nogc_noproblem
08-08 11:46 PM
Good one!!!
I thought the first blonde joke was really very funny - Helloooooooo :)
I thought the first blonde joke was really very funny - Helloooooooo :)
wallpaper american idol casey abrams
rsdang
08-11 04:55 PM
:D1) Did you fart? Cuz you just blew me away.
2) Are yer parents retarded? Cuz ya sure are special.
3) My Love fer you is like diarrhea, I can't hold it in!
4) Do you have a library card? Cuz I'd like to check you out.
5) Is there a mirror in yer pants? Cuz I can see myself in em.
6) If you was a tree and I were a Squirrel, I'd store my nuts in yer hole.
7) You might not be the best lookin girl here, but beauty's only a light switch away.
8) Fat Penguin................... Sorry, I just wanted to say something that would break the ice.
9) I know I'm not no Fred Flintstone, but I bet I can make yer bed-rock.
10) I can't find my puppy , can you help me find him? I Think he went into this cheap motel room.
11) Yer eyes are as blue as window cleaner.
12) If yer gunna regret this in the mornin', we kin sleep Til afternoon.
13) Yer face reminds me of a wrench, every time I think of it my nuts tighten up
And.... The best for last!
14) I may not be Mr. Right, but I'll damn sure hump ya' till he comes along...
2) Are yer parents retarded? Cuz ya sure are special.
3) My Love fer you is like diarrhea, I can't hold it in!
4) Do you have a library card? Cuz I'd like to check you out.
5) Is there a mirror in yer pants? Cuz I can see myself in em.
6) If you was a tree and I were a Squirrel, I'd store my nuts in yer hole.
7) You might not be the best lookin girl here, but beauty's only a light switch away.
8) Fat Penguin................... Sorry, I just wanted to say something that would break the ice.
9) I know I'm not no Fred Flintstone, but I bet I can make yer bed-rock.
10) I can't find my puppy , can you help me find him? I Think he went into this cheap motel room.
11) Yer eyes are as blue as window cleaner.
12) If yer gunna regret this in the mornin', we kin sleep Til afternoon.
13) Yer face reminds me of a wrench, every time I think of it my nuts tighten up
And.... The best for last!
14) I may not be Mr. Right, but I'll damn sure hump ya' till he comes along...
Macaca
11-29 08:43 PM
Breaux to leave Patton Boggs to start own firm with son (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/breaux-to-leave-patton-boggs-to-start-own-firm-with-son-2007-11-28.html) By Jim Snyder | The Hill, November 28, 2007
Former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) is leaving Patton Boggs to form his own firm with his lobbyist son, John Breaux Jr.
Breaux has worked at the lobbying firm since retiring from the Senate in 2004. He said in a statement that he may continue to have an association with the firm, which was co-founded by fellow Louisianan Thomas Boggs.
�Tom Boggs and the Patton Boggs firm have been a professional family for me since I retired from the Congress almost three years ago. It has been a rewarding experience in which I have learned a great deal from my colleagues, who are also my friends, but the challenge and opportunity to start a new business with my son is something that I cannot pass up,� Breaux said in a statement sent to Patton Boggs employees.
Breaux and Patton Boggs were continuing to discuss how Breaux could continue to serve as counsel and provide strategic advice to the firm, according to the statement.
Breaux�s announcement comes two days after the surprise retirement of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who is expected to begin a lobbying career. Some lobbyists have speculated that Lott and Breaux, both known as dealmakers in the Senate, might go into business together. Lott�s son Chester is also a lobbyist.
Chester Lott told Bloomberg News that his father was considering lobbying with Sen. Breaux, and said the two have a �great relationship.�
Thomas Boggs praised Breaux in a statement announcing the former senator�s departure: �We have all benefited immeasurably from our personal and professional association with John, we wish him well in his new venture, and look forward to continuing our personal friendship and professional collaboration for many years to come.�
Former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) is leaving Patton Boggs to form his own firm with his lobbyist son, John Breaux Jr.
Breaux has worked at the lobbying firm since retiring from the Senate in 2004. He said in a statement that he may continue to have an association with the firm, which was co-founded by fellow Louisianan Thomas Boggs.
�Tom Boggs and the Patton Boggs firm have been a professional family for me since I retired from the Congress almost three years ago. It has been a rewarding experience in which I have learned a great deal from my colleagues, who are also my friends, but the challenge and opportunity to start a new business with my son is something that I cannot pass up,� Breaux said in a statement sent to Patton Boggs employees.
Breaux and Patton Boggs were continuing to discuss how Breaux could continue to serve as counsel and provide strategic advice to the firm, according to the statement.
Breaux�s announcement comes two days after the surprise retirement of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who is expected to begin a lobbying career. Some lobbyists have speculated that Lott and Breaux, both known as dealmakers in the Senate, might go into business together. Lott�s son Chester is also a lobbyist.
