sanju
12-18 01:09 PM
the main message of the bible is forgiveness
And what do bible say about people who do not believe in bible. How can the creator who created everything, including "believers" of your faith, and "non-believers" of your faith, how can such a creator who knows nothing but giving, how can that fellow say - "non-believers" go to hell. Don't you think that was purposefully put in there by Saint Paul, or someone who showed up after him. That shallow view cannot be coming from a supereme being, its just not possible.
and the sacrifice that God made in order to save mankind. the person the bible portrays is the man who wanted to sacrifice his life for all of us. history proves that to be true. I don't think any king would want to change that message.
God hates evil, and both God and evil cannot exist together. Man is doomed to eternal death because of sin. but God loved us that none of us should perish, and that's how he gave us a way to escape death (not mortal). that is through the great sacrifice He made for mankind.
Book of Romans 5:8
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Your version of history and the way you have been tought histroy proves that to be true. And just like the other fellow who said that books of hindu religion is not doctored, you come up with reasons who books or your faith are not doctored, which is not surprising. Why is it called "King James Bible" if King James did not create his won version? Why are there so many versions of bibles qurans, Geetas? Which version of each of those books is correct? Let me guess, the answer is, the one that I believe, or the one that was handed to me by my parents. And thats just too much bull, you know....
Some of the parts of each holy book emanates view of supreme being, but then there are others which preach hate. All that I am saying is, be critical when you read yuor book, and question everything that it has to tell you. Don't live in medival period and follow these books blindly, you are an educated man, for christ sake. Even Christ or Allah or Krishna or whomever you beleiev in, even they will not want you to follow a twisted belief system in their name, would they? Just think.... So why is it not your responsibility to critically think about that is being taught in those books is not some form of hate in the name of religion.
First thing that all religions do is, tell you that you r are a sinner, because just like George Bush, every religion works on the principle of fear. No. I was not born as a sinner, no one was. Everyone else is an extraordinary creation of creator created out of love and giving. And anyone telling you that we are sinner is simply abhomination of the creation of the creator.
Say you are a computer programmer. The question is - Why are you a computer programmer? Because you applied your mind to become a computer programmer, and thats why you are now called - computer programmer. Now say you worship the true nature of GOD, which is not but love, none of this sinner and kafir stuff, ok. Now you apply your mind towards God, what will you become, and reflection of god itself. And during a period of time people will identify you with the object to which you applied your mind. I believe Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammad, Guru Nanak, were great visionary souls and applied their mind to GOD such that their coming generations identify them as GODs, just as I applied my mind to become a computer programmer and now I am identified as computer program. This applies to every so called "GOD" in every religion.
Ray of light from Sun is a medium for light & warmth, but no one prays the ray of light, everyone prays the Sun becuase thats the source. Likewise, all the great souls who showed up from time to time, they are like rays of Sun light, showing us the direction to the Sun, but in this metaphor, mankind started praying the ray of sun light instead of the Sun and formed all those different religions based on the ray of sunlight. And now everyone fights with each other over whose ray of sunlight is better. Just imagine how ignorant and foolish this behavior is?
I don't think that every word of bible is the word of Jesus Christ. I don;t think that every word of Quran is the word of Mohammed. I don't thin that every word of Geeta is the word of Krishna. If there was a way for these great souls to appear before us in this age and talk to people who "appear" to follow them, these great souls will tell their so called "followers" to stop this nonsense in their name.
.
And what do bible say about people who do not believe in bible. How can the creator who created everything, including "believers" of your faith, and "non-believers" of your faith, how can such a creator who knows nothing but giving, how can that fellow say - "non-believers" go to hell. Don't you think that was purposefully put in there by Saint Paul, or someone who showed up after him. That shallow view cannot be coming from a supereme being, its just not possible.
and the sacrifice that God made in order to save mankind. the person the bible portrays is the man who wanted to sacrifice his life for all of us. history proves that to be true. I don't think any king would want to change that message.
God hates evil, and both God and evil cannot exist together. Man is doomed to eternal death because of sin. but God loved us that none of us should perish, and that's how he gave us a way to escape death (not mortal). that is through the great sacrifice He made for mankind.
Book of Romans 5:8
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Your version of history and the way you have been tought histroy proves that to be true. And just like the other fellow who said that books of hindu religion is not doctored, you come up with reasons who books or your faith are not doctored, which is not surprising. Why is it called "King James Bible" if King James did not create his won version? Why are there so many versions of bibles qurans, Geetas? Which version of each of those books is correct? Let me guess, the answer is, the one that I believe, or the one that was handed to me by my parents. And thats just too much bull, you know....
Some of the parts of each holy book emanates view of supreme being, but then there are others which preach hate. All that I am saying is, be critical when you read yuor book, and question everything that it has to tell you. Don't live in medival period and follow these books blindly, you are an educated man, for christ sake. Even Christ or Allah or Krishna or whomever you beleiev in, even they will not want you to follow a twisted belief system in their name, would they? Just think.... So why is it not your responsibility to critically think about that is being taught in those books is not some form of hate in the name of religion.
First thing that all religions do is, tell you that you r are a sinner, because just like George Bush, every religion works on the principle of fear. No. I was not born as a sinner, no one was. Everyone else is an extraordinary creation of creator created out of love and giving. And anyone telling you that we are sinner is simply abhomination of the creation of the creator.
Say you are a computer programmer. The question is - Why are you a computer programmer? Because you applied your mind to become a computer programmer, and thats why you are now called - computer programmer. Now say you worship the true nature of GOD, which is not but love, none of this sinner and kafir stuff, ok. Now you apply your mind towards God, what will you become, and reflection of god itself. And during a period of time people will identify you with the object to which you applied your mind. I believe Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammad, Guru Nanak, were great visionary souls and applied their mind to GOD such that their coming generations identify them as GODs, just as I applied my mind to become a computer programmer and now I am identified as computer program. This applies to every so called "GOD" in every religion.
Ray of light from Sun is a medium for light & warmth, but no one prays the ray of light, everyone prays the Sun becuase thats the source. Likewise, all the great souls who showed up from time to time, they are like rays of Sun light, showing us the direction to the Sun, but in this metaphor, mankind started praying the ray of sun light instead of the Sun and formed all those different religions based on the ray of sunlight. And now everyone fights with each other over whose ray of sunlight is better. Just imagine how ignorant and foolish this behavior is?
I don't think that every word of bible is the word of Jesus Christ. I don;t think that every word of Quran is the word of Mohammed. I don't thin that every word of Geeta is the word of Krishna. If there was a way for these great souls to appear before us in this age and talk to people who "appear" to follow them, these great souls will tell their so called "followers" to stop this nonsense in their name.
