and we will be able to able to lead a much happier and content life with GREEN CARD.
Once again my Point is definitely Long Term - in the shorter duration Barack has to first fix the Mortgage Mess and do something with Iran by taking help from EUROPE.
wallpaper Newt Gingrich on Bail Out: quot;A
ssa
06-25 02:17 PM
Remember the biggest speculation we have had in recent history was in real estate from 2002 to 2007. That's the primary reason we are all in this mess. So if anyone is speculator it's the new homeowner who bought house between 2002 to 2007, definitely not the renter. I for one am very glad I sat out the whole crazy real estate hysteria during the time. I'm not underwater! Those who bought during the peak around 2005/2006 will have to wait a long time before they can even break even.
Your second point of buying 3-4 homes with 20% down each and building equity on rent is the classic strategy to head into multiple foreclosures at once. This was the exact thinking that got so many real estate speculators in deep whole. Show me a single major city that has good amount of jobs (Bay area/Boston/Seattle) and where the monthly rent covers the monthly mortgage payment+property tax+home insurance. If that were the case there would not have been all these foreclosures, they would just give their houses on rent!
Finally as for missing on the lowest interest rates, interest rates will generally move in somewhat opposite direction to house prices. That is because when the interest rate is high there will be less buyers which will drive the prices down. So barring lucky few you can only lock in either low interest rate or low house prices. Choice here is clear: you can always re-finance when the interest rates go down next time but you can never re-negotiate your house purchase price so you should always aim for getting a low price rather than low interest rate.
Owning a home is never a bad idea but paying unreasonable price for it is indeed a bad one. It's like asking if owning a Google stock is bad idea. It sounds like a legitimate question but in reality is an absurd one because it leaves out the most important detail. At what price? Price is everything!
All you and the renters here are doing is speculating. Speculators, from my experience, always buy and sell at the wrong time because all they do is guess. Even if prices do go lower in 2011, speculators will speculate that it will go down further and continue to hold off then miss their chance. Same problem with now in 2009, you missed the low interest rates and who knows when they will come back down to the 4s again. Personally I hope they do come back, cuz I missed a chance to refi one of my properties. You are not only losing your rent money to a landlord, but you are also losing valuable time that you could've used to knock off your mortgage.
As for only putting 20% down and people saying that they want to buy their homes outright– they are idiots. You never pay full price or more than 50% for a home, even if you can afford it. Pay the downpayment, then invest the rest of that money elsewhere and build even more from that money. That is called leverage and thats what good smart investors do. They use the system, they leverage their money and NEVER pay full price. If you have $800,000 and want to buy an $800,000 3 family house, u dont use all ur money on it to pay it all in one shot. You buy 3 or 4 of them, paying 20% down then rent it out, use the rent money to pay the mortgage hold and sell after 20-30 years. Use the rest of the money and invest that in a portfolio or start a business. After 30 years all your properties will be paid off by renters like the people here. You can sell them, give them to your kids, whatever. But don't tell me you're not coming out ahead.
And for the people that are proud to have more than 1 car and paid it all off– a car is not an investment. Unless you buy an antique that you can sell for more than what you paid for, it is not comparable to owning a home. I have a car, it degraded in value the minute i drove it off the lot. Its great for vacations, going around, getting to work whatever. But I am not proud to own a degrading liability even when its been fully paid 5 years after I bought it with no chance of increasing its value.
I have no problems with renters like you or others in this forum. I make money from you. I don't care if you terminate your lease early because another renter will take your place. All renters do is throw away their money and will never get it back. I will use your rent money to pay my mortgage. But don't try to tell me that owning a home is a bad idea. Owning your own home is NEVER a bad idea and 68% of America agrees. You will ALWAYS need a place to live in.
Your second point of buying 3-4 homes with 20% down each and building equity on rent is the classic strategy to head into multiple foreclosures at once. This was the exact thinking that got so many real estate speculators in deep whole. Show me a single major city that has good amount of jobs (Bay area/Boston/Seattle) and where the monthly rent covers the monthly mortgage payment+property tax+home insurance. If that were the case there would not have been all these foreclosures, they would just give their houses on rent!
Finally as for missing on the lowest interest rates, interest rates will generally move in somewhat opposite direction to house prices. That is because when the interest rate is high there will be less buyers which will drive the prices down. So barring lucky few you can only lock in either low interest rate or low house prices. Choice here is clear: you can always re-finance when the interest rates go down next time but you can never re-negotiate your house purchase price so you should always aim for getting a low price rather than low interest rate.
Owning a home is never a bad idea but paying unreasonable price for it is indeed a bad one. It's like asking if owning a Google stock is bad idea. It sounds like a legitimate question but in reality is an absurd one because it leaves out the most important detail. At what price? Price is everything!
All you and the renters here are doing is speculating. Speculators, from my experience, always buy and sell at the wrong time because all they do is guess. Even if prices do go lower in 2011, speculators will speculate that it will go down further and continue to hold off then miss their chance. Same problem with now in 2009, you missed the low interest rates and who knows when they will come back down to the 4s again. Personally I hope they do come back, cuz I missed a chance to refi one of my properties. You are not only losing your rent money to a landlord, but you are also losing valuable time that you could've used to knock off your mortgage.
As for only putting 20% down and people saying that they want to buy their homes outright– they are idiots. You never pay full price or more than 50% for a home, even if you can afford it. Pay the downpayment, then invest the rest of that money elsewhere and build even more from that money. That is called leverage and thats what good smart investors do. They use the system, they leverage their money and NEVER pay full price. If you have $800,000 and want to buy an $800,000 3 family house, u dont use all ur money on it to pay it all in one shot. You buy 3 or 4 of them, paying 20% down then rent it out, use the rent money to pay the mortgage hold and sell after 20-30 years. Use the rest of the money and invest that in a portfolio or start a business. After 30 years all your properties will be paid off by renters like the people here. You can sell them, give them to your kids, whatever. But don't tell me you're not coming out ahead.