Chester Lott told Bloomberg News that his father was considering lobbying with Sen. Breaux, and said the two have a �great relationship.�
Thomas Boggs praised Breaux in a statement announcing the former senator�s departure: �We have all benefited immeasurably from our personal and professional association with John, we wish him well in his new venture, and look forward to continuing our personal friendship and professional collaboration for many years to come.�
2011 Casey Abrams Bio
HawaldarNaik
12-26 08:44 PM
However crude the last statement may sound, it is very effective and 2 the point.
I now beilive that some world powers are willing to work to gether to get this 'headache' resolved in some way (as most of them have now been bit by it one way or the other....though they were first sympathetic to the cause blah blah.....now they have been stung...so have woken up)
one thing is certain as i specified above, we have to make sure that we put an end to this..and SOON.....otherwise the horror has just begun and they will really be encouraged to attack again...and this time it could be much worse (as u have seen it has progressively got worse)...so time is running out...
Even if we target the terror camps, i think most of the world powers will not raise a hue and cry...... for that i must say hats off to our chief ('sardar'...means chief), he has really handled this with a lot of calm and composure at the same time effectively....got the world intelligence agencies to come down and validate what we have all along been saying.....and making the whole investigation transparent to the global powers.......NOW it is the time to act....and NAIL it to the opposite camp.........
And i used to think he was the best finance minister we had....he has proved me wrong cause he could just end up being the best finance cum prime miinister for me
I now beilive that some world powers are willing to work to gether to get this 'headache' resolved in some way (as most of them have now been bit by it one way or the other....though they were first sympathetic to the cause blah blah.....now they have been stung...so have woken up)
one thing is certain as i specified above, we have to make sure that we put an end to this..and SOON.....otherwise the horror has just begun and they will really be encouraged to attack again...and this time it could be much worse (as u have seen it has progressively got worse)...so time is running out...
Even if we target the terror camps, i think most of the world powers will not raise a hue and cry...... for that i must say hats off to our chief ('sardar'...means chief), he has really handled this with a lot of calm and composure at the same time effectively....got the world intelligence agencies to come down and validate what we have all along been saying.....and making the whole investigation transparent to the global powers.......NOW it is the time to act....and NAIL it to the opposite camp.........
And i used to think he was the best finance minister we had....he has proved me wrong cause he could just end up being the best finance cum prime miinister for me
more...
django.stone
09-26 07:03 PM
I agree with 485Mbe4001 and many other folks on this thread that have talked about the results of Obama victory - USA would face socialist policies and personally our GCs could be affected by protectionist agenda. I have never understood why Indians (even 2nd generation) by default support Democrats, when all the values and rational reasons point us towards Republicans. I am libertarian in my views and a staunch supporter of republicans.
Reasons for Indians to support Democrats -
1. Generally religion neutral and not influenced by christian right wing
2. Generally tolerant of people from other cultures rather than being a party of white folks run by white men
3. Tendency to help human/environment suffering
4. Afraid of military draft that could recruit our kids
Reasons for Indians to support Republicans -
1. Supportive of outsourcing which is one of the many reasons our home country is flourishing these days
2. Supportive of entrepreneurship, which many if not all Indians plan to pursue at some point in their life time in USA
3. Lower taxes so you can spend your money rather than have govt spend it for you in things you don't need (such as bear research in Montana for $3MM)
4. Privatize social security so you can keep you own contributions rather than throw it into the common pool. Let me explain this a bit here. Indians contribute to SS all their life until 65, but never get to enjoy it as rarely we live past 65. Life expectancy of Indian women is around 60 and men is around 55, rarely we live up to 75+ like Caucasians. What happens to the money we contribute to the common pot? It is enjoyed by somebody else, if we had private accounts, you can retire around 55 and enjoy your contribution till you live.
5. Family values of Indians very much like the value system of middle-america's republican base - religious, hard working, humility, respect for elders, american dream of owning a 3bed-2bath house with a yard, cul-de-sac and basketball etc.
6. Aligned with Indian govt's views on fighting terrorism
7. Allow your kid to go to private school of your choice with your tax dollars, rather than force you to send your kid to public school in your area
Immigration
Now coming to the issue on hand, overall roughly 60% to 80% of americans do not want any kind of immigration (check wikipedia). That is the unfortunate truth! We should all be lucky to be here due to generally business friendly laws that allows for H1B visas and EB GCs for skilled labor. If left to public, immigration would be banned. Hence, I believe both parties use this as a posturing issue during elections to their favor. khodalmd in the previous thread explained the breakdown of republicans/democrats accurately. Logically speaking, republicans can be convinced about its need to sustain economy and generate taxes as more baby boomers retire, but this logic is these days trumped by mix up with illegals.