.
wallpaper lt;a hrefquot;quot;gt;Jesus Carries The
Legal
08-05 09:00 PM
I enjoyed both the original and follow-up. By the time, the lion gets the GC, he might have forgot he was a lion, and even after getting GC, he will continue to act like monkey.
the Lion on the monkey visa finding out another Indian (very, very aggravating factor:p) lion in next cage actually on lion visa and not on a monkey visa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! phew! !!!!!!!!!!!! what a heartburn! threatening law suits, opening a new thread in IV. Generally threatening to bring down the zoo::D
the Lion on the monkey visa finding out another Indian (very, very aggravating factor:p) lion in next cage actually on lion visa and not on a monkey visa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! phew! !!!!!!!!!!!! what a heartburn! threatening law suits, opening a new thread in IV. Generally threatening to bring down the zoo::D
Macaca
12-30 06:24 PM
3. The status of Tibetans in India proves that India is meddling in China�s internal affairs
If, for China, resolving the Tibet issue has to come at the price of demanding unreasonable concessions from India, it would be an unfair situation to present to India. India�s position on Tibet has evolved over the years. India has demonstrated a fine balance on Tibet as a humanitarian concern (with Tibetans settled in India) and the risks of using Tibet as some sort of a political trump card. The latter largely remains an insinuation against India � at least over the last quarter century, and has failed to be reflected in China�s foreign policy towards India. Today the tail seems to be wagging the dog since China suspects India of covertly using Tibet and the Dalai Lama for furtherance of some political goal.
Such misperception is in contrast to China�s relatively muted antipathy to those countries that issue a visa to or host Rebiya Kadeer in exile (Virginia, USA), or where the Tibetans are better organized (USA, Australia and several parts of Europe). In any case China would be aware that India has refrained from seeking alliances in the Southeast and East Asian region. Likewise, it is counter productive for elements in the Indian strategic community or media to play-up the �Tibet card� (whatever that means) or indulge in political gimmickry that reflects insensitivity towards the core concerns of either side.
Policy Focus: India has to maintain a balance between �justice� and �fairness� on the issue of Tibetans living in India, and the risks of political opportunism that could be associated with insensitivity towards China�s concerns. This principle when applied to India�s own core concerns vis-�-vis China could lead to better diplomacy based on the principle of reciprocity.
4. China engages in doublespeak � political statements of intent differ from actions
The recent row over the arrest of Chinese fishermen in Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands, and the detainment of the captain of the Chinese fishing boat, raised concerns about whether such pin-pricking was part of China�s national strategy. Similar pin-pricking happens on the Line of Actual Control (LOAC) on the India-China border where alleged incursions by PLA soldiers are often amplified in the Indian media. With imperfect information on these matters, one can assume that Beijing would have spelt out a policy direction to go �hard� or �soft� on fishing, for instance, in contested waters (Senkaku/Diaoyutai dispute), but China�s coastal marine and fishing administration may have decided to err on the
side of caution.
The same reasoning may, for all we know, apply when the ilitary on either side of the LOAC patrol the disputed boundary. Beijing may have a policy line on �border vigilance�, which division level PLA officers implement by opting to err on the side of caution by �proactive border patrolling�. While the benefit of doubt could be extended for occasional misunderstandings on any front, it is really up to Beijing to clarify whether pin-pricking as a manifest behaviour results from overzealous implementation on the ground or is a real instrument of policy, which is what is suspected by some Chinawatchers in India. If China feels it has been misunderstood in all these instances, one should extend the benefit of doubt to the leadership in China.
This could apply to the issue of stapled visas to Indians from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) as well. That the visa issue was �administrative,� as Premier Wen Jiabao has clarified, makes China�s political stand reasonably clear. Then it is for China to reconcile. Accumulating such irritants over time undermines security since most people would only read the direct military and administrative challenge posed to India through such acts. It would be na�ve to assume that such incidents would be consequence free and that in the long run public dividends from the salience of an India-China partnership would remain unaffected.
Policy Focus: India should not draw itself into diplomatic situations that make it appear uncompromising. Hence, more institutional channels could be opened up between ministerial counterparts (water, power, trade and commerce, border, education, foreign affairs i.e. multilateral negotiations, and other areas) and even between political parties in order to propose more pluralistic options on areas of contention or interest for both countries.
5. China has not addressed India�s concerns on Pakistan
While several elements in the China-Pakistan relationship remain antithetical to India�s core concerns, it is futile to forever assess the relationship climate of China and Pakistan as impinging excessively on the health of India-China relations. Such a pursuit does not leave enough room for upgrading the India-China relationship. The classic case is that of the US-Pakistan relationship which for most of the Cold War years and even subsequently did not hinder a drastic upgradation in India-US relations in this decade, when the ground was favourable for the United States to recalibrate its foreign policy on South Asia. Similar room for upgradation of the India-China relationship is essential.
More importantly, what should be expected from a Head of State/Government visit? Was there any resolution on matters relating to currency revaluation, or environment or human rights during Obama�s visit to China in 2009? Did the November 2010 Joint Statement of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama affirm the status of Jammu and Kashmir, or even mention Kashmir in the entire text? When it comes to the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, India is confident of not involving the United States as a party to the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Obama�s offer to �delegate� regional policing in South Asia to China in 2009 was rebuffed by India, and China has only distanced itself from that issue. The question of seeking clarification from China on its neutrality on Kashmir is one thing. However, since when did seeking China�s affirmations on the status of Jammu and Kashmir become imperative for a Joint Statement?
The China-Pakistan relationship does not thrive on what is casually assumed to be a singular anti-India agenda. China�s relationship with Pakistan as a window to the Islamic world often receives muted attention. Since 2009 foreign policy challenges for China arising from condemnation and criticism from Turkey, Iran and Indonesia, in particular, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) over the handling of the Uighurs in Xinjiang region have become acute. While liberal democratic sympathies from the West for Uighurs exists, the prospect of pan-Islamic support for the Uighur cause (on the lines of threats
issued by militant preachers such as Abu Yahya al-Libi) is not something China would want to see in its troubled West. From a utilitarian perspective, Pakistan (with a majority Sunni population) serves perfectly fine as a window to the Islamic world, which China could use to placate concerns or grievances against the Chinese state being anti-Muslim in its handling of Xinjiang (most Uighurs practice a moderate form of Sunni Islam).
Policy focus: China and India interaction, particularly in the academic arena, are fewer than the number of Indians and Chinese in conference-circulation in the United States and Europe. This observation is more intuitive, than empirical, but doesn�t seem inaccurate. Greater discussion and engagement to develop a wider and pluralistic understanding of contentious issues would go a long way in understanding each others� concerns. A �semester abroad� programme for researchers or faculty in academic and research institutions from both sides could go a long way in building civic networks.
Conclusion
Both India and China have new avenues to pick up the threads, as it were. Even on the issue of India�s claim for a UNSC permanent seat, the Joint Communiqu� this time reads: �China attaches great importance to India�s status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India�s aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council� (emphasis added).
