.:[Double Click To][Close]:.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

heidi montag before plastic surgery

images girlfriend Heidi Montag Before heidi montag before plastic surgery. heidi montag before and after
  • heidi montag before and after



  • Macaca
    01-30 06:48 PM
    The article Round 2: H-1B Battle: American engineers vs. President Bush (http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4480)! has the following paras.

    Lou Dobbs exposed a complete lack of enforcement of H-1B caps by the federal government for the last 2 years. According to the USCIS report, over 75,000 additional H-1B visas were issued above the cap during 2004 and 2005. He openly challenged Congressmen, Senators and the President to enforce our laws. He posed the questions:

    1) Why was the report released on November 20th, 2006, immediately after the last election?

    2) Why was his report not made available to the public?

    3) Why aren�t guest worker Visa caps being enforced?

    4) Why does neither Congress nor the executive branch fulfill their constitutional duties?

    These good questions lead to the bigger question of who is responsible for enforcing these laws?





    wallpaper heidi montag before and after heidi montag before plastic surgery. Heidi Montag in 2008 efore
  • Heidi Montag in 2008 efore



  • willwin
    07-13 04:46 PM
    My intent is to get someone to write a good letter that makes a compelling case for EB3 reform. No ranting, whining, pleading, no envy ......... just an eager, passionate appeal for broad reform.

    We are in an English Speaking nation - to succeed we must write and speak well in English - No EXCUSES. Good writing is an acquired skill.

    The letter will not be very effective it is misdirected - write to congress not DOS/DOL/DHS.

    EB3 members - please draft a passionate letter(s) express the pain (not frustration)....

    I agree! Guys, can some one who is good in drafting letter like this one come forward and volunteer?

    The person, can either take inputs and then draft a letter or come up his/her own and then look for suggestions.


    Thoughts?





    heidi montag before plastic surgery. heidi montag before plastic
  • heidi montag before plastic



  • zCool
    04-07 12:45 AM
    I don't think that will be end of the world. H1B was answer to the xenophobia itself. It's beneficial to corporations and US economy but very bad for Indians who are being lured under wrong perception. People are getting temperory permits for jobs that basically happen to be of permanant nature.
    When there happen to be 200K applications for 65K permits on day 1.. and folks from Microsoft and Google have to worry abt being able to keep geniuses they have hired.. something's gotta happen to separate wheat from chaff.. this will be it..!





    2011 Heidi Montag in 2008 efore heidi montag before plastic surgery. Heidi Montag has said that she
  • Heidi Montag has said that she



  • abracadabra102
    12-27 08:35 PM
    My comments in green.
    I myself am originally from Mumbai so please dont doubt the deep sense of outrage that I feel. But amid all this talk about going to war, here are a few things to ponder

    1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover

    This is not that easy. India has much larger air force and it is very likely that Pakistani air fields are destroyed before it can destroy all of India's air fields. Yes india will sustain some damage and Pakistan will suffer much greater damage as our air force is at least twice as large, and most of those shiny Pakistani F-16s can't fly for lack of spares.

    2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option

    A failed Pakistan state is not in our interest either. A rogue state on our borders is much more dangerous than a stable country. An India victory in an Indo-Pak war is likely to weaken pakistani military control over that country and restore proper democracy in Pakistan

    3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........

    Yes wars are terrible, but look at it this way. If we do nothing, it emboldens the terrorists attacking us. They keep on striking major metros at random and this will create a very unstable environment for investment and we will loose much of the economic momentum we gained the last few years. We will bleed slowly if we just wait and watch. This is the cost of doing nothing and may turn out to be costlier than going to war (provided we win it and it is reasonable to assume India is most certain to win this war).

    4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.

    I totally agree with you on this.

    5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army

    They are already working together. I, for one, do not believe all that crap Pakistan has been feeding the world/US that they are fighting Taliban/terrorists/etc. It is all smoke and mirrors to save their skin. This is basically Mush's plan and worked wonderfully so far.

    6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees

    I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus

    We should certainly improve intelligence apparatus and and start covert operations, but that alone may not be enough.

    Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.