And for the people that are proud to have more than 1 car and paid it all off– a car is not an investment. Unless you buy an antique that you can sell for more than what you paid for, it is not comparable to owning a home. I have a car, it degraded in value the minute i drove it off the lot. Its great for vacations, going around, getting to work whatever. But I am not proud to own a degrading liability even when its been fully paid 5 years after I bought it with no chance of increasing its value.
I have no problems with renters like you or others in this forum. I make money from you. I don't care if you terminate your lease early because another renter will take your place. All renters do is throw away their money and will never get it back. I will use your rent money to pay my mortgage. But don't try to tell me that owning a home is a bad idea. Owning your own home is NEVER a bad idea and 68% of America agrees. You will ALWAYS need a place to live in.
GCScrewed
07-13 06:34 PM
Needless to say that the distincation between EB2 and EB3 has become so meaniningless now. How many positions really satisfy the EB2 requirements? From what I heard that most people just try to get around the system to get an EB2. One of the persons who filed EB2 told me that a high school graduate would probably be able to work in that position too.
Just my observation.
If you believe this to be the case. ie that a high school graduate should be able to do that job. Then that person should not get a green card for that job.
People, please think before you post and write letters. It is important to be rational and not put your foot in your mouth.
This is EB immigration and it is hierarchial. That is quite simply a fact not an opinion. The sooner people understand that, the better, and then everyone can channel their frustrations into broader fixes. Unless that can be done we will see these less than well planned, less than well coordinated, fitful efforts, and an internecine warfare that will make us a laughing stock and undermine the heroic efforts of IV core.[/QUOTE]
I am just stating the fact. The position was not my position. So I can't speak too much about it. But that was the person who worked there told me. The most important point is that a lot of EB2s do not deserve it at all. This is especially true for smaller companies including those body shops, where a lot of wiggle room exist on how you describe the job requirements. In large companies, they tend to have more strigent requirments on what category to file. A lot of people filed under EB3 before the retrogression starting in late 2004 and 2005 because they did not pay too much attention on this issue (that's their bad - lessons learned).
Although I don't see the data yet, I bet if you compare the proportion of EB2 applicants (or EB3 applicants), you will see a great difference before and after late 2004. Why? Because that's when the EB3 retrogression started and people began to move onto EB2. Are there so much more EB2 positions after 2004 than before? I doubt.
I think that's what really make people upset, esp. those got stuck in every stage, from BEC, I140, from name check and 485. All these simply because they changes something without considering those in line already.
Just my observation.
If you believe this to be the case. ie that a high school graduate should be able to do that job. Then that person should not get a green card for that job.
People, please think before you post and write letters. It is important to be rational and not put your foot in your mouth.
This is EB immigration and it is hierarchial. That is quite simply a fact not an opinion. The sooner people understand that, the better, and then everyone can channel their frustrations into broader fixes. Unless that can be done we will see these less than well planned, less than well coordinated, fitful efforts, and an internecine warfare that will make us a laughing stock and undermine the heroic efforts of IV core.[/QUOTE]
I am just stating the fact. The position was not my position. So I can't speak too much about it. But that was the person who worked there told me. The most important point is that a lot of EB2s do not deserve it at all. This is especially true for smaller companies including those body shops, where a lot of wiggle room exist on how you describe the job requirements. In large companies, they tend to have more strigent requirments on what category to file. A lot of people filed under EB3 before the retrogression starting in late 2004 and 2005 because they did not pay too much attention on this issue (that's their bad - lessons learned).
Although I don't see the data yet, I bet if you compare the proportion of EB2 applicants (or EB3 applicants), you will see a great difference before and after late 2004. Why? Because that's when the EB3 retrogression started and people began to move onto EB2. Are there so much more EB2 positions after 2004 than before? I doubt.
I think that's what really make people upset, esp. those got stuck in every stage, from BEC, I140, from name check and 485. All these simply because they changes something without considering those in line already.
2011 The Real Newt Gingrich
unitednations
08-01 10:48 PM
UN, can you please reply? Thanks!
No; it is not fraud. I have seen many g-325a's and many people seem to miss last address outside usa for more then one year and last occupation for more then one year outside usa.
There are many uses for this. If you look at the bottom left hand corner of g-325a there is some annotations to it. One of the g-325a's get sent to the consulate. Now; what does the consulate do with it???? Do they compare it with your original visa application of what your last occupation/address was?
One of the other uses of this information is that a person could have come to usa 8 years ago but you only need to show 5 years of biographical information. USCIS can then calculate when you really came into the country and see if you maintained the status ever since you left your foreign residence.
No; it is not fraud. I have seen many g-325a's and many people seem to miss last address outside usa for more then one year and last occupation for more then one year outside usa.
There are many uses for this. If you look at the bottom left hand corner of g-325a there is some annotations to it. One of the g-325a's get sent to the consulate. Now; what does the consulate do with it???? Do they compare it with your original visa application of what your last occupation/address was?
One of the other uses of this information is that a person could have come to usa 8 years ago but you only need to show 5 years of biographical information. USCIS can then calculate when you really came into the country and see if you maintained the status ever since you left your foreign residence.
more...
krishna
02-21 12:45 PM
Lou dobbs, Pat Buchanan and people of that kind are full of vanity. It is wise to tune out such guys and make sure that they do not affect policy decisions in congress. I dont think policy makers care for his rant on TV.
sledge_hammer
03-23 03:11 PM
I'm sure you meant Larry David ;)
Did you send Seinfeld a royalty? :D
-a
Did you send Seinfeld a royalty? :D
-a
more...
singhsa3
08-05 09:09 AM
Obviously you pissed of lot of people. So what is you plan? How would you approach this. Please explain the steps including your source of funding...