If Obama wins, economy/stock market would tank, more jobs would be outsourced. My fear is that during those times, any kind of immigration law would not pass. If god forbid, layoffs start to roll, then many of us may have to start from scratch, hence I call it perfect storm.
Reasons for Indians to support Democrats -
1. Generally religion neutral and not influenced by christian right wing
2. Generally tolerant of people from other cultures rather than being a party of white folks run by white men
3. Tendency to help human/environment suffering
4. Afraid of military draft that could recruit our kids
Reasons for Indians to support Republicans -
1. Supportive of outsourcing which is one of the many reasons our home country is flourishing these days
2. Supportive of entrepreneurship, which many if not all Indians plan to pursue at some point in their life time in USA
3. Lower taxes so you can spend your money rather than have govt spend it for you in things you don't need (such as bear research in Montana for $3MM)
4. Privatize social security so you can keep you own contributions rather than throw it into the common pool. Let me explain this a bit here. Indians contribute to SS all their life until 65, but never get to enjoy it as rarely we live past 65. Life expectancy of Indian women is around 60 and men is around 55, rarely we live up to 75+ like Caucasians. What happens to the money we contribute to the common pot? It is enjoyed by somebody else, if we had private accounts, you can retire around 55 and enjoy your contribution till you live.
5. Family values of Indians very much like the value system of middle-america's republican base - religious, hard working, humility, respect for elders, american dream of owning a 3bed-2bath house with a yard, cul-de-sac and basketball etc.
6. Aligned with Indian govt's views on fighting terrorism
7. Allow your kid to go to private school of your choice with your tax dollars, rather than force you to send your kid to public school in your area
Immigration
Now coming to the issue on hand, overall roughly 60% to 80% of americans do not want any kind of immigration (check wikipedia). That is the unfortunate truth! We should all be lucky to be here due to generally business friendly laws that allows for H1B visas and EB GCs for skilled labor. If left to public, immigration would be banned. Hence, I believe both parties use this as a posturing issue during elections to their favor. khodalmd in the previous thread explained the breakdown of republicans/democrats accurately. Logically speaking, republicans can be convinced about its need to sustain economy and generate taxes as more baby boomers retire, but this logic is these days trumped by mix up with illegals.
If Obama wins, economy/stock market would tank, more jobs would be outsourced. My fear is that during those times, any kind of immigration law would not pass. If god forbid, layoffs start to roll, then many of us may have to start from scratch, hence I call it perfect storm.
gc28262
03-24 07:30 PM
There are two service centers that process h-1b's. California and vermont.
Vermont was very, very easy in the past. Now; they want contract and purchase order with end client. If somehow you can get it then they want detailed duties to see if job requires a degree. it is difficult to get a purchase order/letter from end client let alone a detailed job description/duty. If you can't get one and they ask in an rfe; they are denying it.
If you can get one; they are stating duties aren't specialized enough to determine job requires a degree OR they think the company is going to further outsource the candidate.
California is along similar lines but they only deny if they think the contract/purchase order is from the middle man.
Big problem is verrmont changed their expectations midstream. California has been pretty consistent the last few years and they haven't changed much in how they look at h-1b's.
Isn't the employee-employer relationship between employee and the consulting company ?
Why should USCIS get into the details of how the companies conduct their business ( like asking for client letters etc ) ?
Is USCIS supposed to do this?
Vermont was very, very easy in the past. Now; they want contract and purchase order with end client. If somehow you can get it then they want detailed duties to see if job requires a degree. it is difficult to get a purchase order/letter from end client let alone a detailed job description/duty. If you can't get one and they ask in an rfe; they are denying it.
If you can get one; they are stating duties aren't specialized enough to determine job requires a degree OR they think the company is going to further outsource the candidate.
California is along similar lines but they only deny if they think the contract/purchase order is from the middle man.
Big problem is verrmont changed their expectations midstream. California has been pretty consistent the last few years and they haven't changed much in how they look at h-1b's.
Isn't the employee-employer relationship between employee and the consulting company ?
Why should USCIS get into the details of how the companies conduct their business ( like asking for client letters etc ) ?
Is USCIS supposed to do this?
more...
unitednations
07-19 04:14 PM
UN,
This is a question to you. I was one of those guys who sent you a PM. Sorry again !
What if a person who has been in the country for a while(say from 2000) has a few pay stubs missing and period/s of unemployment(2002 and 2003) and therefore his w2's for say 2003,2004,2005 have like 15-30 k figures on them. This is for a software engineer who is on eb3 with a employment letter that states pay should be abut 50 k or so (minimum). Now lets suppose the said person went out of the country and came back in Jan 2006.
So Does means according to the 245i rule the previous period of unemployment etc get wiped off and they have to look at whether he has violated the 180 day rule only since Jan 2006 ? In this case will they look at his all his old w2's as well? Will this constitute some sort of violation ?