    Nice discussion. At least takes the mind of that Feb bulletin :D



    more...


    heidi montag before plastic surgery. Heidi Montag is still
  • Heidi Montag is still



  • Macaca
    05-01 05:56 PM
    In growing Chinese dominance, a wake-up call for America (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-growing-chinese-dominance-a-wake-up-call-for-america/2011/04/27/AF7i3zGF_story.html) By Arvind Subramanian | The Washington Post

    The world’s two economic superpowers will meet soon for the third installment of their Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Beyond the specifics, the real issue for the United States and the world is China’s looming economic dominance. President Obama’s State of the Union address, after President Hu Jintao’s visit in January, showed the level of anxiety that policymakers feel about China as a potential rival and perhaps a threat, with growing economic, military and political power, including its bankrolling of American debt. But judging from the reaction to the president’s speech, that threat is not viewed as imminent. The same was said, some pointed out, of the rise of Russia and Japan, 40 and 20 years ago, respectively, and those threats turned out to be false alarms.

    But what if the threat is actually greater than policymakers suppose?

    According to the International Monetary Fund, for example, total U.S. gross domestic product in 2010 was $14.7 trillion, more than twice China’s $5.8 trillion, making the average American about 11 times more affluent than the average Chinese. Goldman Sachs does not forecast the Chinese economy overtaking that of the United States until 2025 at the earliest. Americans also draw satisfaction from their unmatched strengths of an open society, an entrepreneurial culture, and world-class universities and research institutions.

    But these beliefs may be overly sanguine. The underlying numbers that contribute to them are a little misleading because they are based on converting the value of goods and services around the world into dollars at market exchange rates.

    It has long been recognized that using the market exchange rate to value goods and services is misleading about the real costs of living in different countries. Several goods and services that are not traded across borders (medical care, retail services, construction, etc.) are cheaper in poorer countries because labor is abundant. Using the market exchange rate to compare living standards across countries understates the benefits that citizens in poor countries enjoy from having access to these goods and services. Estimates of purchasing power parity take account of these differing costs and are an alternative, and for some purposes a better, way of computing and comparing standards of living and economic output across countries.

    My calculations (explained in greater detail on the Peterson Institute Web site) show that the Chinese economy in 2010, adjusted for purchasing power, was worth about $14.8 trillion, surpassing that of the United States. And, on this basis, the average American is “only” four times as wealthy as the average Chinese, not 11 times as rich, as the conventional numbers suggest.

    The different approaches to valuing economic output and resources are not just of theoretical interest. They have real-world significance, especially in the balance of power and economic dominance. The conventional numbers would suggest that the United States has three times the capability of China to mobilize real military resources in the event of a conflict. The numbers based on purchasing-power parity suggest that conventional estimates considerably exaggerate U.S. capability. To the extent that the service of soldiers and other domestically produced goods and services constitute real military resources, the purchasing-power parity numbers must also be taken into account.

    The economic advantage China is gaining will only widen in the future because China’s gross domestic product growth rate will be substantially and consistently greater than that of the United States for the near future. By 2030, I expect the Chinese economy to be twice as large as that of the United States (in purchasing-power parity dollars).

    Moreover, China’s lead will not be confined to GDP. China is already the world’s largest exporter of goods. By 2030, China’s trade volume will be twice that of the United States. And, of course, China is also a net creditor to the United States.

    The combination of economic size, trade and creditor status will confer on China a kind of economic dominance that the United States enjoyed for about five to six decades after World War II and that Britain enjoyed at the peak of empire in the late 19th century.

    This will matter in two important ways. America’s ability to influence China will be seriously diminished, which is already evident in China’s unwillingness to change its exchange rate policy despite U.S. urging. And the open trading and financial system that the United States fashioned after World War II will be increasingly China’s to sustain or undermine.

    The new numbers, the underlying realities they represent and the future they portend must serve as a wake-up call for America to get its fiscal house in order and quickly find new sources of economic dynamism if it is not to cede its preeminence to a rising, perhaps already risen, China.