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Premier Wen Jiabao have affirmed the idea of
�there being enough space to accommodate the growth of China and India, and for both to cooperate.� This space needs to be nurtured further and the coming year, the Year of China-India Exchange, should be a starting point to engage with China in the shaping of institutional norms for mutual growth and development.
If, for China, resolving the Tibet issue has to come at the price of demanding unreasonable concessions from India, it would be an unfair situation to present to India. India�s position on Tibet has evolved over the years. India has demonstrated a fine balance on Tibet as a humanitarian concern (with Tibetans settled in India) and the risks of using Tibet as some sort of a political trump card. The latter largely remains an insinuation against India � at least over the last quarter century, and has failed to be reflected in China�s foreign policy towards India. Today the tail seems to be wagging the dog since China suspects India of covertly using Tibet and the Dalai Lama for furtherance of some political goal.
Such misperception is in contrast to China�s relatively muted antipathy to those countries that issue a visa to or host Rebiya Kadeer in exile (Virginia, USA), or where the Tibetans are better organized (USA, Australia and several parts of Europe). In any case China would be aware that India has refrained from seeking alliances in the Southeast and East Asian region. Likewise, it is counter productive for elements in the Indian strategic community or media to play-up the �Tibet card� (whatever that means) or indulge in political gimmickry that reflects insensitivity towards the core concerns of either side.
Policy Focus: India has to maintain a balance between �justice� and �fairness� on the issue of Tibetans living in India, and the risks of political opportunism that could be associated with insensitivity towards China�s concerns. This principle when applied to India�s own core concerns vis-�-vis China could lead to better diplomacy based on the principle of reciprocity.
4. China engages in doublespeak � political statements of intent differ from actions
The recent row over the arrest of Chinese fishermen in Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands, and the detainment of the captain of the Chinese fishing boat, raised concerns about whether such pin-pricking was part of China�s national strategy. Similar pin-pricking happens on the Line of Actual Control (LOAC) on the India-China border where alleged incursions by PLA soldiers are often amplified in the Indian media. With imperfect information on these matters, one can assume that Beijing would have spelt out a policy direction to go �hard� or �soft� on fishing, for instance, in contested waters (Senkaku/Diaoyutai dispute), but China�s coastal marine and fishing administration may have decided to err on the
side of caution.
The same reasoning may, for all we know, apply when the ilitary on either side of the LOAC patrol the disputed boundary. Beijing may have a policy line on �border vigilance�, which division level PLA officers implement by opting to err on the side of caution by �proactive border patrolling�. While the benefit of doubt could be extended for occasional misunderstandings on any front, it is really up to Beijing to clarify whether pin-pricking as a manifest behaviour results from overzealous implementation on the ground or is a real instrument of policy, which is what is suspected by some Chinawatchers in India. If China feels it has been misunderstood in all these instances, one should extend the benefit of doubt to the leadership in China.
This could apply to the issue of stapled visas to Indians from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) as well. That the visa issue was �administrative,� as Premier Wen Jiabao has clarified, makes China�s political stand reasonably clear. Then it is for China to reconcile. Accumulating such irritants over time undermines security since most people would only read the direct military and administrative challenge posed to India through such acts. It would be na�ve to assume that such incidents would be consequence free and that in the long run public dividends from the salience of an India-China partnership would remain unaffected.
Policy Focus: India should not draw itself into diplomatic situations that make it appear uncompromising. Hence, more institutional channels could be opened up between ministerial counterparts (water, power, trade and commerce, border, education, foreign affairs i.e. multilateral negotiations, and other areas) and even between political parties in order to propose more pluralistic options on areas of contention or interest for both countries.
5. China has not addressed India�s concerns on Pakistan
While several elements in the China-Pakistan relationship remain antithetical to India�s core concerns, it is futile to forever assess the relationship climate of China and Pakistan as impinging excessively on the health of India-China relations. Such a pursuit does not leave enough room for upgrading the India-China relationship. The classic case is that of the US-Pakistan relationship which for most of the Cold War years and even subsequently did not hinder a drastic upgradation in India-US relations in this decade, when the ground was favourable for the United States to recalibrate its foreign policy on South Asia. Similar room for upgradation of the India-China relationship is essential.
More importantly, what should be expected from a Head of State/Government visit? Was there any resolution on matters relating to currency revaluation, or environment or human rights during Obama�s visit to China in 2009? Did the November 2010 Joint Statement of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama affirm the status of Jammu and Kashmir, or even mention Kashmir in the entire text? When it comes to the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, India is confident of not involving the United States as a party to the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Obama�s offer to �delegate� regional policing in South Asia to China in 2009 was rebuffed by India, and China has only distanced itself from that issue. The question of seeking clarification from China on its neutrality on Kashmir is one thing. However, since when did seeking China�s affirmations on the status of Jammu and Kashmir become imperative for a Joint Statement?
The China-Pakistan relationship does not thrive on what is casually assumed to be a singular anti-India agenda. China�s relationship with Pakistan as a window to the Islamic world often receives muted attention. Since 2009 foreign policy challenges for China arising from condemnation and criticism from Turkey, Iran and Indonesia, in particular, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) over the handling of the Uighurs in Xinjiang region have become acute. While liberal democratic sympathies from the West for Uighurs exists, the prospect of pan-Islamic support for the Uighur cause (on the lines of threats
issued by militant preachers such as Abu Yahya al-Libi) is not something China would want to see in its troubled West. From a utilitarian perspective, Pakistan (with a majority Sunni population) serves perfectly fine as a window to the Islamic world, which China could use to placate concerns or grievances against the Chinese state being anti-Muslim in its handling of Xinjiang (most Uighurs practice a moderate form of Sunni Islam).
Policy focus: China and India interaction, particularly in the academic arena, are fewer than the number of Indians and Chinese in conference-circulation in the United States and Europe. This observation is more intuitive, than empirical, but doesn�t seem inaccurate. Greater discussion and engagement to develop a wider and pluralistic understanding of contentious issues would go a long way in understanding each others� concerns. A �semester abroad� programme for researchers or faculty in academic and research institutions from both sides could go a long way in building civic networks.
Conclusion
Both India and China have new avenues to pick up the threads, as it were. Even on the issue of India�s claim for a UNSC permanent seat, the Joint Communiqu� this time reads: �China attaches great importance to India�s status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India�s aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council� (emphasis added).
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Premier Wen Jiabao have affirmed the idea of
�there being enough space to accommodate the growth of China and India, and for both to cooperate.� This space needs to be nurtured further and the coming year, the Year of China-India Exchange, should be a starting point to engage with China in the shaping of institutional norms for mutual growth and development.
