SunnySurya
08-06 08:51 AM
Rolling_Flood,
If you are willing to take action, I am with you. Don't worry about what other people are saying, it does not matter. A man got to do what he got to do.
Let us start with taking some legal opinions. I am willing to share the cost.
I also beleive (and firmly so) that the PD porting among categories should not be allowed.
I am sending you my phone number in PM. Call me when you are ready and we can discuss more. Alternatively, give me your phone number as I definitly want to follow through.
Thanks
Sunny
teri life mein koi accomplishment nahi hai to gussa kyun ho raha hai??!!
haan, i cracked the JEE...........aur har kaam tere se behtar kar sakta hun....work, sports, you name it........
saale insecure tu hai...........main to wohi karunga jo mere ko theek laga....
take care, BUDDY!
If you are willing to take action, I am with you. Don't worry about what other people are saying, it does not matter. A man got to do what he got to do.
Let us start with taking some legal opinions. I am willing to share the cost.
I also beleive (and firmly so) that the PD porting among categories should not be allowed.
I am sending you my phone number in PM. Call me when you are ready and we can discuss more. Alternatively, give me your phone number as I definitly want to follow through.
Thanks
Sunny
teri life mein koi accomplishment nahi hai to gussa kyun ho raha hai??!!
haan, i cracked the JEE...........aur har kaam tere se behtar kar sakta hun....work, sports, you name it........
saale insecure tu hai...........main to wohi karunga jo mere ko theek laga....
take care, BUDDY!
wallpaper Kelly Rowland Finally Unveils
kshitijnt
06-26 01:33 PM
Dear IV Members, Kindly be respectful to others even if you do not agree with their opinion. I saw ValidIV was give a lot of negative reputation since he disagreed with views of many people. KIndly do not do so. The debate should be respectful with honorable disagreement.
Macaca
11-20 11:02 AM
A Call to Advocacy for Nonprofits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111901333.html) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | Washington Post, November 20, 2007
Charities are sweet things, but Gary D. Bass wants them to get rough and tumble when it comes to dealing with government.
In his new book, "Seen But Not Heard: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy," Bass and three co-authors argue that charities need to lobby more often and more effectively. "Democracy would be better off," said Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that pushes for government accountability.
Most people -- and, clearly, most charities -- think of lobbyists as corporate frontmen trying to grab taxpayer largesse for themselves. They also consider lobbying kind of dirty, given the criminality of infamous lobbyists such as the now-imprisoned Jack Abramoff.
But lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes, including the charitable sort. Bass's book, which is part of a larger effort called the Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy Project, or SNAP, is a useful reminder of that.
Bass has been trying to convince charities for years that they should not be afraid to lobby. He and others, including the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, have even devised ways to ease -- or at least simplify -- the limitations now imposed on charities so they can press their causes more aggressively.
That's right, they are lobbying to be allowed to lobby more.
Conservative lawmakers and a few campaign-finance scholars don't like the idea. They worry that, among other things, the ability of charities to keep their donors anonymous could lead to huge and largely untraceable infusions of cash into elections, all under the guise of lobbying.
And please, call it advocacy. Charities don't like to use the "L" word. Only a third of nonprofits polled recently owned up to "lobbying" two or more times a month. But when asked if they "advocate," closer to half admitted to that.
Many nonprofits also are unsure how much lobbying the law permits them to do. Only 72 percent even knew that they could support or oppose federal legislation. (They can, up to a point.)
Bass's biggest problem is convincing charities that they not only can make their case to government, but that they really ought to do so . In effect, he needs to convince his fellow do-gooders that lobbying is not so bad.
"Nonprofit lobbyists have been involved in nearly every major public policy accomplishment in this country -- from civil rights to environmental protection to health care," Bass said in an e-mail. "Tens of thousands of lives have been saved by passing laws that improve car safety and reduce drunk driving."
"In other words, nonprofit lobbying is an honorable tradition," he added, "and not just the ugly Abramoff side" of the profession.