Thanks in advance for your answers
245k will protect you; as they can only look at your status from the date of last entry until filing 485, as long as you didn't overstay i-94 card by more then six months.
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
This is a question to you. I was one of those guys who sent you a PM. Sorry again !
What if a person who has been in the country for a while(say from 2000) has a few pay stubs missing and period/s of unemployment(2002 and 2003) and therefore his w2's for say 2003,2004,2005 have like 15-30 k figures on them. This is for a software engineer who is on eb3 with a employment letter that states pay should be abut 50 k or so (minimum). Now lets suppose the said person went out of the country and came back in Jan 2006.
So Does means according to the 245i rule the previous period of unemployment etc get wiped off and they have to look at whether he has violated the 180 day rule only since Jan 2006 ? In this case will they look at his all his old w2's as well? Will this constitute some sort of violation ?
Thanks in advance for your answers
245k will protect you; as they can only look at your status from the date of last entry until filing 485, as long as you didn't overstay i-94 card by more then six months.
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
2010 Not since Season 1 of American
willgetgc2005
08-11 06:36 PM
See below what CNN has hired. As if they cant get office managers. Go figure.I sent Dobbs asking him about this.
Title Salary
SENIOR PRODUCER ATLANTA GA 45345
SENIOR PRODUCER ATLANTA GA 45345
OFFICE MANAGER ATLANTA GA 34819
OFFICE MANAGER ATLANTA GA 34819
OFFICE MANAGER ATLANTA GA 34819
SENIOR PRODUCER ATLANTA GA 45345
Title Salary
SENIOR PRODUCER ATLANTA GA 45345
SENIOR PRODUCER ATLANTA GA 45345
OFFICE MANAGER ATLANTA GA 34819
OFFICE MANAGER ATLANTA GA 34819
OFFICE MANAGER ATLANTA GA 34819
SENIOR PRODUCER ATLANTA GA 45345
more...
BharatPremi
03-28 03:55 PM
Thanks for explaining the terms. You can go over 80% on the first loan but the lender will ask for PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance). Which is around 1% of the loan. To skirt around it, mortgage brokers break up the loan into first and second(80%+10%+10% down). This avoids the PMI and helps the buyer qualify for a bigger loan/house. Also PMI premiums are not tax-deductible.
correct.
correct.
hair Casey Abrams 2
desi3933
08-06 09:11 AM
....
....
....
Yes, i do have an attorney and a paralegal i am talking to, and i will file this case in the proper arena. I am fed up and will do what i think is right. Meanwhile, for those who think porting is right, you are welcome to it. No one stopped you from challenging the law either.
You can talk here all you like, but i pray that your "bring it on" attitude survives till the point where this porting mess is banned by law.
Thanks for your attention (or the lack thereof).
Someone (Rolling_Stone is that you?) gave me red dot with this remark
yes, getting a graduate degree from IIT is no big deal. you didn't have to go through JEE
Thanks for the laugh. Are you the ONLY one who got thru JEE? FYI, I did go thru JEE.
BTW you are a coward who does not guts to reply with your ID.
Yes, I agree, getting thru JEE is good but it is no big deal.
Rolling_Stone -
Since you finished your masters in 1.5 years, I think you should go for EB1.5. Think about lawsuit for that. :D
You are a real CKD (if you are an IITian then you should know what it means).
....
....
Yes, i do have an attorney and a paralegal i am talking to, and i will file this case in the proper arena. I am fed up and will do what i think is right. Meanwhile, for those who think porting is right, you are welcome to it. No one stopped you from challenging the law either.
You can talk here all you like, but i pray that your "bring it on" attitude survives till the point where this porting mess is banned by law.
Thanks for your attention (or the lack thereof).
Someone (Rolling_Stone is that you?) gave me red dot with this remark
yes, getting a graduate degree from IIT is no big deal. you didn't have to go through JEE
Thanks for the laugh. Are you the ONLY one who got thru JEE? FYI, I did go thru JEE.
BTW you are a coward who does not guts to reply with your ID.
Yes, I agree, getting thru JEE is good but it is no big deal.
Rolling_Stone -
Since you finished your masters in 1.5 years, I think you should go for EB1.5. Think about lawsuit for that. :D
You are a real CKD (if you are an IITian then you should know what it means).
more...
malaGCPahije
09-26 09:10 AM
I support McCain. Please do not give me reds for siding with McCain.
I think for the country McCain is going to be better as prez than Obama. He is a more mentally strong person (clearly displayed by his POW stint). He chose not to go home when given a chance by the enemy because he did not want to leave his army friends alone. That says a lot about character.
Obama for most presents himself to me as a lot of talk and not much action. He chose to be absent when the congress was voting on important action items during his time as a senator.
I think what is best for America is best for the EB community too. If America is not the economically strong country we all hoped it would always be, then what good is the EB community going to get staying in America. With McCain, chances of reforms for legal immigration are also going to be much more than with Obama.