2011 click for larger image
jonty_11
07-13 05:51 PM
willwin - What we are essentially saying is to artificially retrogress EB2 than it otherwise would have so that an EB3 who is waiting for 7 years gets his GC first - thats really what the spillover break up will do. Similarly an argument can be made to artificially retrogress EB1 so that an EB2 who is waiting for 4 years gets his GC first.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initiatives like - call campaigns for House bills...etc. As I have said before IV is working for one and all...w/o caring for their categories. It was not IV that created this spillover policy...however IV is the one that will fight for you irrespective of whether you are EB1, 2 or 3. The key is to post a united front and some level of participation from every member...I was sad to see Pappu publish low numbers for contributions and phone calls....and only wish we would come together as a group rather than breaking apart.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initiatives like - call campaigns for House bills...etc. As I have said before IV is working for one and all...w/o caring for their categories. It was not IV that created this spillover policy...however IV is the one that will fight for you irrespective of whether you are EB1, 2 or 3. The key is to post a united front and some level of participation from every member...I was sad to see Pappu publish low numbers for contributions and phone calls....and only wish we would come together as a group rather than breaking apart.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
more...
vagish
04-07 09:55 PM
Regardless of the various previous comments of whether this bill will or will not make it, I don't care to wait to find out.
I will do whatever I can do to help a concerted effort to nip this bill in the bud. Give me my marching orders.
This bill could go as a rider to STRIVE, there is less chance of STRIVE being passed as it is. So both these things will go hand in hand or nothing will pass.
before expanding H1B they will have to tight the programe.
I will do whatever I can do to help a concerted effort to nip this bill in the bud. Give me my marching orders.
This bill could go as a rider to STRIVE, there is less chance of STRIVE being passed as it is. So both these things will go hand in hand or nothing will pass.
before expanding H1B they will have to tight the programe.
willgetgc2005
08-11 01:36 PM
YADABA,
CAn you please send me the link where you found that CNN has applied for H1B. I would like to write in to Lou (which i think is useless.
He is a rabid man).
But more importatanly, I want to write to soemone else in CNN.
I want to ask this.
If CNN is so anti H1, I believe its progrmas reflect what it stands for, then why does it file for H1?
Pappu, if u put in cable news network and state = Georgia...it will pull up 15 records of h1b applications made by CNN in 2005. maybe someone needs to tell dobbs that. 9 H1 B for fox
CAn you please send me the link where you found that CNN has applied for H1B. I would like to write in to Lou (which i think is useless.
He is a rabid man).
But more importatanly, I want to write to soemone else in CNN.
I want to ask this.
If CNN is so anti H1, I believe its progrmas reflect what it stands for, then why does it file for H1?
Pappu, if u put in cable news network and state = Georgia...it will pull up 15 records of h1b applications made by CNN in 2005. maybe someone needs to tell dobbs that. 9 H1 B for fox
more...
pd_recapturing
08-05 07:48 AM
What a Bull Sh** ?? Are you saying that ppl who have applied under eb2 are the only ones who satisfy the eb2 criteria and eb3s can not satisfy the eb2 criteria ??? Come on ...this eb2 and eb3 thing is highly abused by lawyers, employers or employees .. I guess, you are in eb2 but I am sure if you go line by line of the law to recheck your eb2 eligibility, you might not even qualify for eb10,11, etc ....
2010 Jesus Carrying the Cross,
langagadu
12-26 11:29 PM
I would say india should start war and move every a** out of POK.
Amma,
I agree with you. We can start the war. But what next? How to end it? US is struggling to end the war in Iraq. And India is not US and Pakistan is not Iraq. It would be a closely fought battle although we have some edge.
Whenever talka bout war breaks out, Pakistan does nuclear sabre-rattling.
Indian leadership should tell the world in no uncertain terms that if pakistan uses any unconventional weapons, then all pakistan's cities and towns would be wiped off. Yes, we may loose people but 'proud nation' of pakistan would disappear from the map. I'm against death of innocent but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
India should say that our options are not limited by presence of absence of nuclear weapons. If pakistan uses nuclear weapons, then the guy that pulls the trigger should know that there wont be pakistan anymore. We shud deploy some of the weapons in South and in Sea to give a fitting reply in case one is lobbed at us. This response should be the default option and ingrained into the psyche of Military leaders. And PM and all military chief should sign a declaration to that effect. Again, I'm against innocents but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
We need to do all we could do to tell Pakistan that this wont be a free ride ANYMORE!!
One of the Pakistani General remarked to Benazir saying "Madam, creating trouble in Kashmir using Jihadis is like maintaining an extra brigade with no cost to tax payers"
We need to show that it comes with a COST. War is not an option.
Typically, the media and Indians living abroad beat the drums of war a bit more than people actually living there now.
If you have any Pakistani friends/neigbors/colleagues in USA, how many of you have talked to them about this situation? And what is the response?
Peace,
G
Amma,
I agree with you. We can start the war. But what next? How to end it? US is struggling to end the war in Iraq. And India is not US and Pakistan is not Iraq. It would be a closely fought battle although we have some edge.
Whenever talka bout war breaks out, Pakistan does nuclear sabre-rattling.
Indian leadership should tell the world in no uncertain terms that if pakistan uses any unconventional weapons, then all pakistan's cities and towns would be wiped off. Yes, we may loose people but 'proud nation' of pakistan would disappear from the map. I'm against death of innocent but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
India should say that our options are not limited by presence of absence of nuclear weapons. If pakistan uses nuclear weapons, then the guy that pulls the trigger should know that there wont be pakistan anymore. We shud deploy some of the weapons in South and in Sea to give a fitting reply in case one is lobbed at us. This response should be the default option and ingrained into the psyche of Military leaders. And PM and all military chief should sign a declaration to that effect. Again, I'm against innocents but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
We need to do all we could do to tell Pakistan that this wont be a free ride ANYMORE!!
One of the Pakistani General remarked to Benazir saying "Madam, creating trouble in Kashmir using Jihadis is like maintaining an extra brigade with no cost to tax payers"
We need to show that it comes with a COST. War is not an option.
Typically, the media and Indians living abroad beat the drums of war a bit more than people actually living there now.
If you have any Pakistani friends/neigbors/colleagues in USA, how many of you have talked to them about this situation? And what is the response?
Peace,
G
more...
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
hair Jesus carrying the cross
paskal
04-07 05:27 PM
Can there be a differentiation between extensions/renewals/company changes and new H1bs?
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
more...
Macaca
12-30 06:47 PM
China Respects European Unity (http://csis.org/files/publication/pac1062.pdf) By Jonas Parello-Plesner | Center for Strategic and Int'l Studies
The European Union can work together � at least when it is pushed together. China�s heavy-handed effort to get European nations to skip the Nobel peace prize ceremony in Oslo earlier this month did the trick. Not only did member states show up, but Serbia and Ukraine, countries with EU ambitions, were encouraged to attend as well. Yet this was atypical of a relationship in which China, with newfound power, has found it easy to divide and rule the EU.