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
2010 Newt Gingrich;
Macaca
12-29 08:01 PM
Why we must reclaim religion from the right-wing (http://www.rediff.com/news/column/column-why-we-must-reclaim-religion-from-the-right-wing/20101229.htm) By Yoginder Sikand | Rediff
Decades after the two States came into being, relations between India and Pakistan continue to be, to put it mildly, hostile. This owes largely to the vast, and continuously mounting, influence of the Hindu religious right-wing in India and its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan.
Seemingly irreconcilable foes, the two speak the same language -- of unending hatred between Hindus and Muslims -- each seeking to define itself by building, stressing and constantly reinforcing boundaries between the two religiously-defined imagined communities.
Much has been written on the ideology and politics of right-wing Hindu and Islamic movements and organisations in both India and Pakistan, by academics and journalists alike. Yet, almost no attention has been given to how individual Hindu and Muslim religious activists at the local level, as distinct from key ideologues and leaders at the national-level, imagine and articulate notions of the religious and national 'other'.
Understanding this issue is crucial, for such activists exercise an enormous clout among their following.
The Lahore-based Mashal Books, one of Pakistan's few progressive, left-leaning publishing houses, recently launched a unique experiment: Of recording and making publicly accessible speeches delivered by maulvis or Muslim clerics at mosque congregations across Pakistan's Punjab province, including some located in small towns and obscure villages.
These speeches deal with a host of issues, ranging from women's status and scientific education, to jihad and anti-Indianism, all these linked to an amazingly diverse set of understandings of Islam.
Hosted on the Mashal Books Web site MASHAL BOOKS (http://www.mashalbooks.org), these speeches reflect the worldviews of a large majority of Pakistani maulvis, representing a range of sectarian backgrounds, who now exercise a major influence on the country's politics and in shaping Pakistani public opinion and discourse.
Of the dozens of speeches hosted on the Web site, only two are classified as relating particularly to India, but these may still be taken to be representative of how a great many Pakistani maulvis conceive of India and of relations between India and Pakistan. Predictably, in both speeches India is depicted in lurid colours, as an implacable foe of Pakistan, of Muslims, and of Islam.
Not surprisingly, then, efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan or to work towards rapprochement between Hindus and Muslims are vociferously denounced. The two maulvis appear to insist that Islam, as they understand it, itself requires that Pakistani Muslims must never cool off their anti-Hindu and anti-Indian zeal.
The first of these two speeches, by the Deobandi Maulana Muhammad Hafeez of the Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, Rawalpindi, refers to India only in passing. He presents Muslims the world over as besieged by a host of powerful non-Muslim enemies.
It is almost as if their 'disbelief' (kufr) in Islam goads all non-Muslims, wherever they may be, to engage in a relentless conspiracy against Islam and its adherents, a war, like Samuel Huntington's infamous 'Clash of Civilisations', in which compromise and reconciliation are simply impossible because Islam and 'non-Islam' can, in this worldview, never comfortably coexist.
It is also as if Muslims have a monopoly on virtue and non-Muslims on vice. 'Islam will rise,' Maulana Hafeez thunders, 'and America and India will fall,' conveniently forgetting (assuming he knew of the fact) that India probably has more Muslims than Pakistan and that if India falls, it will drag its tens of millions of Muslims along with it, too.
The second speech is by a certain Maulana Mufti Saeed Ahmed of Jamia Masjid Mittranwali, Sialkot, who belongs to the Ahl-e Hadith sect, which closely resembles the Saudi Wahhabis.
Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith groups, most notoriously the Lashkar-e Tayiba, have been heavily involved in fomenting violence across Pakistan, Kashmir and in India as well.
Hatred for India and the Hindus seems to be an article of faith for many Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith, as Maulana Ahmed's speech clearly indicates.
At the same time, it must also be recognised, as is evident from instances that the Maulana cites, that these deep-rooted anti-Indian and anti-Hindu sentiments are constantly fuelled by brutalities inflicted by non-Muslim powers, including the United States and fiercely anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinists in India, on Muslim peoples.
These brutalities need not always be physical. They can also take the form of assaults on and insults to cherished Islamic beliefs, which inevitably provoke Muslim anger. The appeal of people like Maulana Ahmed lies in their practiced ability to use these instances of brutality directed against Muslims to craft a frighteningly Manichaean world, where all Muslims are pitted against all non-Muslims in a ceaseless war of cosmic proportions that shall carry on until Muslims, it is fervently believed, will finally triumph.
Recounting a long list of anti-Muslim brutalities (but conveniently ignoring similar outrages committed by Muslims on others), Maulana Ahmed exhorts his listeners to unite and take revenge. 'O Muslims!,' he shrilly appeals, 'get up and take in hand your arrows, pick up your Kalashnikovs, train yourselves in explosives and bombs, organise yourselves into armies, prepare nuclear attacks and destroy every part of the body of the enemy.'
His speech is peppered with fervent calls for what he terms as 'jihad' against both America and India, these being projected as inveterate foes of Islam and of all Muslims.
He prays for America to 'be destroyed', and ecstatically celebrates the recent devastating terrorist assault on Mumbai by a self-styled Islamist group that left vast numbers of people dead, unapologetically hailing the dastardly act as a 'big slap on the cheek of the Hindus'.
Not stopping at this, he calls for continuous terrorist violence against India, including, he advises, unleashing 'bloodbath to (sic) Indian and American diplomats in Kabul and Kandahar'. Only then, he argues, can Pakistan's rulers 'relieve the pressure' on them and being peace to their country.
The 'enemy', as Maulana Ahmed constructs the notion, could be any and every non-Muslim, particularly Americans, Jews and Hindus or Indians. It is as if every non-Muslim is, by definition, irredeemably opposed to Islam and is necessarily engaged in a grand global conspiracy to wipe Islam from off the face of the earth. It is as if non-Muslims have no other preoccupation at all.
All non-Muslims are thus tarred with the same brush, and no exceptions whatsoever are made. It is almost as if Maulana Ahmed desperately wants all non-Muslims to be fired by anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic vitriol, for that is his way to whip up the sentiments of his Muslim followers and fire their zeal and faith.