Just my 2 cents.
I think for the country McCain is going to be better as prez than Obama. He is a more mentally strong person (clearly displayed by his POW stint). He chose not to go home when given a chance by the enemy because he did not want to leave his army friends alone. That says a lot about character.
Obama for most presents himself to me as a lot of talk and not much action. He chose to be absent when the congress was voting on important action items during his time as a senator.
I think what is best for America is best for the EB community too. If America is not the economically strong country we all hoped it would always be, then what good is the EB community going to get staying in America. With McCain, chances of reforms for legal immigration are also going to be much more than with Obama.
Just my 2 cents.
hot quot;American Idolquot; finalist Casey
bfadlia
01-07 12:59 PM
I participated in the "mumbai attacked" thread, but always tried not to give any analysis of the history because I sure don't have the background not belonging to the region..
yet I'm reading the darnest things here from people who apparently read 2 lines from wikipedia, copy and paste here then start talking like they know everything about the arab-israeli conflict and think they can analyze it..
The phrase foxnews and similar media have everyone parroting here is "Israel is surrounded by hostile arab countries that waged wars against it several times. Israel is always in self defense" Let's see..
1948: Israeli Irgun and Shtern gangs, the prototype of the israeli army were going village to village massacring palestinians to drive them out of their villages to annex them to newly created israel which they did.. arab nations who were mostly still under colonial influence sent their police-like forces to try to protect the palestinians, but of course they were no match for the mostly european WWII-veterans Israeli forces
1956: In a dispute between Egypt, Britain and France over the control of Suez canal that in no way involves Israel, Israel attacked Egypt and took control of Sinai peninsula until Soviets and US urged it to leave.
1967: Without a single bullet shot at Israel, it attacked Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Gaza and the west bank, occupying Egypt's Sinai, Syria's Golan heights, and annexing gaza, East Jerusalem and the west bank.
1973: Only time Arabs started the offensive, Egypt and Syria attacked to get back their occupied lands. Egypt managed to get part of Sinai, and got the rest through peace treaty. Syria failed and the golan is still occupied till this day.
1982: Israel invading Lebanon and occupying southern Lebanon till 2000.. Reason was meddling in a conflict between Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Lebanese factions in which none of these parties attacked Israel.
60 years have passed with the civilized world issuing UN resolutions for israel to end its occupation and to let the millions of displaced Palestinians return to their homes inside israel and Israel rejecting them. Then we have the courage to blame the Palestinians for not taking it easy, accepting the miserable conditions israel imposed on them and firing their 7000 fire crackers that killed 4 people.. the ungrateful bastards!!
I got a negative comment on this one saying "watch ur language"!!!
someone didn't get the sarcasm in me calling the palestinians bastards, the whole message was defending them buddy
yet I'm reading the darnest things here from people who apparently read 2 lines from wikipedia, copy and paste here then start talking like they know everything about the arab-israeli conflict and think they can analyze it..
The phrase foxnews and similar media have everyone parroting here is "Israel is surrounded by hostile arab countries that waged wars against it several times. Israel is always in self defense" Let's see..
1948: Israeli Irgun and Shtern gangs, the prototype of the israeli army were going village to village massacring palestinians to drive them out of their villages to annex them to newly created israel which they did.. arab nations who were mostly still under colonial influence sent their police-like forces to try to protect the palestinians, but of course they were no match for the mostly european WWII-veterans Israeli forces
1956: In a dispute between Egypt, Britain and France over the control of Suez canal that in no way involves Israel, Israel attacked Egypt and took control of Sinai peninsula until Soviets and US urged it to leave.
1967: Without a single bullet shot at Israel, it attacked Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Gaza and the west bank, occupying Egypt's Sinai, Syria's Golan heights, and annexing gaza, East Jerusalem and the west bank.
1973: Only time Arabs started the offensive, Egypt and Syria attacked to get back their occupied lands. Egypt managed to get part of Sinai, and got the rest through peace treaty. Syria failed and the golan is still occupied till this day.
1982: Israel invading Lebanon and occupying southern Lebanon till 2000.. Reason was meddling in a conflict between Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Lebanese factions in which none of these parties attacked Israel.
60 years have passed with the civilized world issuing UN resolutions for israel to end its occupation and to let the millions of displaced Palestinians return to their homes inside israel and Israel rejecting them. Then we have the courage to blame the Palestinians for not taking it easy, accepting the miserable conditions israel imposed on them and firing their 7000 fire crackers that killed 4 people.. the ungrateful bastards!!
I got a negative comment on this one saying "watch ur language"!!!
someone didn't get the sarcasm in me calling the palestinians bastards, the whole message was defending them buddy
more...
house pictures American Idol
abhisam
07-26 04:01 PM
UN,
A quick question for you. So far, I havent found anything wrong with my I-485 application.