While the European Council focused on the euro crisis last week, away from the limelight, EU leaders were adopting a new China policy. Discussion began four months ago when EU leaders took up Europe-China relations. Then the issue was overshadowed by the internal EU topic of the day: Romas. Dealing with China was relegated to short talks and coffee breaks.
This reveals a lot about the EU�s strategic outreach. The EU looks inward and seems destined to be an enlarged Switzerland rather than the missing link between the US and Asia in shaping global affairs. China has recognized this, and increasingly sees Europe as an investment opportunity rather than as a global partner.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I met a range of prominent Chinese officials and academics. Not one asked me how Europe intended to influence US strategy toward Afghanistan or about European views on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. To Beijing, Europe is not so much post-modern as post-global.
How can the EU�s strategic shrinkage be reversed? EU Council President van Rompuy�s comment in September on the need for �reciprocity� � giving to China only when the EU gets something back � was a good start. In line with this, the draft for the new EU trade policy looks at the possibility of closing off the European public procurement market if China does not give the EU reciprocal access to its market. This tough EU language has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. I was repeatedly asked about it by Chinese interlocutors. China understands a clear but consistent message.
By itself this new approach will not be enough. The EU must pursue a set of commonly agreed aims. Europe needs to set urgent, coherent strategic priorities, setting aside strategic patience and trust, the key words of the new approach.
The process of setting new trade policy priorities needs to be extended to the political realm. Member states must select a few priorities on which they really want to engage with China. Non-proliferation, climate change, good governance and human rights are good candidates.
The big players in Europe have been bypassed economically in the last decade by China. They still have traction individually but much less than their national egos afford � this is true even for Germany, which currently is on its own fast track with large scale exports to China.
The Wikileaks exposed how the US looks at the political dwarfs of Europe. The Middle Kingdom has a similar take. The feud over Dalai Lama visits in 2007 and 2008 showed that China was capable of hanging out to dry even Germany and France. The old days � the 1990s � when the EU could levy sanctions on China and enforce a change in behavior are gone. The last vestige of this era is the arms embargo. A new era has begun in which China can levy smart sanctions on European countries.
Resisting the bilateral inclination is difficult. Bilateral visits like David Cameron�s recent tour to China and the Chinese president�s visit to Paris are locked in the logic of bilateral trade promotion. But seeing links to China mainly as a bilateral issue rather than a European-wide concern means accepting a weak position vis-a-vis Beijing. China deals with Europe as it is, not how we dream it is. When European states pursue their own agendas, China will get free traders in the Northern countries to block moves that it sees as too strong, while ensuring that indifferent Southerners dilute policies on human rights.
A purely bilateral vocabulary seems increasingly anachronistic when an Airbus is assembled with subcomponents from all over Europe. Member countries must acknowledge that signing up to the EU is a binding commitment. A high-level EU official conceded that the just adopted internal strategy paper was kept relatively bland because of suspicion that it would be leaked to China. As a result, it couldn�t contain a more detailed game plan for how to secure EU interests through trade-offs and linkages.
The EU�s bilateral instinct can be overcome. The internal pressure for multilateral compliance should be stronger once the External Action Service is up and running. But the EAS is no deus ex machina. Member states must be continuously engaged to pursue reciprocal engagement with China. The European Parliament, with its new say over foreign policy, could play an important role by naming and shaming member states that subvert the EU�s strategic priorities in exchange for bilateral advantages.
A joined-up China policy is urgently needed. Events tend to overtake the EU while it ponders policy and its strategic approach. This year, it was Chinese investments in Europe, particularly in government bonds from Greece to Spain. China�s investment in Europe is a natural diversification from a dollar verdose. Chinese investment should be welcome, but the EU should be an intermediary so that this process is not framed as a bilateral favor that creates political dependency between China and member states. Eurobonds, which have been widely discussed as a solution in the euro crisis, could be a useful tool in this.
For EU foreign policy �czar� Catherine Ashton and her team, fleshing out the elements of a common EU China policy and being able to apply it in time means anticipating events and providing guidance for how individual actions and bilateral visits play to (or undermine) Europe�s strength. For example, the EU needs a code of conduct for dealing with Liu Xiaobo after the Nobel debacle. Such a code of conduct could be minimal. The important point is that it is adhered to.
Member states must make strategic choices that do not favor short-term national rewards at the expense of Europe�s strength. The member-states need to move China up the policy agenda and act in unison if they want to reap the benefits of stronger ties to China and avoid being divided and ultimately ruled.
The European Union can work together � at least when it is pushed together. China�s heavy-handed effort to get European nations to skip the Nobel peace prize ceremony in Oslo earlier this month did the trick. Not only did member states show up, but Serbia and Ukraine, countries with EU ambitions, were encouraged to attend as well. Yet this was atypical of a relationship in which China, with newfound power, has found it easy to divide and rule the EU.
While the European Council focused on the euro crisis last week, away from the limelight, EU leaders were adopting a new China policy. Discussion began four months ago when EU leaders took up Europe-China relations. Then the issue was overshadowed by the internal EU topic of the day: Romas. Dealing with China was relegated to short talks and coffee breaks.
This reveals a lot about the EU�s strategic outreach. The EU looks inward and seems destined to be an enlarged Switzerland rather than the missing link between the US and Asia in shaping global affairs. China has recognized this, and increasingly sees Europe as an investment opportunity rather than as a global partner.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I met a range of prominent Chinese officials and academics. Not one asked me how Europe intended to influence US strategy toward Afghanistan or about European views on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. To Beijing, Europe is not so much post-modern as post-global.
How can the EU�s strategic shrinkage be reversed? EU Council President van Rompuy�s comment in September on the need for �reciprocity� � giving to China only when the EU gets something back � was a good start. In line with this, the draft for the new EU trade policy looks at the possibility of closing off the European public procurement market if China does not give the EU reciprocal access to its market. This tough EU language has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. I was repeatedly asked about it by Chinese interlocutors. China understands a clear but consistent message.
By itself this new approach will not be enough. The EU must pursue a set of commonly agreed aims. Europe needs to set urgent, coherent strategic priorities, setting aside strategic patience and trust, the key words of the new approach.
The process of setting new trade policy priorities needs to be extended to the political realm. Member states must select a few priorities on which they really want to engage with China. Non-proliferation, climate change, good governance and human rights are good candidates.
The big players in Europe have been bypassed economically in the last decade by China. They still have traction individually but much less than their national egos afford � this is true even for Germany, which currently is on its own fast track with large scale exports to China.
The Wikileaks exposed how the US looks at the political dwarfs of Europe. The Middle Kingdom has a similar take. The feud over Dalai Lama visits in 2007 and 2008 showed that China was capable of hanging out to dry even Germany and France. The old days � the 1990s � when the EU could levy sanctions on China and enforce a change in behavior are gone. The last vestige of this era is the arms embargo. A new era has begun in which China can levy smart sanctions on European countries.