    Arvind Subramanian is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute and the author of a forthcoming book on China’s economic dominance


    America vs China: A reality check (http://businessstandard.com/india/news/arvind-subramanian-america-vs-chinareality-check/434188/) By Arvind Subramanian | Business Standard
    The Chinese Are Coming! (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/01/the-chinese-are-coming/) By Douglas H. Paal | The Diploma
    Do American Students Study Too Hard?
    A new documentary argues that kids these days memorize too many facts. Go figure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703655404576292752313629990.html)
    By JAMES FREEMAN | Wall Street Journal
    Eyeing the White House After Service in China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us/politics/01huntsman.html) By MICHAEL WINES | New York Times


    At Microsoft, future growth rides on research, innovation (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article1983686.ece) By G. ANANTHAKRISHNAN | Hindu
    Financial crisis? What financial crisis? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/financial-crisis-what-financial-crisis/2011/04/26/AFhB2oNF_story.html) By Steven Pearlstein | The Washington Post
    The free-trade trade (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-free-trade-trade/2011/04/28/AF3TsXNF_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
    Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html) By Lori Montgomery | The Washington Post





    heidi montag before plastic surgery. hair Heidi Montag Had Plastic
  • hair Heidi Montag Had Plastic



  • sledge_hammer
    06-05 05:53 PM
    Unless one is a day trader, he/she probably has a real job (no offense to day traders :D), and only invests regularly through his/her employer sponsored retirement account or if she is self employed, she has an IRA account, to take advantage of dollar cost averaging. I am the latter btw! It used to be that 10 years was what was considered to measure the performance of any investment, and even though that trend has changed now, let's just stick with the 10 year yard stick.

    Let's take an example of Joe. Let's assume he has 30K in his pocket for investment. His goal is hard set to invest right now and cash out in 10 years. Let's find out where he stands at the end of 10 years in the two situations, rent and own.

    -------- I am going to spend the next 10 mins crunching some numbers and I will get back to you :D. You are free to post your calculations here ---------------

    Now we are getting into another different fun topic - how does a real estate "investment" compare with other forms of investment.

    1. Leverage = speculation = risk. By taking the leverage and buying the house - you lock in a 3-5% return and a lot of risk (for a 200k house - that would be 10k/year max). The 3-5% comes from long term price appreciation trends.

    If I did not buy that 200k house - I would invest the initial 40k and the rest of 160k gradually every month. For simplistic calculations:
    return from 40k - 5% (I can show you reward checking accounts with that rate even now). Inflation protected TIPS could be a good place if you are afraid of hyperinflation
    Earnings = 2k.

    You save 3k each year by renting.
    Running Total = 5k.

    Every year - you put in some money to your investment vehicle = mortgage amortization. So over 30 years - you would have been earning investment income on $80k @5% on an average = 4k.
    Running Total = 9k.

    So you are making 1k more by buying - AND taking a lot of leverage = risk.

    Inflation can upset this calculation - but not much. 1980 - 2008 was an unusual period of low inflation and high growth = high housing price increase. Any bets on how sustainable that would be? Typically housing price appreciation would be at or below inflation - which would favor other investment vehicles over real estate.

    I personally would need much more compelling reasons than the above to buy.

    This calculation does not take into account the flexibility in relocation if you do not buying a house. It alos does not consider the risk associated with having the largest chunk of your portfolio invested in a single non-diversified house instead of having a properly diversified portfolio.

    Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.



    more...


    heidi montag before plastic surgery. heidi montag plastic surgery
  • heidi montag plastic surgery



  • sanju
    12-23 09:26 PM
    Granted there are loose canons in every community, yet some evils are encouraged by doctrine in religion such as below:

    http://living.oneindia.in/kamasutra/spheres-of-life/religious-prostitution-partii.html

    .. and simply you are down in mud pool doesnt mean whole world is like you!