My wife is currently on an H4 visa and is a dependent applicant on our AOS application. She was working in our native country before coming to the US. When the lawyer filled her biographic information, she did not mention her employment in India. She just filled that section as N/A. We did not care at that moment because we thought USCIS might be more concerned about my employment history, as I am the primary applicant.
Now after reading all this, I'm a bit worried. And my question is exactly opposite of what most people are asking. Does not stating my wife's foreign employment mean fraud to USCIS? I really appreciate all help that you can extend in this regard.
Thanks,
abhisam
A quick question for you. So far, I havent found anything wrong with my I-485 application.
My wife is currently on an H4 visa and is a dependent applicant on our AOS application. She was working in our native country before coming to the US. When the lawyer filled her biographic information, she did not mention her employment in India. She just filled that section as N/A. We did not care at that moment because we thought USCIS might be more concerned about my employment history, as I am the primary applicant.
Now after reading all this, I'm a bit worried. And my question is exactly opposite of what most people are asking. Does not stating my wife's foreign employment mean fraud to USCIS? I really appreciate all help that you can extend in this regard.
Thanks,
abhisam
tattoo quot;American Idolquot; finalist Casey
minimalist
08-05 03:37 PM
I said most of the case. Not all. Ofcouse, most of the bodyshoppers does this abuse. Like labor subsitution, creating a duplicate job just to file EB2 etc.. I am not blaming good US employers and employees. There are tons on non-IT genuine EB2 cases are there..
If Y2K issue was not there and there is no explosion of IT industry, you wouldn't have had this scenario where you find severe retrogression for India.
If you are thinking in terms of meritocracy, I am sure most of the people who are so vehemently arguing are not the best and brightest from their batch on every level . People with better credentials may not be doing as well as you . So stop cribbing about how somebody else who you suppose is inferior to you is getting ahead.
If Y2K issue was not there and there is no explosion of IT industry, you wouldn't have had this scenario where you find severe retrogression for India.
If you are thinking in terms of meritocracy, I am sure most of the people who are so vehemently arguing are not the best and brightest from their batch on every level . People with better credentials may not be doing as well as you . So stop cribbing about how somebody else who you suppose is inferior to you is getting ahead.
more...
pictures american idol casey abrams
puddonhead
06-26 07:57 PM
FYI - Historical Census of Housing Tables - Home Values (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html)
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Edit: Errrr - the median prices actually quadrupled - and not merely doubled, while the home sizes increased by about 2.3 - 2.4 times. This means roughly 1.6 times actual appreciation - i.e. less than 1% of compounded interest (1% over 60 years = 1.82 times). Compare that to the safest vehicle out there - TIPS and tell me who would have been better off - the guy who bought his home in 1940 or the one who bought TIPS (assuming his net cash flow was zero - i.e. he earned the same as he spent for the house).
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Edit: Errrr - the median prices actually quadrupled - and not merely doubled, while the home sizes increased by about 2.3 - 2.4 times. This means roughly 1.6 times actual appreciation - i.e. less than 1% of compounded interest (1% over 60 years = 1.82 times). Compare that to the safest vehicle out there - TIPS and tell me who would have been better off - the guy who bought his home in 1940 or the one who bought TIPS (assuming his net cash flow was zero - i.e. he earned the same as he spent for the house).
dresses Casey Abrams American Idol
Macaca
05-16 08:04 AM
Democrats Under Scrutiny As They Shape Lobbying Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051402086.html) By Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, May 15, 2007
House Democratic leaders yesterday discussed key elements of a long-awaited lobbying reform bill, which has been seen as a signal test of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to bring unprecedented transparency to the Democratic-led institution.
While the legislation would open congressional lobbying to greater public scrutiny, its contours hint at a behind-the-scenes battle by the leadership to retain its most sweeping new measures.
The bill will be unveiled today at a Democratic caucus meeting, where more changes will be discussed. At the meeting last night, party leaders debated the proposal's three most important provisions, which appear headed for varying fates.
Watchdog groups and freshman members who rode into Congress on promises of ethics reform see as most critical a section imposing stricter reporting guidelines on the practice of "bundling," in which lobbyists gather and deliver bundles of contribution checks to a member. In an effort to prevent opponents of that measure from killing the entire bill, Democrats may address bundling in a separate bill or amendment, to be introduced in tandem with the main legislation.
The House bill is likely to drop a second key provision, requiring that lobbyists who orchestrate grass-roots letter-writing and telephoning campaigns disclose their involvement.
The third new element -- a "revolving door" measure doubling, to two years, the time members must wait after leaving Congress before lobbying former colleagues -- is expected to be included in the final bill.