Resisting the bilateral inclination is difficult. Bilateral visits like David Cameron�s recent tour to China and the Chinese president�s visit to Paris are locked in the logic of bilateral trade promotion. But seeing links to China mainly as a bilateral issue rather than a European-wide concern means accepting a weak position vis-a-vis Beijing. China deals with Europe as it is, not how we dream it is. When European states pursue their own agendas, China will get free traders in the Northern countries to block moves that it sees as too strong, while ensuring that indifferent Southerners dilute policies on human rights.
A purely bilateral vocabulary seems increasingly anachronistic when an Airbus is assembled with subcomponents from all over Europe. Member countries must acknowledge that signing up to the EU is a binding commitment. A high-level EU official conceded that the just adopted internal strategy paper was kept relatively bland because of suspicion that it would be leaked to China. As a result, it couldn�t contain a more detailed game plan for how to secure EU interests through trade-offs and linkages.
The EU�s bilateral instinct can be overcome. The internal pressure for multilateral compliance should be stronger once the External Action Service is up and running. But the EAS is no deus ex machina. Member states must be continuously engaged to pursue reciprocal engagement with China. The European Parliament, with its new say over foreign policy, could play an important role by naming and shaming member states that subvert the EU�s strategic priorities in exchange for bilateral advantages.
A joined-up China policy is urgently needed. Events tend to overtake the EU while it ponders policy and its strategic approach. This year, it was Chinese investments in Europe, particularly in government bonds from Greece to Spain. China�s investment in Europe is a natural diversification from a dollar verdose. Chinese investment should be welcome, but the EU should be an intermediary so that this process is not framed as a bilateral favor that creates political dependency between China and member states. Eurobonds, which have been widely discussed as a solution in the euro crisis, could be a useful tool in this.
For EU foreign policy �czar� Catherine Ashton and her team, fleshing out the elements of a common EU China policy and being able to apply it in time means anticipating events and providing guidance for how individual actions and bilateral visits play to (or undermine) Europe�s strength. For example, the EU needs a code of conduct for dealing with Liu Xiaobo after the Nobel debacle. Such a code of conduct could be minimal. The important point is that it is adhered to.
Member states must make strategic choices that do not favor short-term national rewards at the expense of Europe�s strength. The member-states need to move China up the policy agenda and act in unison if they want to reap the benefits of stronger ties to China and avoid being divided and ultimately ruled.
hot Jesus Carrying Cross /
Macaca
12-29 07:36 PM
Free Trade, Drugs and India
Attacking the means of funding pharmaceutical breakthroughs is a strange way to pursue global health. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033291893219786.html)
Wall Street Journal Editorial
This month protesters clad in white coats and "HIV Positive" breadboards gathered outside the EU-India summit in Brussels under a banner that read "Europe! Hands Off Our Medicine." Doctors Without Borders, which leads the "Hands Off" campaign, held similar demonstrations in Delhi, Nairobi, Bangkok and Jakarta.
Their aim is to derail a free-trade deal that India and Europe have been negotiating for four years. Brussels says it hopes to have an agreement by early next year, and it predicts the pact would boost European investment in India by 27%. The talks have been held up by many of the familiar bugaboos: European agricultural tariffs, Indian levies on alcohol, and a provision that would make it easier for Indians to get temporary work visas in the EU.
But the issue that most excites activists and dominates Indian headlines is that of intellectual property rights�specifically those of pharmaceutical companies. Today India is the world's leading producer of cheap generic drugs, supplying 80% of the medicines that groups like Doctors Without Borders administer in poor countries. The U.N. estimates that 93% of the anti-retrovirals going to Third World HIV patients were made in India.
These drugs may be cheap to copy, but they cost billions to develop, and Indian law currently gives regulators broad scope to block drug-patent applications and allow knock-off production. Delhi has denied Indian patents for Novartis's cancer drug Glivec and Gilead's HIV treatment Tenofovir, among others.
Europe is now gunning for a trade agreement that would ensure a period of exclusive access to pharmaceutical companies' research data. World Trade Organization rules allow India to grant its own drug makers licenses to replicate certain products even without the inventor's consent. But unless copycats can use pharmaceutical companies' original data to show that the drug is safe and effective, they'd have to conduct their own trials.
So the question is how long data exclusivity would be protected in India under a free-trade deal. EU law protects most pharmaceutical patents for 20 years and secures companies' data exclusivity for 11 years. The EU doesn't expect India to impose European-style intellectual property rights overnight, but it has asked India to meet it part of the way.
This has led to protests among Western activists that Europe wants to shut down India's generic-drug industry and drive up the price of HIV drugs in Africa. The U.N.'s special rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover, decided to chime in earlier this month, slamming the free-trade deal and warning that Europe's "demands are only meant to further line the pockets of multinational companies."
Attacking drug makers' means of funding future breakthroughs seems a strange way to pursue global health. And while Indian officials might think they're doing the home team a favor by keeping it easy to rip off expensive medicines, they're doing nothing to incentivize domestic creators. The next blockbuster drug could well come from an Indian lab. Delhi could make that prospect all the more likely by defending the fruits of everyone's labors on the subcontinent.
In 2010, Bollywood gets a lesson in math (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53822120101228) By Shilpa Jamkhandikar | Reuters
India Citibank employee 'steals millions of dollars' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12088085) BBC
Looking back, looking ahead (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Looking-back-looking-ahead/articleshow/7186182.cms) By
Sudipto Mundle | Times of India
Attacking the means of funding pharmaceutical breakthroughs is a strange way to pursue global health. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033291893219786.html)
Wall Street Journal Editorial
This month protesters clad in white coats and "HIV Positive" breadboards gathered outside the EU-India summit in Brussels under a banner that read "Europe! Hands Off Our Medicine." Doctors Without Borders, which leads the "Hands Off" campaign, held similar demonstrations in Delhi, Nairobi, Bangkok and Jakarta.
Their aim is to derail a free-trade deal that India and Europe have been negotiating for four years. Brussels says it hopes to have an agreement by early next year, and it predicts the pact would boost European investment in India by 27%. The talks have been held up by many of the familiar bugaboos: European agricultural tariffs, Indian levies on alcohol, and a provision that would make it easier for Indians to get temporary work visas in the EU.
But the issue that most excites activists and dominates Indian headlines is that of intellectual property rights�specifically those of pharmaceutical companies. Today India is the world's leading producer of cheap generic drugs, supplying 80% of the medicines that groups like Doctors Without Borders administer in poor countries. The U.N. estimates that 93% of the anti-retrovirals going to Third World HIV patients were made in India.
These drugs may be cheap to copy, but they cost billions to develop, and Indian law currently gives regulators broad scope to block drug-patent applications and allow knock-off production. Delhi has denied Indian patents for Novartis's cancer drug Glivec and Gilead's HIV treatment Tenofovir, among others.