It is as if further stoking such hatred is crucial to his ability to maintain a following and to claim to authoritatively speak for Islam and its adherents. 'The hatred among the people against the kafirs has reached a new height,' the Maulana exults.
For the Maulana, fomenting hatred of non-Muslims is his chosen way of realising what has for centuries remained the elusive dream of Muslim unity. That this hatred, which he so passionately celebrates, inevitably further stokes the fires of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice, already so widespread among non-Muslims, appears of no concern to him at all. In fact, he seems to positively relish the frightening Huntingtonian thesis of the 'Clash of Civilisations'.
Deobandi and Ahl-e Hadith outfits today enjoy tremendous clout in Pakistan, and they have been at the forefront of Islamist militancy that now threatens to drown the country in the throes of what promises to be an interminable civil war.
As the speeches of these two Pakistani clerics, one a Deobandi and the other from the Ahl-e Hadith, so starkly indicate, inveterate hatred for India and the Hindus, indeed for non-Muslims in general, is integral to the ways in which vast numbers of Pakistani Muslim clerics understand religion, community, nationalism and the world.
Such hatred is inevitably further fuelled by acts of brutality directed against Muslims by non-Muslims, including by the United States, India (particularly in Kashmir) and by militantly anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinist groups.
Muslim and non-Muslim right-wing radicalism and militancy thus enjoy a mutually symbiotic relationship, opposing each other while, ironically, unable to live apart, needing each other even simply to define themselves.
Religion is too powerful an instrument to be left in the hands of hate-driven clerics to manipulate as they please, most often for fuelling conflict between communities and states.
As the frightening records of Hindutva chauvinists in India and the Pakistani clerics discussed in this article so strikingly illustrate, leaving religion to the right-wing to monopolise is a sure recipe for bloody and endless conflict.
Decades after the two States came into being, relations between India and Pakistan continue to be, to put it mildly, hostile. This owes largely to the vast, and continuously mounting, influence of the Hindu religious right-wing in India and its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan.
Seemingly irreconcilable foes, the two speak the same language -- of unending hatred between Hindus and Muslims -- each seeking to define itself by building, stressing and constantly reinforcing boundaries between the two religiously-defined imagined communities.
Much has been written on the ideology and politics of right-wing Hindu and Islamic movements and organisations in both India and Pakistan, by academics and journalists alike. Yet, almost no attention has been given to how individual Hindu and Muslim religious activists at the local level, as distinct from key ideologues and leaders at the national-level, imagine and articulate notions of the religious and national 'other'.
Understanding this issue is crucial, for such activists exercise an enormous clout among their following.
The Lahore-based Mashal Books, one of Pakistan's few progressive, left-leaning publishing houses, recently launched a unique experiment: Of recording and making publicly accessible speeches delivered by maulvis or Muslim clerics at mosque congregations across Pakistan's Punjab province, including some located in small towns and obscure villages.
These speeches deal with a host of issues, ranging from women's status and scientific education, to jihad and anti-Indianism, all these linked to an amazingly diverse set of understandings of Islam.
Hosted on the Mashal Books Web site MASHAL BOOKS (http://www.mashalbooks.org), these speeches reflect the worldviews of a large majority of Pakistani maulvis, representing a range of sectarian backgrounds, who now exercise a major influence on the country's politics and in shaping Pakistani public opinion and discourse.
Of the dozens of speeches hosted on the Web site, only two are classified as relating particularly to India, but these may still be taken to be representative of how a great many Pakistani maulvis conceive of India and of relations between India and Pakistan. Predictably, in both speeches India is depicted in lurid colours, as an implacable foe of Pakistan, of Muslims, and of Islam.
Not surprisingly, then, efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan or to work towards rapprochement between Hindus and Muslims are vociferously denounced. The two maulvis appear to insist that Islam, as they understand it, itself requires that Pakistani Muslims must never cool off their anti-Hindu and anti-Indian zeal.
The first of these two speeches, by the Deobandi Maulana Muhammad Hafeez of the Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, Rawalpindi, refers to India only in passing. He presents Muslims the world over as besieged by a host of powerful non-Muslim enemies.
It is almost as if their 'disbelief' (kufr) in Islam goads all non-Muslims, wherever they may be, to engage in a relentless conspiracy against Islam and its adherents, a war, like Samuel Huntington's infamous 'Clash of Civilisations', in which compromise and reconciliation are simply impossible because Islam and 'non-Islam' can, in this worldview, never comfortably coexist.
It is also as if Muslims have a monopoly on virtue and non-Muslims on vice. 'Islam will rise,' Maulana Hafeez thunders, 'and America and India will fall,' conveniently forgetting (assuming he knew of the fact) that India probably has more Muslims than Pakistan and that if India falls, it will drag its tens of millions of Muslims along with it, too.
The second speech is by a certain Maulana Mufti Saeed Ahmed of Jamia Masjid Mittranwali, Sialkot, who belongs to the Ahl-e Hadith sect, which closely resembles the Saudi Wahhabis.
Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith groups, most notoriously the Lashkar-e Tayiba, have been heavily involved in fomenting violence across Pakistan, Kashmir and in India as well.
Hatred for India and the Hindus seems to be an article of faith for many Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith, as Maulana Ahmed's speech clearly indicates.
At the same time, it must also be recognised, as is evident from instances that the Maulana cites, that these deep-rooted anti-Indian and anti-Hindu sentiments are constantly fuelled by brutalities inflicted by non-Muslim powers, including the United States and fiercely anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinists in India, on Muslim peoples.
These brutalities need not always be physical. They can also take the form of assaults on and insults to cherished Islamic beliefs, which inevitably provoke Muslim anger. The appeal of people like Maulana Ahmed lies in their practiced ability to use these instances of brutality directed against Muslims to craft a frighteningly Manichaean world, where all Muslims are pitted against all non-Muslims in a ceaseless war of cosmic proportions that shall carry on until Muslims, it is fervently believed, will finally triumph.