    Why is it that I hear about such things only from Mulsims on internet forums. Let me guess, because some muslim wrote that articles and sent it to all his brothers, and now you are posting it to make it appear that only Islam ia the "religion of peace" and there are flaws with every other religion. Often you guys dig deep and if cannot find something from recent past, you go to dig into thousands of years of history and then come up with some link somewhere. That's the best you can do???? There are flaws with every religion because religions have been shaped through the centuries by people who were powerful, and as they say - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So practices and traditions have been shaped by those in power. This applies to Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and every other religion. So all religions are corrupt. However, here is the fundamental difference - all religions other than Islam, have accepted the changes adopted by civilized society. Islam is the most stubborn and violent religion. You can pick up history book and find out bad/irrationale things/events about every religion, it just depends how long/far in time and space you are wiling to go. And depending upon what you want to prove, you will go far back in time to the times in history to suit your argument. So you take a position first and then go out to looking for proof to suit your position, instead of looking for proof and then taking a position. And why always talk of some events that occurred in the past to justify terrorist act, why always hide behind some other place (like Chechenya, Palestine, etc etc ) or some other event (like the article you quoted), and then justify terrorism in the name of islam. Till when are you going to play this game and befool yourself. Do you realize that your this behavior and the similar behavior of your religious leaders has resulted in forcing the modern society to relate islam to terrorism than relating islam to being a religion.

    How about this link:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28161210/

    This is in America, the land to which you are in line to immigrate and are waiting for green card. Does it mean you are dying to live with sex slaves because as per this news report sex slaves business is thriving in America? Is that one of the tenet of Islam - to be a sex slave?

    You guys distort facts to make other religions look bad because the name of this slimy game is - "I can only be good if I make others look bad". And even if I support & sympathize with terrorist, it is ok as long as I can justify it by posting some link that shows some other religion in bad light. Is that how it works????

    Look, there are dark events and dark times in the history of every society and every religion, spanning from multiple centuries to medieval age to modern progressive society. Talk about in today's context because we are all living in the PRESENT and no one know for sure about the accuracy of the "history" as everyone has their version of the history. In the present world, Islam and terrorism are synonymous. This is not what I am saying, this is being discussed and accepted by all progressive societies of the world. Civilized communities and societies world over do not look upon Islam favorably. You can try your trick faulting other religions as many times as you want, but it will do only so much, and Islam and terrorism will continue to be synonymous, unless you stop wasting your time to make others look bad, and live up to the responsibility to do some house cleaning to clean up the mess created by the so called "religion of peace". Its that simple.


    .





    2010 heidi montag before plastic heidi montag before plastic surgery. girlfriend Heidi Montag Before
  • girlfriend Heidi Montag Before



  • arsh007
    01-27 10:50 PM
    Here is a link to a Video report from CNN's program Lou Dobbs tonight regarding USCIS incorrect approval of H1-B petitions beyond the 65,000 yearly limit.


    (http://www.forthecause.us/ftc-video-CNN-VisaCapsIgnored_070126.wmv)

    http://www.forthecause.us/ftc-video-CNN-VisaCapsIgnored_070126.wmv



    more...


    heidi montag before plastic surgery. 23-year-old Montag wants her
  • 23-year-old Montag wants her



  • 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





    hair Heidi Montag has said that she heidi montag before plastic surgery. wallpaper heidi montag surgery
  • wallpaper heidi montag surgery



  • nojoke
    01-03 07:42 PM
    You are a Kashmiri muslim.
    Will you accept the responsibility of making hundreds of thousands Kashimiri pandits homeless? Will you accept the responsibility for the Godhra attack?
    Do you have a time machine that can take you back to 1600 A.D and stop the evil islamic barbarics from pillaging our land? Can you? Or you need a proof for that as well to interpol?

    1. To curb terrorism, Pakistan must destroy all the terror camps. Its not doing it, its not handing over any terrorists, what's the point of having cup of chai and talking non-sense?

    2. You are a Kashmiri. Tell us, what is a possible solution? India will not hand over the remainder of the Kashmir because part of the Kashmir is already occupied by Pakistan. Period. Now, do you have a solution?

    3. You are open for open visas. What good will it do except for terrorists to come in freely and legally?

    4. By exchanging prisoners you mean hand over the terrorists, right. Hand over Afzal and Kasam and the other butchers. And ask president to pardon them.
    Sorry, won't happen.

    What else?