Europe is now gunning for a trade agreement that would ensure a period of exclusive access to pharmaceutical companies' research data. World Trade Organization rules allow India to grant its own drug makers licenses to replicate certain products even without the inventor's consent. But unless copycats can use pharmaceutical companies' original data to show that the drug is safe and effective, they'd have to conduct their own trials.
So the question is how long data exclusivity would be protected in India under a free-trade deal. EU law protects most pharmaceutical patents for 20 years and secures companies' data exclusivity for 11 years. The EU doesn't expect India to impose European-style intellectual property rights overnight, but it has asked India to meet it part of the way.
This has led to protests among Western activists that Europe wants to shut down India's generic-drug industry and drive up the price of HIV drugs in Africa. The U.N.'s special rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover, decided to chime in earlier this month, slamming the free-trade deal and warning that Europe's "demands are only meant to further line the pockets of multinational companies."
Attacking drug makers' means of funding future breakthroughs seems a strange way to pursue global health. And while Indian officials might think they're doing the home team a favor by keeping it easy to rip off expensive medicines, they're doing nothing to incentivize domestic creators. The next blockbuster drug could well come from an Indian lab. Delhi could make that prospect all the more likely by defending the fruits of everyone's labors on the subcontinent.
In 2010, Bollywood gets a lesson in math (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53822120101228) By Shilpa Jamkhandikar | Reuters
India Citibank employee 'steals millions of dollars' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12088085) BBC
Looking back, looking ahead (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Looking-back-looking-ahead/articleshow/7186182.cms) By
Sudipto Mundle | Times of India
more...
house Jesus Carrying the Cross,
h1techSlave
12-26 09:59 PM
Like a few of us are pointing out here, a full fledged war between India and Pak is only good for China.
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
tattoo Depiction of Jesus carrying
diptam
08-05 08:36 AM
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
Friend, How many times, you need to know that even job requirements do get rigged by lawyers and employers to accommodate ppl in eb2/eb3 ...and its not jumping the line ...the person has to restart the labor and 140 in order to change the category ...u cant compare it with labor substitution (if u r comparing !!)
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
Friend, How many times, you need to know that even job requirements do get rigged by lawyers and employers to accommodate ppl in eb2/eb3 ...and its not jumping the line ...the person has to restart the labor and 140 in order to change the category ...u cant compare it with labor substitution (if u r comparing !!)
more...
pictures jesus carrying the cross
javadeveloper
08-02 12:35 PM
245k and 245i are two different things.
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
Thanks UN
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
Thanks UN
dresses Jesus Carrying His Cross
alterego
07-13 02:09 PM
Having a cut off date of April or Dec 2001 for the past few years is as good as VISA being unavailable. So India EB3 was unavailable for the last 3 years or so (except last july).
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Fairness is not what this is about. That is the whole issue. Is it fair that EB2 India has been waiting for years while EB2ROW has been current? Is it fair EB1 is over supplied with visas while EB2 India even EB2NIW was left heavily retrogressed? Worse yet, is it fair that the USCIS interpreted the law wrongly and gave visas to EB3ROW at the expense of EB2I? Was Labor Subs. Fair?
It is not about fair my friend. I am not unsympathetic to your plea for more EB3I relief. There absolutely should be some, and through a legislative fix. However the executive branch of Gov't has to implement the law as it stands.
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Fairness is not what this is about. That is the whole issue. Is it fair that EB2 India has been waiting for years while EB2ROW has been current? Is it fair EB1 is over supplied with visas while EB2 India even EB2NIW was left heavily retrogressed? Worse yet, is it fair that the USCIS interpreted the law wrongly and gave visas to EB3ROW at the expense of EB2I? Was Labor Subs. Fair?
It is not about fair my friend. I am not unsympathetic to your plea for more EB3I relief. There absolutely should be some, and through a legislative fix. However the executive branch of Gov't has to implement the law as it stands.
more...
makeup Christ Carrying the Cross by
validIV
06-05 11:43 AM
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.
here is a good point about long term housing prospects. I for one am glad that GC delay saved me from buying a house.
this is from an article
------------------------------------
Why do I think housing is in the tank for the long term?
First, I listen to people smarter than I am - a key to success from investing to recreation league baseball. When my rec team had its first losing season - after twelve consecutive great seasons (two per year) I did the logical and hired a professional coach. They were winners the next season. Ditto for analyzing stuff - and I follow Ivy Zelman and Whitney Tilson. They have been dead on about the mortgage meltdown - and see a larger one coming.
Listening to them, reading data and being objective has led me to see the key to a rebound in housing is clearing inventory - too much supply and too little demand, and since lower than five percent interest rates have not spurred buying, supply is the issue. Supply comes from the sale of existing homes, the sale of new homes, and the sale of foreclosed homes.
* Typically ten to fifteen percent of Americans sell or want to sell their home in a given year. Recent survey data shows the number is now 30%. Keep that in mind.
* New home sales are incredibly low. Market wisdom said home building stocks would rise once the new housing start rate hit a million and inventory became tight. New home starts are roughly half of that and there ain't no rebound. As the poet said, times, they be a changing.
* People are not selling, and builders are not building, not just because people are not buying - it is because prices are low and going lower and the driver here is foreclosures. Data can be found here, there and everywhere but the salient data points are a) banks are accelerating foreclosures, b) the next wave of resets of mortgages, the cause of most foreclosures, does not peak until the summer of 2011, c) banks are already sitting on more than half a million homes they have not listed for sale, and the whopper is d) the New York Times has reported that there are nineteen million empty housing units and only six million are listed for sale.
This last point, when combined with another couple of million foreclosed homes, then with desire for people wanting to sell their home as soon as they can, means excess inventory for as far as the eye can see. I originally projected housing prices would, nationally, bottom at the end of 2011 and prices would begin to pick up in mid 2012. I may have been premature. With resets peaking in mid defaults will probably peak in early Q4 2011; this means foreclosure listings will peak in mid-summer 2012, after the peak selling season, not good for managing down inventory. Assuming demand picks up - a near heroic assumption at this time as interest rates will be higher and unemployment could be the same or higher at that time - you will start to see inventory declining in a meaningful way until 2013 at the earliest.
I have focused on supply - was I too cavalier about demand? Well, that is more problematic - resets, defaults and foreclosures are fourth grade math and although the only thing I knew about housing was my own mortgage before this mess started, I can do fourth grade math and every forecast I have made about foreclosures and inventory has been right within a 30-45 day period.
Using fourth grade math as our primary tool does have value in estimating demand. Roughly 40% of demand in the peak year - 2006 - was sub-prime or near sub-prime - and these buyers are out of the market for a considerable period of time. And a very large percentage - some analysts estimate as high as a third - of all sales were for investment and second homes. Most of this demand is gone for the foreseeable future. Add tightening credit standards, recession ravaged incomes and personal balance sheets, and a new frugality and it is hard to see demand in 2013 or 2014 climbing past 50% of demand in 2006. Even if the FHA does not go bust - which it will, requiring another Treasury bailout.