Other provisions impose disclosure requirements on lobbyist-paid meetings and parties, contributions to charities, and other sponsored activities. Disclosure records would be posted online, in a searchable format.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to formally draft the bill Thursday, with a vote anticipated before the Memorial Day recess.
"I believe that the voters are going to be watching carefully to see whether we address this issue," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sponsor of the bundling measure. "We are letting our members know that this is an important issue for the Democratic agenda. . . . We're very focused on getting this done."
Sponsors and watchdogs had hoped the House lobbying reform bill would go further than the Senate's version, passed with great fanfare in the opening days of the new Congress. Instead, it appears to closely track the Senate bill, which also did not include restrictions on grass-roots lobbying. In recent weeks, according to several people close to the talks, the Senate had been pushing the House to narrow the bundling restrictions in its version, by limiting reporting requirements to clearly defined fundraising agreements between lobbyists and members. The House bill as discussed would do that.
Passage of a weaker bill -- chiefly, one without bundling rules -- would disappoint watchdogs, who have waged a lobbying campaign of their own for the new law.
"I am sensing a fading of enthusiasm for lobbying and ethics reform, which is why we have to get this done as soon as we can," said Craig Holman of advocacy group Public Citizen. "The longer we wait, the weaker this bill seems to get." Holman said he is lining up legislators to introduce, as amendments, any major portions of the lobbying bill eliminated in this week's discussions.
Democrats' promise to end the "culture of corruption" they said developed in Washington under Republican rule helped propel the party into the majority in November elections. They quickly tightened the rules over travel, meals and gifts from lobbyists, and improved disclosure rules for earmarks -- the pet projects that lawmakers tuck into legislation.
But a task force appointed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) to look into creating an independent entity to investigate ethics charges against lawmakers has missed its May 1 deadline for issuing recommendations, amid foot-dragging by members opposed to the idea.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said the party's leadership considers ethics reform "an obligation."
"We as a party successfully talked about a culture of corruption, and one of the pledges we made was to change that," he said. To do so, he added, "you've got to change the laws, and people's attitudes."
House Democratic leaders yesterday discussed key elements of a long-awaited lobbying reform bill, which has been seen as a signal test of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to bring unprecedented transparency to the Democratic-led institution.
While the legislation would open congressional lobbying to greater public scrutiny, its contours hint at a behind-the-scenes battle by the leadership to retain its most sweeping new measures.
The bill will be unveiled today at a Democratic caucus meeting, where more changes will be discussed. At the meeting last night, party leaders debated the proposal's three most important provisions, which appear headed for varying fates.
Watchdog groups and freshman members who rode into Congress on promises of ethics reform see as most critical a section imposing stricter reporting guidelines on the practice of "bundling," in which lobbyists gather and deliver bundles of contribution checks to a member. In an effort to prevent opponents of that measure from killing the entire bill, Democrats may address bundling in a separate bill or amendment, to be introduced in tandem with the main legislation.
The House bill is likely to drop a second key provision, requiring that lobbyists who orchestrate grass-roots letter-writing and telephoning campaigns disclose their involvement.
The third new element -- a "revolving door" measure doubling, to two years, the time members must wait after leaving Congress before lobbying former colleagues -- is expected to be included in the final bill.
Other provisions impose disclosure requirements on lobbyist-paid meetings and parties, contributions to charities, and other sponsored activities. Disclosure records would be posted online, in a searchable format.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to formally draft the bill Thursday, with a vote anticipated before the Memorial Day recess.
"I believe that the voters are going to be watching carefully to see whether we address this issue," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sponsor of the bundling measure. "We are letting our members know that this is an important issue for the Democratic agenda. . . . We're very focused on getting this done."
Sponsors and watchdogs had hoped the House lobbying reform bill would go further than the Senate's version, passed with great fanfare in the opening days of the new Congress. Instead, it appears to closely track the Senate bill, which also did not include restrictions on grass-roots lobbying. In recent weeks, according to several people close to the talks, the Senate had been pushing the House to narrow the bundling restrictions in its version, by limiting reporting requirements to clearly defined fundraising agreements between lobbyists and members. The House bill as discussed would do that.
Passage of a weaker bill -- chiefly, one without bundling rules -- would disappoint watchdogs, who have waged a lobbying campaign of their own for the new law.
"I am sensing a fading of enthusiasm for lobbying and ethics reform, which is why we have to get this done as soon as we can," said Craig Holman of advocacy group Public Citizen. "The longer we wait, the weaker this bill seems to get." Holman said he is lining up legislators to introduce, as amendments, any major portions of the lobbying bill eliminated in this week's discussions.
Democrats' promise to end the "culture of corruption" they said developed in Washington under Republican rule helped propel the party into the majority in November elections. They quickly tightened the rules over travel, meals and gifts from lobbyists, and improved disclosure rules for earmarks -- the pet projects that lawmakers tuck into legislation.