Recounting a long list of anti-Muslim brutalities (but conveniently ignoring similar outrages committed by Muslims on others), Maulana Ahmed exhorts his listeners to unite and take revenge. 'O Muslims!,' he shrilly appeals, 'get up and take in hand your arrows, pick up your Kalashnikovs, train yourselves in explosives and bombs, organise yourselves into armies, prepare nuclear attacks and destroy every part of the body of the enemy.'
His speech is peppered with fervent calls for what he terms as 'jihad' against both America and India, these being projected as inveterate foes of Islam and of all Muslims.
He prays for America to 'be destroyed', and ecstatically celebrates the recent devastating terrorist assault on Mumbai by a self-styled Islamist group that left vast numbers of people dead, unapologetically hailing the dastardly act as a 'big slap on the cheek of the Hindus'.
Not stopping at this, he calls for continuous terrorist violence against India, including, he advises, unleashing 'bloodbath to (sic) Indian and American diplomats in Kabul and Kandahar'. Only then, he argues, can Pakistan's rulers 'relieve the pressure' on them and being peace to their country.
The 'enemy', as Maulana Ahmed constructs the notion, could be any and every non-Muslim, particularly Americans, Jews and Hindus or Indians. It is as if every non-Muslim is, by definition, irredeemably opposed to Islam and is necessarily engaged in a grand global conspiracy to wipe Islam from off the face of the earth. It is as if non-Muslims have no other preoccupation at all.
All non-Muslims are thus tarred with the same brush, and no exceptions whatsoever are made. It is almost as if Maulana Ahmed desperately wants all non-Muslims to be fired by anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic vitriol, for that is his way to whip up the sentiments of his Muslim followers and fire their zeal and faith.
It is as if further stoking such hatred is crucial to his ability to maintain a following and to claim to authoritatively speak for Islam and its adherents. 'The hatred among the people against the kafirs has reached a new height,' the Maulana exults.
For the Maulana, fomenting hatred of non-Muslims is his chosen way of realising what has for centuries remained the elusive dream of Muslim unity. That this hatred, which he so passionately celebrates, inevitably further stokes the fires of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice, already so widespread among non-Muslims, appears of no concern to him at all. In fact, he seems to positively relish the frightening Huntingtonian thesis of the 'Clash of Civilisations'.
Deobandi and Ahl-e Hadith outfits today enjoy tremendous clout in Pakistan, and they have been at the forefront of Islamist militancy that now threatens to drown the country in the throes of what promises to be an interminable civil war.
As the speeches of these two Pakistani clerics, one a Deobandi and the other from the Ahl-e Hadith, so starkly indicate, inveterate hatred for India and the Hindus, indeed for non-Muslims in general, is integral to the ways in which vast numbers of Pakistani Muslim clerics understand religion, community, nationalism and the world.
Such hatred is inevitably further fuelled by acts of brutality directed against Muslims by non-Muslims, including by the United States, India (particularly in Kashmir) and by militantly anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinist groups.
Muslim and non-Muslim right-wing radicalism and militancy thus enjoy a mutually symbiotic relationship, opposing each other while, ironically, unable to live apart, needing each other even simply to define themselves.
Religion is too powerful an instrument to be left in the hands of hate-driven clerics to manipulate as they please, most often for fuelling conflict between communities and states.
As the frightening records of Hindutva chauvinists in India and the Pakistani clerics discussed in this article so strikingly illustrate, leaving religion to the right-wing to monopolise is a sure recipe for bloody and endless conflict.
more...
unseenguy
06-24 08:27 AM
see my statement yesterday:
Even if I offer current owners 20% less , the math does not make sense for me. Hence I am expecting 30% -35% correction from current expectations of the owners.
Even if I offer current owners 20% less , the math does not make sense for me. Hence I am expecting 30% -35% correction from current expectations of the owners.
hair Newt Gingrich irritated
perm2gc
08-11 11:51 AM
The Two Faces of Lou Dobbs
Zachary Roth
In April, John Kerry's campaign released a TV ad attacking President Bush for supporting the export of U.S. jobs overseas. The ad was misleading -- although Gregory Mankiw, the chief White House economist, has said that, "outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," Bush himself has never explicitly said he favors sending jobs abroad. But Kerry's ad highlighted the fact that Democrats see corporate outsourcing -- in which American corporations abandon the U.S. in favor of cheaper sources of foreign labor -- as a potentially damaging issue for the president. During the Democratic primaries, both John Edwards and, to a lesser extent, Kerry attacked the president for policies that, they argued, encouraged job loss in the United States. The issue resonated with voters, especially in states like Ohio and Michigan, which have been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs.
Enter Lou Dobbs. The distinguished-looking host of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" has established a reputation this year as one of the most outspoken opponents of corporate outsourcing. Dobbs has turned his nightly news show into a one-man campaign -- the head of the Business Roundtable called it a "jihad" -- against the practice. Night after night, he roundly attacks government trade policies that he believes encourage American corporations to ship jobs abroad.
But it's not just U.S. policymakers who are the targets of Dobbs's indignation. He makes little attempt to hide his disdain for the companies that are, as he puts it, "exporting America." And Dobbs is watched, so it's fair to say his views sway voters.
Zachary Roth
In April, John Kerry's campaign released a TV ad attacking President Bush for supporting the export of U.S. jobs overseas. The ad was misleading -- although Gregory Mankiw, the chief White House economist, has said that, "outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," Bush himself has never explicitly said he favors sending jobs abroad. But Kerry's ad highlighted the fact that Democrats see corporate outsourcing -- in which American corporations abandon the U.S. in favor of cheaper sources of foreign labor -- as a potentially damaging issue for the president. During the Democratic primaries, both John Edwards and, to a lesser extent, Kerry attacked the president for policies that, they argued, encouraged job loss in the United States. The issue resonated with voters, especially in states like Ohio and Michigan, which have been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs.