    I agree there are issues that need to be resolved in India. But what is happening in India ia India's problem. They don't need to handover anyone to international court. India is not causing problem to other countries. There are laws and due process to handle the criminals in India. But the powerful do get away. It is silly to ask all these problems to be solved by International court. I don't think they will be interested to run trials on such cases.
    Sorry this post is to engineer.



    more...


    heidi montag before plastic surgery. 2011 heidi montag efore and
  • 2011 heidi montag efore and



  • paskal
    07-14 04:57 PM
    if people have to debate this issue, surely we can do it without needless slander and accusations?

    i agree with GC applicant, words like that do not sound right and have no place here please.

    btw when the vertical spillover started, there was alot of angst, these last two years all retrogressed categories except EB3 ROW have suffered. so that is not true either. except that there was frankly nothing we could do about it. there were long debates similar to the current ones- then they were between Eb2I and EB3 ROW and no conclusion was reached of course, and nothing changed by screaming at each other. finally USCIS as stated by them, has taken counsel about that "change" they made and concluded that they made an error in interpretation. what they have actually done now is rolled back a change they previosuly made.

    i also want to say to all the EB2 I crowd here- all this chest thumping is pointless. EB2 I will go back, a lot, this is just a temporary flood gate to use the remaining Gc numbers for the year. meanwhile, the plight of EB3I is truly bad. lets please keep working on the recapture/exemption/ country quota bill trio that would incraese available Gc numbers- for ALL our sakes.





    Comments like heartburn ,jealousy over friends in EB2 does not sound right.There are my friends who have learnt from my mistake.

    Its neither appropriate to exclaim like this.Whateverthe case may be it is ofcourse injustice to EB3.

    Your reactions for the frustrations of EB3 is really the worst part you are doing for your own community.

    Why were you silent when EB3 Row were receiving ? Did you know at that time the vertical and horizontal interpretations.Bringing out the problem when its over is of no use either.

    Great ! Very nice wonderful own kind around.You want your GC right ,dont worry.

    This shows nature,when own kind dont respect others neither will outsider.





    hot Heidi Montag is still heidi montag before plastic surgery. heidi montag plastic surgery
  • heidi montag plastic surgery



  • burnt
    03-31 06:36 PM
    Today I received a call from my lawyers office asking me whether my wife had taken the TB test as we skipped that test when we applied for I-485 in July 2007 as my wife was expecting at that time. My PD is Feb 2007

    Lawyers office said they received a call from USCIS as they are getting the cases ready to be adjudicated. USCIS wanted to know whether my wife got her TB test done or not.

    Did anyone else got such a call from USCIS? And Gurus, what do you all think this means?



    more...


    house ivanka trump plastic surgery heidi montag before plastic surgery. wallpaper Heidi Montag Before
  • wallpaper Heidi Montag Before



  • hiralal
    06-05 09:51 PM
    Sorry but no matter how you spin it, owning a home is better than renting. Renting is not smart. period. your money is gone every month. You are not getting that money back.

    When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.

    30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
    you are wrong and right ...it all depends on location and the period. there is one more article and I will post that. (I am talking from investment point of view but I agree both owning a house and renting a place have their own pros and cons).
    you are wrong in the present day ..i.e. as long as prices are falling (which is the case in most areas today) ..owing a home is bad BAD investment.
    your assumption is correct once the prices start to rise by 3 - 4 % annually .. but that will take 3 - 4 years more at the minimum





    tattoo hair Heidi Montag Had Plastic heidi montag before plastic surgery. 2010 Heidi Montag gt; Surgery
  • 2010 Heidi Montag gt; Surgery



  • new2gc
    03-24 04:42 PM
    No, they figured out that it is consulting companies that are exploiting loopholes. Tell me what proof you have that ALL consulting companies are complying with H-1B requriements.

    Is benching that happens in consulting legal? Is paying salary according to prevailing wages in Maine and sending the contractor to work in Manhattan legal? Please tell me how these practises by desi consulting firms are legal.