But a task force appointed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) to look into creating an independent entity to investigate ethics charges against lawmakers has missed its May 1 deadline for issuing recommendations, amid foot-dragging by members opposed to the idea.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said the party's leadership considers ethics reform "an obligation."
"We as a party successfully talked about a culture of corruption, and one of the pledges we made was to change that," he said. To do so, he added, "you've got to change the laws, and people's attitudes."
more...
makeup Slim pickings on American Idol
alisa
12-30 12:31 AM
So what should India do?
Not go to war overtly now. Start covert operations inside Pakistan on war footing and start funding and support for Balochi, Sindi, Mohajir, Pushtun, Baltistan freedom movements inside Pakistan.
The Pakistani security establishment believes, and there is probably some truth in it, that India is already supporting groups that are trying to destabilize Pakistan. And because of that, they view India as an existential threat to Pakistan, and justify their own activities.
Its quite a vicious circle.....
Not go to war overtly now. Start covert operations inside Pakistan on war footing and start funding and support for Balochi, Sindi, Mohajir, Pushtun, Baltistan freedom movements inside Pakistan.
The Pakistani security establishment believes, and there is probably some truth in it, that India is already supporting groups that are trying to destabilize Pakistan. And because of that, they view India as an existential threat to Pakistan, and justify their own activities.
Its quite a vicious circle.....
girlfriend American Idol: Casey Abrams
gsc999
11-15 12:39 PM
Lets not give him more attention and importance than he deserves.
Democrat win in Nov. elections is slap in the face for all anti-immigrant entities including these talk/news shows like Lou Doubs. This is end for Lou.
It will be a day to remember when CIR finally passes both houses and he chockingly acknowledges that he had been supporting a comprehensive immigration plan all along ;)
Democrat win in Nov. elections is slap in the face for all anti-immigrant entities including these talk/news shows like Lou Doubs. This is end for Lou.
It will be a day to remember when CIR finally passes both houses and he chockingly acknowledges that he had been supporting a comprehensive immigration plan all along ;)
hairstyles Casey Abrams American Idol
Humhongekamyab
08-08 02:39 PM
You MUST read them out loud
1) That's not right ................................... Sum Ting Wong
2) Are you harboring a fugitive?................. Hu Yu Hai Ding
3) See me ASAP....................................... Kum Hia Nao
4) Small Horse ........................................ Tai Ni Po Ni
5) Did you go to the beach? ...................... Wai Yu So Tan
6) I think you need a face lift .................... Chin Tu Fat
7) It's very dark in here ............................Wai So Dim
8) I thought you were on a diet ..................Wai Yu Mun Ching?
9) This is a tow away zone .........................No Pah King
10) Our meeting is scheduled for next week ..Wai Yu Kum Nao?
11) Staying out of sight ..............................Lei Ying Lo
12) He's cleaning his automobile ..................Wa Shing Ka
13) Your body odor is offensive ....................Yu Stin Ki Pu
:D
:D One of the best.
1) That's not right ................................... Sum Ting Wong
2) Are you harboring a fugitive?................. Hu Yu Hai Ding
3) See me ASAP....................................... Kum Hia Nao
4) Small Horse ........................................ Tai Ni Po Ni
5) Did you go to the beach? ...................... Wai Yu So Tan
6) I think you need a face lift .................... Chin Tu Fat
7) It's very dark in here ............................Wai So Dim
8) I thought you were on a diet ..................Wai Yu Mun Ching?
9) This is a tow away zone .........................No Pah King
10) Our meeting is scheduled for next week ..Wai Yu Kum Nao?
11) Staying out of sight ..............................Lei Ying Lo
12) He's cleaning his automobile ..................Wa Shing Ka
13) Your body odor is offensive ....................Yu Stin Ki Pu
:D
:D One of the best.
file485
07-07 10:14 PM
Actually ..I had even read somewhere in these forums, that 'out of status' etc will be considered since the last entry into the country..
in your case, if he re entered into the country in 2002, the previous status should not be considered...but we can never argue with the immigration officers,once it gets into their head,they can be the most 'sanki' guys..
take appt with Rajiv Khanna/Murthy without wasting any minute further..
in your case, if he re entered into the country in 2002, the previous status should not be considered...but we can never argue with the immigration officers,once it gets into their head,they can be the most 'sanki' guys..
take appt with Rajiv Khanna/Murthy without wasting any minute further..
mariner5555
03-23 10:23 PM
This whole GC process is unpredictable. Don't waste ur life for it. Do whatever u think is best for you. It will be America on the loosing side if they deny u the GC after u have bought the home.
it is not just america losing - the person who has bought the house would lose his downpayment / equity too -not to speak of the mighty credit score - am I right ??
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
it is not just america losing - the person who has bought the house would lose his downpayment / equity too -not to speak of the mighty credit score - am I right ??
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
0 comments:
Post a Comment