Enter Lou Dobbs. The distinguished-looking host of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" has established a reputation this year as one of the most outspoken opponents of corporate outsourcing. Dobbs has turned his nightly news show into a one-man campaign -- the head of the Business Roundtable called it a "jihad" -- against the practice. Night after night, he roundly attacks government trade policies that he believes encourage American corporations to ship jobs abroad.
But it's not just U.S. policymakers who are the targets of Dobbs's indignation. He makes little attempt to hide his disdain for the companies that are, as he puts it, "exporting America." And Dobbs is watched, so it's fair to say his views sway voters.
more...
Macaca
02-13 09:38 AM
10 Reasons to Lobby for your cause (http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/10ReasonstoLobby.pdf) (courtesy krishna.ahd)
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do—people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
You can make a difference. It takes one person to initiate change. Gerry Jensen was a single mother struggling to raise her son in Toledo, Ohio, without the help of a workable child support system. She put an ad in a local newspaper to see if there were other moms who wanted to join her in working for change. There were. Over time, they built the Association for Child Support Enforcement, or ACES, which has helped change child support laws not just in Ohio, but across the country. One person—a single mother—made a difference.
People working together can make a difference. Families of Alzheimer’s patients working together, through the Alzheimer’s Association, convinced the government to invest resources into research for a cure. Other individuals formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving and convinced dozens of states to toughen up their drunk driving laws. As a result, the numbers of drunk driving deaths are lower. Additionally, many people find healing from tragedy by telling their stories and working to prevent it from happening to others.
People can change laws. Many of us think that ordinary individuals can’t make a difference. It is hard to change laws and policies. But it can be done. It has been done, over and over again in our history, in the face of great obstacles. People lost their lives fighting racist “Jim Crow” laws. They won. Women didn’t even have the power of the vote—as we all do today—when they started their struggle for suffrage. Our history is full of stories of people and groups that fought great odds to make great changes: child labor laws, public schools, clean air and water laws, social security.
These changes weren’t easy to achieve. Some took decades. They all took the active involvement—the lobbying—of thousands of people who felt something needed to be changed.
Lobbying is a democratic tradition. The act of telling our policymakers how to write and change our laws is at the very heart of our democratic system. It is an alternative to what has occurred in many other countries: tyranny or revolution. Lobbying has helped keep America’s democracy evolving over more than two centuries.
Lobbying helps find real solutions. Services provided directly to people in need, such as soup kitchens, emergency health clinics, and homeless shelters, are essential. But sometimes they are not enough. Many food pantries, for example, needed new laws to enable caterers and restaurants to donate excess food so the kitchens could feed more people. Family service organizations working to place abused children into safe homes needed changes in the judicial system so kids did not have to wait for years for a secure place to grow up. Through advocacy, both changes were implemented.
People thinking creatively and asking their elected officials for support can generate innovative solutions that overcome the root-cause of a problem.
Lobbying is easy. Many of us think lobbying is some mysterious rite that takes years to master. It isn’t. You can learn how to lobby—whom to call, when, what to say— in minutes. While there are a few simple reporting rules your organization needs to follow, it isn’t complicated. Countless numbers of people have learned how. Lobbying is easier and more effective when many committed people work together. One person does not have to do everything or know everything.
Policymakers need your expertise. Few institutions are closer to the real problems of people than nonprofits and community groups. They see problems first-hand. They know the needs. They see what works and what doesn’t. They can make problems real to policymakers. They care about the problems. Their passion and perspectives need to be heard. Every professional lobbyist will tell you that personal stories are powerful tools for change. People and policymakers can learn from your story.
Lobbying helps people. Some people become concerned that lobbying detracts from their mission, but quite the opposite is true. Everything that goes into a lobbying campaign—the research, the strategy planning, the phone calls and visits—will help fulfill your goal whether it be finding a curefor cancer, beautifying the local park, or helping some other cause that helps people. You may not personally provide a direct service, but through your advocacy work, you enable thousands of others to do so.
The views of local nonprofits are important. Increasingly, the federal government has been allowing local governments to decide how to spend federal money and make more decisions than in the past. This change gives local nonprofits even more responsibility to tell local policymakers what is needed and what will work. And because more decisions are being made locally, your lobbying can have an immediate, concrete impact on people in need.
Lobbying advances your cause and builds public trust. Building public trust is essential to nonprofit organizations and lobbying helps you gain it by increasing your organization’s visibility. Just as raising funds and recruiting volunteers are important to achieving your organization’s mission so is lobbying. You miss out on an important opportunity to advance your cause if you don’t think as much about relationships with local, state, and federal government.
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do—people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
You can make a difference. It takes one person to initiate change. Gerry Jensen was a single mother struggling to raise her son in Toledo, Ohio, without the help of a workable child support system. She put an ad in a local newspaper to see if there were other moms who wanted to join her in working for change. There were. Over time, they built the Association for Child Support Enforcement, or ACES, which has helped change child support laws not just in Ohio, but across the country. One person—a single mother—made a difference.
People working together can make a difference. Families of Alzheimer’s patients working together, through the Alzheimer’s Association, convinced the government to invest resources into research for a cure. Other individuals formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving and convinced dozens of states to toughen up their drunk driving laws. As a result, the numbers of drunk driving deaths are lower. Additionally, many people find healing from tragedy by telling their stories and working to prevent it from happening to others.
People can change laws. Many of us think that ordinary individuals can’t make a difference. It is hard to change laws and policies. But it can be done. It has been done, over and over again in our history, in the face of great obstacles. People lost their lives fighting racist “Jim Crow” laws. They won. Women didn’t even have the power of the vote—as we all do today—when they started their struggle for suffrage. Our history is full of stories of people and groups that fought great odds to make great changes: child labor laws, public schools, clean air and water laws, social security.
These changes weren’t easy to achieve. Some took decades. They all took the active involvement—the lobbying—of thousands of people who felt something needed to be changed.