    And you're telling me I am ignorant! You're funny :D

    I am sorry, I am not a very knowledgeable person in immigration matters like many of you, but when it comes to finger pointing, we have to show all consulting companies and why only DESI companies are getting into this discussion. I know friends who worked for IBM & KPMG on H1b travels to all states for short term contracts. What about those biggies? They are also desi firms?

    How did you come to US in the first place? if not thru a consulting company ( I know F1 is another option) either thru big companies like TCS, Wipro or Infy or through desi consulting firms. Pls do not forget the fact that USCIS changed their stand now and saying that it is not legal to work else where other than employer location. If they implement that rule from start then this mess wouldn't happen.

    Now, we are in trouble and so stop finger pointing and give any good advise if you can.

    FYI..I am an FTE and I came to us thru a multinational firm and never worked for a desi consulting cmpny.



    more...


    pictures heidi montag plastic surgery heidi montag before plastic surgery. heidi montag plastic surgery
  • heidi montag plastic surgery



  • Macaca
    02-29 07:21 AM
    In Defense of Lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803232.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Charles Krauthammer | WP, Feb 29

    Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?

    Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.

    To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.

    Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.

    There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.

    Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.

    What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.

    Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.

    What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.

    This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.

    Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.

    It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.

    Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.

    Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.





    dresses heidi montag plastic surgery heidi montag before plastic surgery. heidi montag before and after
  • heidi montag before and after



  • CreatedToday
    01-08 03:18 PM
    I just copied and pasted the coward Refugee_New's msg to me. I'll be careful about 'quoting others' also!

    Did you consider banning him?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From Forum Moderator
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are forced to caution you that any use of profanity on the public forums, including when quoting others, will result in immediate ban from this forum without any further warning.

    Thank you for your understanding,

    Administrator2


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



    more...


    makeup 23-year-old Montag wants her heidi montag before plastic surgery. ivanka trump plastic surgery
  • ivanka trump plastic surgery



  • texcan
    08-05 04:05 PM
    Sorry , you can't hide your passive aggressiveness :)
    AS I mentioned on other occasions this whole process is screwed up. it gets you worked up when some one compares this (PD recapture) to labor selling. IT IS NOT.

    To answer what does one get by comparing the job duties : It gives a lot. It gives EB2 classification only to those who deserve it. I wish the rules are much stricter.So that those who can claim they are EB2 are really entitled to be EB2.

    There is so much dirty laundry and not good to bring that in public. But if this law suite goes , it does not take very long to show how genuine some EB2s are.

    I agree, I am no saint, i have my shortcomings; actually more than i would like.
    My point is please listen to others folks, and be nice.
    We really cant get anything done hereby arguing.





    girlfriend 2010 Heidi Montag gt; Surgery heidi montag before plastic surgery. makeup heidi montag before and
  • makeup heidi montag before and



  • Macaca
    12-23 11:04 AM
    'D' in Democrats means Do-Nothing (http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_7792528?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com) BUSH, REPUBLICANS GET THEIR WAY ON MOST ISSUES DESPITE VOTERS' MANDATE TO CHANGE DIRECTION Mercury News Editorial, 12/23/2007

    When the Democrats won control of Congress a year ago, they promised bold new leadership. Things would change, they said. They had a mandate.

    But they didn't have the votes to stand up to veto threats by Bush and filibusters by Senate Republicans. They didn't have the bold new leadership, either. A year later, Congress is lamer than the lame-duck president.

    On the Democrats' No. 1 issue, the war in Iraq, it's been a year of defeat and surrender. They were going to "bring the troops home." Instead, President Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The "surge," coupled with a new counter-insurgency strategy, has led to a sharp decline in military and civilian deaths. All attempts to link war funding to a withdrawal timetable fizzled. Giving up completely, Congress passed $70 billion in no-strings war funding before the Christmas recess.

    Democratic leaders blame their impotence on Bush's obstinacy. Bush didn't compromise. He didn't have to.

    Democrats talked about limiting the excesses of the Patriot Act, banning cruel CIA interrogation tactics and closing the Guant�namo Bay internment camp. Didn't happen.

    Instead, Congress authorized warrantless surveillance for six months by passing the Protect America Act before the August recess. Democrats were forced to push discussion on making the surveillance rules permanent into January. Bush will likely win this one, too.