Convincing charities of that, however, will not be a snap.
Charities are sweet things, but Gary D. Bass wants them to get rough and tumble when it comes to dealing with government.
In his new book, "Seen But Not Heard: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy," Bass and three co-authors argue that charities need to lobby more often and more effectively. "Democracy would be better off," said Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that pushes for government accountability.
Most people -- and, clearly, most charities -- think of lobbyists as corporate frontmen trying to grab taxpayer largesse for themselves. They also consider lobbying kind of dirty, given the criminality of infamous lobbyists such as the now-imprisoned Jack Abramoff.
But lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes, including the charitable sort. Bass's book, which is part of a larger effort called the Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy Project, or SNAP, is a useful reminder of that.
Bass has been trying to convince charities for years that they should not be afraid to lobby. He and others, including the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, have even devised ways to ease -- or at least simplify -- the limitations now imposed on charities so they can press their causes more aggressively.
That's right, they are lobbying to be allowed to lobby more.
Conservative lawmakers and a few campaign-finance scholars don't like the idea. They worry that, among other things, the ability of charities to keep their donors anonymous could lead to huge and largely untraceable infusions of cash into elections, all under the guise of lobbying.
And please, call it advocacy. Charities don't like to use the "L" word. Only a third of nonprofits polled recently owned up to "lobbying" two or more times a month. But when asked if they "advocate," closer to half admitted to that.
Many nonprofits also are unsure how much lobbying the law permits them to do. Only 72 percent even knew that they could support or oppose federal legislation. (They can, up to a point.)
Bass's biggest problem is convincing charities that they not only can make their case to government, but that they really ought to do so . In effect, he needs to convince his fellow do-gooders that lobbying is not so bad.
"Nonprofit lobbyists have been involved in nearly every major public policy accomplishment in this country -- from civil rights to environmental protection to health care," Bass said in an e-mail. "Tens of thousands of lives have been saved by passing laws that improve car safety and reduce drunk driving."
"In other words, nonprofit lobbying is an honorable tradition," he added, "and not just the ugly Abramoff side" of the profession.
Convincing charities of that, however, will not be a snap.
2011 2011 Kelly Rowland Lay It On
gomirage
06-05 07:18 PM
Sorry but no matter how you spin it, owning a home is better than renting. Renting is not smart. period. your money is gone every month. You are not getting that money back.
When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.
30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
It's not rocket science, just common sense. In case you are aware, lot of people on this forum don't have gc in hand. What will they do if they decide to leave due to gc taking too long to come through. Ask they bank to give back the money they spend on stupid interest for 10 years for a house upside down ?
Common sense is to rent until you are sure you're staying for good.
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.
It's not rocket science, just common sense. In case you are aware, lot of people on this forum don't have gc in hand. What will they do if they decide to leave due to gc taking too long to come through. Ask they bank to give back the money they spend on stupid interest for 10 years for a house upside down ?
Common sense is to rent until you are sure you're staying for good.
more...
alisa
01-04 03:21 PM
I know why you wanted to avoid this dawood Ibrahim. It clearly shows unwillingness for pakistan to take actions on these terrorists.
Your leaps from me to Pakistan, and vice versa, are getting annoying now. You talk about what my views on Dawood Ibrahim are in one sentence, and in the next you conclude that that shows something on the part of Pakistan.
Now, for the last time, I personally think that it would be beneficial for Pakistan to investigate and get to the bottom of the Bombay incident, and use it as an opportunity to further build public opinion in Pakistan against the militants and the jihadists. (Sadly, I don't see that happening.) The perpetrators of Bombay should be tried for treason for attempting to start a war with India. To me, that is more important, than Masood Azhar, and Dawood Ebrahim, and the past.
Again, that is my personal opinion on what is important. You are more than welcome to disagree with it. But don't suggest that what I think proves something about official Pakistani policy.