Lobbying is a democratic tradition. The act of telling our policymakers how to write and change our laws is at the very heart of our democratic system. It is an alternative to what has occurred in many other countries: tyranny or revolution. Lobbying has helped keep America’s democracy evolving over more than two centuries.
Lobbying helps find real solutions. Services provided directly to people in need, such as soup kitchens, emergency health clinics, and homeless shelters, are essential. But sometimes they are not enough. Many food pantries, for example, needed new laws to enable caterers and restaurants to donate excess food so the kitchens could feed more people. Family service organizations working to place abused children into safe homes needed changes in the judicial system so kids did not have to wait for years for a secure place to grow up. Through advocacy, both changes were implemented.
People thinking creatively and asking their elected officials for support can generate innovative solutions that overcome the root-cause of a problem.
Lobbying is easy. Many of us think lobbying is some mysterious rite that takes years to master. It isn’t. You can learn how to lobby—whom to call, when, what to say— in minutes. While there are a few simple reporting rules your organization needs to follow, it isn’t complicated. Countless numbers of people have learned how. Lobbying is easier and more effective when many committed people work together. One person does not have to do everything or know everything.
Policymakers need your expertise. Few institutions are closer to the real problems of people than nonprofits and community groups. They see problems first-hand. They know the needs. They see what works and what doesn’t. They can make problems real to policymakers. They care about the problems. Their passion and perspectives need to be heard. Every professional lobbyist will tell you that personal stories are powerful tools for change. People and policymakers can learn from your story.
Lobbying helps people. Some people become concerned that lobbying detracts from their mission, but quite the opposite is true. Everything that goes into a lobbying campaign—the research, the strategy planning, the phone calls and visits—will help fulfill your goal whether it be finding a curefor cancer, beautifying the local park, or helping some other cause that helps people. You may not personally provide a direct service, but through your advocacy work, you enable thousands of others to do so.
The views of local nonprofits are important. Increasingly, the federal government has been allowing local governments to decide how to spend federal money and make more decisions than in the past. This change gives local nonprofits even more responsibility to tell local policymakers what is needed and what will work. And because more decisions are being made locally, your lobbying can have an immediate, concrete impact on people in need.
Lobbying advances your cause and builds public trust. Building public trust is essential to nonprofit organizations and lobbying helps you gain it by increasing your organization’s visibility. Just as raising funds and recruiting volunteers are important to achieving your organization’s mission so is lobbying. You miss out on an important opportunity to advance your cause if you don’t think as much about relationships with local, state, and federal government.
hot 2010 Newt Gingrich finally
ArkBird
01-06 07:00 PM
The palestine problem was created by British people without considering Palestian's approval for the same. What palestinians are asking is their legitimate right. So Hamas is not the first party to blame for palestinian's problem. But Britain is the first person.
You can blame Hamas for wrong approach to the problem which aggravated the problem in such a way that it can not be solved. Also due to Hamas, Palestinians are suffering like anything. God bless all innocent people who suffers.
But why just Israel? Jordan and Egypt also got the slice of the pie. Why not fire rocket at them? Blame Israel just because it's the only non-muslim country in the region so they should pay?
Secondly, Hamas is this powerful today just because people of Palestian allowed them, supported them, elected them now why shy from facing the fallout?
It's sad and unfortunate that people are dying but they are dying because of their bad choices not Israel's so called "aggression".
You can blame Hamas for wrong approach to the problem which aggravated the problem in such a way that it can not be solved. Also due to Hamas, Palestinians are suffering like anything. God bless all innocent people who suffers.
But why just Israel? Jordan and Egypt also got the slice of the pie. Why not fire rocket at them? Blame Israel just because it's the only non-muslim country in the region so they should pay?
Secondly, Hamas is this powerful today just because people of Palestian allowed them, supported them, elected them now why shy from facing the fallout?
It's sad and unfortunate that people are dying but they are dying because of their bad choices not Israel's so called "aggression".
more...
house Speaker Newt Gingrich is
msp1976
03-04 01:01 PM
I wish that you would drop whatever you have in your signature....George Allen was one of the co-sponsors of the original SKIL bill...He was sympathetic to our cause...Now when he made those comments he was pandering to certain local sentiments....Conservative senators have been more sympathetic to us than democrats...It is time to stop beating that dead horse...
tattoo for Newt Gingrich says the
GCwaitforever
07-15 12:32 PM
Every forum has its set of jokers like loveh1b. They live in their own well and think it is the world. Thats how these generalizations come.
more...
pictures Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia.
axp817
03-26 05:20 PM
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
UN,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. As always, your time is highly appreciated.
So I assume in the Baltimore case, the 485 eventually did get approved (or if still pending, the USCIS atleast okayed the switch back to the petitioning employer despite the 140 revocation).
And yes, I am talking about cases where the 140 was revoked for genuine ability to pay reasons and not so the underlying labor could be substituted for someone else.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
UN,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. As always, your time is highly appreciated.
So I assume in the Baltimore case, the 485 eventually did get approved (or if still pending, the USCIS atleast okayed the switch back to the petitioning employer despite the 140 revocation).
And yes, I am talking about cases where the 140 was revoked for genuine ability to pay reasons and not so the underlying labor could be substituted for someone else.
dresses Newt Gingrich Former
Marphad
12-18 10:34 AM
People write bad words all the time.
What to do? Its like a flu shot. You feel feverish for a while and then you are immune.
Why don't that junglee come forward in talk in forum? I know why, coz this what they are taught at home, at school in their society to use bad words for mothers and sisters. These kind of people are supporters of Kasab, Afzal Guru etc....
What to do? Its like a flu shot. You feel feverish for a while and then you are immune.
Why don't that junglee come forward in talk in forum? I know why, coz this what they are taught at home, at school in their society to use bad words for mothers and sisters. These kind of people are supporters of Kasab, Afzal Guru etc....
more...
makeup NY Times on Newt Gingrich
alias
04-08 07:01 AM
I might be interesting to check with a lawyer whether:
H1B extensions based on I-140 (beyond 6 years) are same as normal H1B extensions(without I-140). In other words, if someone has an I-140 approved does this bill still affect his H1B extension petition(assuming he is consulting)?