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.
here is a good point about long term housing prospects. I for one am glad that GC delay saved me from buying a house.
this is from an article
------------------------------------
Why do I think housing is in the tank for the long term?
First, I listen to people smarter than I am - a key to success from investing to recreation league baseball. When my rec team had its first losing season - after twelve consecutive great seasons (two per year) I did the logical and hired a professional coach. They were winners the next season. Ditto for analyzing stuff - and I follow Ivy Zelman and Whitney Tilson. They have been dead on about the mortgage meltdown - and see a larger one coming.
Listening to them, reading data and being objective has led me to see the key to a rebound in housing is clearing inventory - too much supply and too little demand, and since lower than five percent interest rates have not spurred buying, supply is the issue. Supply comes from the sale of existing homes, the sale of new homes, and the sale of foreclosed homes.
* Typically ten to fifteen percent of Americans sell or want to sell their home in a given year. Recent survey data shows the number is now 30%. Keep that in mind.
* New home sales are incredibly low. Market wisdom said home building stocks would rise once the new housing start rate hit a million and inventory became tight. New home starts are roughly half of that and there ain't no rebound. As the poet said, times, they be a changing.
* People are not selling, and builders are not building, not just because people are not buying - it is because prices are low and going lower and the driver here is foreclosures. Data can be found here, there and everywhere but the salient data points are a) banks are accelerating foreclosures, b) the next wave of resets of mortgages, the cause of most foreclosures, does not peak until the summer of 2011, c) banks are already sitting on more than half a million homes they have not listed for sale, and the whopper is d) the New York Times has reported that there are nineteen million empty housing units and only six million are listed for sale.
This last point, when combined with another couple of million foreclosed homes, then with desire for people wanting to sell their home as soon as they can, means excess inventory for as far as the eye can see. I originally projected housing prices would, nationally, bottom at the end of 2011 and prices would begin to pick up in mid 2012. I may have been premature. With resets peaking in mid defaults will probably peak in early Q4 2011; this means foreclosure listings will peak in mid-summer 2012, after the peak selling season, not good for managing down inventory. Assuming demand picks up - a near heroic assumption at this time as interest rates will be higher and unemployment could be the same or higher at that time - you will start to see inventory declining in a meaningful way until 2013 at the earliest.
I have focused on supply - was I too cavalier about demand? Well, that is more problematic - resets, defaults and foreclosures are fourth grade math and although the only thing I knew about housing was my own mortgage before this mess started, I can do fourth grade math and every forecast I have made about foreclosures and inventory has been right within a 30-45 day period.
Using fourth grade math as our primary tool does have value in estimating demand. Roughly 40% of demand in the peak year - 2006 - was sub-prime or near sub-prime - and these buyers are out of the market for a considerable period of time. And a very large percentage - some analysts estimate as high as a third - of all sales were for investment and second homes. Most of this demand is gone for the foreseeable future. Add tightening credit standards, recession ravaged incomes and personal balance sheets, and a new frugality and it is hard to see demand in 2013 or 2014 climbing past 50% of demand in 2006. Even if the FHA does not go bust - which it will, requiring another Treasury bailout.
girlfriend lt;a hrefquot;quot;gt;Jesus Carries The
new2gc
03-24 06:19 PM
My Dear Friend:
Why do you want to defend crooks? Instead of ackowledging the fact that desi consulting companies are exploiting loopholes, you rather want to know why other companies are not feeling the heat. This is typical of us desis. There is absolutely no introspection.
For once, accept that we are at fault.
Its like this - You are in school and your teacher catches you copying off the next person. Now instead of correcting yourself, if you complain to the teacher that another classmate was also copying so you should not be penalized, will your treacher let you go?
Again, I am not defending anyone, I am saying that we should point all the consultanting...not just desi consulting ones...just don't descriminate...from your theory, it looks it is ok to copy unless you are caught.....I don't want to argue on this and deviate from the OP .
Why do you want to defend crooks? Instead of ackowledging the fact that desi consulting companies are exploiting loopholes, you rather want to know why other companies are not feeling the heat. This is typical of us desis. There is absolutely no introspection.
For once, accept that we are at fault.
Its like this - You are in school and your teacher catches you copying off the next person. Now instead of correcting yourself, if you complain to the teacher that another classmate was also copying so you should not be penalized, will your treacher let you go?
Again, I am not defending anyone, I am saying that we should point all the consultanting...not just desi consulting ones...just don't descriminate...from your theory, it looks it is ok to copy unless you are caught.....I don't want to argue on this and deviate from the OP .
hairstyles is that this is the angle
kumar1
12-17 05:17 PM
I can see tabletpc standing naked!!!!!:D
Rupees conversion rate:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=298845&postcount=16
Someone started this very immigration related thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=297679#post297679
Someone is talking about Hotels....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=255794#post255794
furrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..................
Rupees conversion rate:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=298845&postcount=16
Someone started this very immigration related thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=297679#post297679
Someone is talking about Hotels....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=255794#post255794
furrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..................
sumanitha
01-07 10:22 AM
Dude..
I am not against any religion.. but at the same time when something bad/evil is pointed out in any religion, try to accept it as a part and if you can try to mend it..
First try to accept thy mistake... then point fingers... (It applies to everyone.. including me)
Keep barking the same thing again and again. This is not going to make even a small dent on my faith. The more you hate, the more we love our faith.
I am not against any religion.. but at the same time when something bad/evil is pointed out in any religion, try to accept it as a part and if you can try to mend it..
First try to accept thy mistake... then point fingers... (It applies to everyone.. including me)
Keep barking the same thing again and again. This is not going to make even a small dent on my faith. The more you hate, the more we love our faith.
bondgoli007
01-06 04:24 PM
Hamas position??? Huh.. Did Hamas members came and told you that Isreal shouldn't exist? Did we hear all these from those people? When did we last hear from Palestinians on thier position and what they think about Isreal? Its media and nothing but jewish media propagate this. What do they acheieve by doing these kind of propaganda??? They win people like you who would support killing on innocent civilians and school kids. PERIOD
WOW!!!
Can you read how much hate you are spewing in your posts? against jews, against hindus...against anyone who disagrees with the mostly wrong opinion you have. Where do you get your information from by the way? I mean the REAL TRUTH?? Have you been to Gaza?
Read Hamas's charter....it is clearly mentioned in there "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
WOW!!!
Can you read how much hate you are spewing in your posts? against jews, against hindus...against anyone who disagrees with the mostly wrong opinion you have. Where do you get your information from by the way? I mean the REAL TRUTH?? Have you been to Gaza?
Read Hamas's charter....it is clearly mentioned in there "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
No comments:
Post a Comment