    After months of wrangling, Congress approved an omnibus budget bill that gave Bush the spending levels he wanted.

    Promising fiscal discipline, the Democrats vowed to pay for any tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere or spending cuts. That "pay as you go pledge" was put aside to pass a popular bill protecting 23 million middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers from paying $2,000 extra under the alternative minimum tax. Since the tax was originally designed to prevent the super-rich from using tax shelters, conservative Democrats tried to close tax shelters used by super-rich hedge-fund managers to cover the $50 million revenue loss. They lost.

    Congress made baby steps toward fiscal discipline by trimming "earmarks" for pet projects by 25 percent from 2006, estimates Taxpayers for Common Sense. But legislators OK'd more than $15 billion for more than 11,000 pork-barrel projects.

    President Bush didn't win them all: Social Security reform went nowhere, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind was postponed to 2008 and he couldn't rally enough Republicans to pass a complex and controversial immigration bill.

    But this wasn't supposed to be his year. The triumphant Democrats made big promises a year ago, but delivered modest results. Democrats increased the minimum wage, enacted the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations into law and expanded student loans.

    Most notable was the energy bill, which included the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks in 32 years.

    However, Democrats dropped plans to repeal tax breaks for oil companies and require more use of alternative energy. Bush insisted. Congress caved.

    On other issues, Congress acted and Bush vetoed. Congress expanded health insurance for children and approved federal funding for stem cell research, but couldn't overcome Bush's "no" vote.

    Stymied repeatedly, Congress saw its approval ratings fall to record lows. When you're less popular than George W. Bush, you're pretty darned unpopular.

    "I don't approve of Congress, because we haven't . . . been effective in ending the war in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco told reporters in response to the polls. "And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."

    2008 will be a year of partisan politics. No doubt Republicans will run against the do-nothing Congress. That could backfire. Democrats will tell voters that if they want Democratic policies - and most people tell pollsters they do - they need to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

    For the next 11 months we can expect more of the same from the lame duck and lamer Congress.





    hairstyles 2011 heidi montag efore and heidi montag before plastic surgery. heidi montag before and after
  • heidi montag before and after



  • 485Mbe4001
    08-05 04:35 PM
    Dude..if the rules for EB2 eligibility were followed to the T, most of the EB2 jobs would fall back to EB3. Stop the holier-than-thou postings, it is your first post. you were able to apply in EB2 good for you, you might dissaprove the post bit that is ok with me. you want to file a lawsuit sure go ahead, i also want a file a lawsuit with the FBI for messing up my name check, easier said than done.

    I have been in this mess since 2001, i have seen cases where jobs are modified to suit the resume and resumes are modified to suit the job and most of those guys have GCs by now.

    Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.

    I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...

    1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.

    Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.

    2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.

    If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.



    Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.





    soni7007
    08-06 04:01 PM
    Yes, i agree that it is unpredictable and no one can guarantee as to which one will move faster.
    But, it can go either way, may be 2002 EB3 goes current before 2005 Eb2 or vice-versa. Atleast they will have an equal chance and position. However, in the other case, when u allow porting, then A (EB3, PD 2002) will be strictly ahead of B (EB2, PD 2005)


    According to you A acquires skills over a period of time and so does a person who went for higher education and is EB2. You also say that if there was no porting, A has a PD of 2002 (in EB3) and B has a PD of 2005 (in EB2), then they are almost in the same position.

    At this point both of us agree that A and B are equal, right?

    If they both are EQUAL, then can you guarantee that both PDs will move at the same rate?. If A�s PD becomes unavailable and B�s become current. B will get GC faster than A even though both were equal (from your logic). Is this fair, then?





    eb3India
    04-07 05:08 PM
    In late 1970's US had great demand for Doctors many Indian and Pakistan doctors migrated to US on green card, however after few years as demand went down, immigration for doctors also become very tough, infact complete system for foriegn doctors was made very restrictive.

    I see similar thing happening to IT but the catch here is Internet, virtually we can work from anywhere, but our senators who think internet is like series of tube does'nt get this



    No comments:

    Post a Comment