H1B extensions based on I-140 (beyond 6 years) are same as normal H1B extensions(without I-140). In other words, if someone has an I-140 approved does this bill still affect his H1B extension petition(assuming he is consulting)?
girlfriend Newt Gingrich…
oliTwist
12-24 02:05 PM
How old is the technique of discrediting my links to win the argument. Of course, if I tell you of all the atrocities of Indian army in Kashmir, or punjab, or assam, to you I am a muslim, and my default I hate India. Of course, it wouldn't matter if good old amnesty internationl would raise a red flag against india...
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves
wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...
... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm
... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!
I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Thou_shalt_rise_again/articleshow/3882599.cms Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves
wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...
... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm
... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!
I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Thou_shalt_rise_again/articleshow/3882599.cms Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!
hairstyles Before Newt Gingrich
NKR
03-28 08:06 PM
Job is never guaranteed ..so watch out !! I agree it is highly personal - so if you can and have purchased it --good for you. I was giving my opinion and also to educate about the myth that home is a great investment ..it is not ..it is just a place to live..and so is an apartment..I guess both have advantages and disadvantages ..
to answer yr question on top ...do you mean to say kids won't grow up in an apartment ?? I feel at v.young age they find more friends in apartments.
or do u mean to say young kids ( 2 - 6) years lead inferior lives in apartments ?? I big NO ..by renting I come home early and spend more time with kids and they love that ..now if you are able to buy house near your work then that is good for you ...but where I stay (and for many) they cannot do that because of the bubble !!
to answer yr other post ..actually you should have framed it this way ...would I buy an house if I get green card (SINCE I BELIEVE I WILL GET GC BEFORE PRICES GO UP ..i.e. with in next 2 years). my answer ..
if I get GC ..yes ...irrespective of price going up or not ..within a period of 6 months after getting GC, I would buy house ..credit is good and have downpayment.
on EAD and I need more space ...(I would need extra space only when my son grows up and he needs his own space and room)..before this happens I believe I would get a GC ..if I don't get GC then I would try to rent a home.
EAD and don't need 2000 sq feet (i.e. sons are still small) ..then I would continue to rent (and watch the falling prices !! and perhabs thank USCIS just for this i.e. preventing me from buying a house at inflated prices !!).
You keep mixing up things, You are both for/against in your own post. On one hand you say that apartment is good for kids since they find other kids to play with, on the other hand you say that if you get a GC, you will buy a house within six months. So what exactly are you trying to tell. If the market is good, is buying a house good thing or bad thing.
Home might not be a great investment, after a couple of years it becomes a necessity. Living in a house is not a great thing, nor living in an apartment is less pleasant. Like I have said it all depends on one�s situation and what one wants. A person and his/her family including kids should be happy wherever they are, it�s all that matters.
to answer yr question on top ...do you mean to say kids won't grow up in an apartment ?? I feel at v.young age they find more friends in apartments.
or do u mean to say young kids ( 2 - 6) years lead inferior lives in apartments ?? I big NO ..by renting I come home early and spend more time with kids and they love that ..now if you are able to buy house near your work then that is good for you ...but where I stay (and for many) they cannot do that because of the bubble !!
to answer yr other post ..actually you should have framed it this way ...would I buy an house if I get green card (SINCE I BELIEVE I WILL GET GC BEFORE PRICES GO UP ..i.e. with in next 2 years). my answer ..
if I get GC ..yes ...irrespective of price going up or not ..within a period of 6 months after getting GC, I would buy house ..credit is good and have downpayment.
on EAD and I need more space ...(I would need extra space only when my son grows up and he needs his own space and room)..before this happens I believe I would get a GC ..if I don't get GC then I would try to rent a home.
EAD and don't need 2000 sq feet (i.e. sons are still small) ..then I would continue to rent (and watch the falling prices !! and perhabs thank USCIS just for this i.e. preventing me from buying a house at inflated prices !!).
You keep mixing up things, You are both for/against in your own post. On one hand you say that apartment is good for kids since they find other kids to play with, on the other hand you say that if you get a GC, you will buy a house within six months. So what exactly are you trying to tell. If the market is good, is buying a house good thing or bad thing.
Home might not be a great investment, after a couple of years it becomes a necessity. Living in a house is not a great thing, nor living in an apartment is less pleasant. Like I have said it all depends on one�s situation and what one wants. A person and his/her family including kids should be happy wherever they are, it�s all that matters.
imbond707
08-06 08:41 AM
Dear Rolling_Flood,
Interfiling/PD Porting is a law. And I understand that you want to file lawsuit so that this law can be changed. If you are so adamant about this then why are you wasting your time to know our views on this? Why don�t you go ahead and file lawsuit? If indeed you succeed then what if Americans stands up and see opportunity from this case that EB based immigration system can be challenged and file lawsuit to change EB based immigration system that allows only PhDs to immigrate to US? And you are not PhD. Please for your sake take a moment and try to release negative energy you have and then you will see that this world is so beautiful.
May GOD give you wisdom. (Amen�)
James Bond
Interfiling/PD Porting is a law. And I understand that you want to file lawsuit so that this law can be changed. If you are so adamant about this then why are you wasting your time to know our views on this? Why don�t you go ahead and file lawsuit? If indeed you succeed then what if Americans stands up and see opportunity from this case that EB based immigration system can be challenged and file lawsuit to change EB based immigration system that allows only PhDs to immigrate to US? And you are not PhD. Please for your sake take a moment and try to release negative energy you have and then you will see that this world is so beautiful.
May GOD give you wisdom. (Amen�)
James Bond
Macaca
02-20 10:20 AM
Some paras from A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900972.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Please send e-mail tokstreet@washpost.com
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.