Your leaps from me to Pakistan, and vice versa, are getting annoying now. You talk about what my views on Dawood Ibrahim are in one sentence, and in the next you conclude that that shows something on the part of Pakistan.
Now, for the last time, I personally think that it would be beneficial for Pakistan to investigate and get to the bottom of the Bombay incident, and use it as an opportunity to further build public opinion in Pakistan against the militants and the jihadists. (Sadly, I don't see that happening.) The perpetrators of Bombay should be tried for treason for attempting to start a war with India. To me, that is more important, than Masood Azhar, and Dawood Ebrahim, and the past.
Again, that is my personal opinion on what is important. You are more than welcome to disagree with it. But don't suggest that what I think proves something about official Pakistani policy.
like_watching_paint_dry
08-11 11:47 AM
I agree with yabadaba. We should also send feedback to CNN about the lies Lou Dobbs is perpetuating on national TV.
Go here http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?7 to give feedback about Lou Dobbs.
This is what I wrote:
Please try to use your own language, otherwise they will ignore the emails as form letters, but try to cover all the points. Later I think we should contact other News outlets and point out the incompetence
also send it to a competitor network and to a show which competes with Dobbs.
Go here http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?7 to give feedback about Lou Dobbs.
This is what I wrote:
Please try to use your own language, otherwise they will ignore the emails as form letters, but try to cover all the points. Later I think we should contact other News outlets and point out the incompetence
also send it to a competitor network and to a show which competes with Dobbs.
more...
mariner5555
04-17 03:16 PM
just in case people are wondering why the future of housing will continue to be bad ..here is the article.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2008/04/mortgage-resets-the-fun-has-just-begun/?mod=MWBlog
------
�When they start talking about mortgage RESETS,� emailed Paul Jaber, a portfolio manager at the Perpetual Value Fund, �can you correct them and tell them the problem is RECASTS? They surely don�t know the difference��
Paul continued:
See, if you took out an option pay ARM loan in 2005 and bought a few properties like the hotshot 24-year old Southern California real estate mogul � on average you would be able to make 40 months of BELOW interest rate mortgage payments (I use the word payment loosely).
After about 40 months your 2% b.s. payment would make the loan grow to about 115% of the original amount and then � WHAMMO � your loan would recast to a 27-year fully amortizing mortgage. Your payments would go from $1,000 a month to over $3,000 and you would be walking around wondering, like �What is happening?� A good analogy is the three-year no-payment, no-interest Circuit City TV loan. The catch is that in month 37 you owe ALL back interest � usually about double the original charge.
The guys talking about resets are trying to confuse the situation. The option arm loan was very popular through 1Q07 - so take 40 months from that date, plus 3 months for them to go 90 days late and then and only will you see foreclosures start to level off.
To further drive home the point, Paul adds:
The reason why CFC, WM, WB, DSL and FED are all imploding is because the 2003 - 2004 pay option arm loans are all recasting and then going 90 days late. But all you need to know is pay option arm loans have a teaser payment that will last until the loan goes 110%-125% of original value and then the loan RECASTS to a fully amortizing loan. That is how a payment skyrockets - its simple math. Whereas payments can�t realistically double or triple with a simple ARM reset, most are capped every year - again the math is pretty simple.
The resets do indeed peak in the middle of this year and then taper off. It�s also true that the Fed cuts mean that the reset leads to no increase in monthly payments for about 20% of borrowers and for less than $100/month for another 20%, based on an article I read in the WSJ a few days ago. But:
1) That means for 60% of homeowners, the reset will more more than $100/month � for some, a lot more.
2) Mortgages with teaser rates written from Q1 05 - Q2 07 are defaulting at catastrophically high rates before the reset � a whole lotta people can�t even pay the teaser rates!
3) Bulls are missing the lag effects. It takes an average of 15 months from the date of the first missed payment to sale of the house, so the fact that resets are tapering off by the end of this year means the wave of foreclosures and home auctions the resets trigger won�t hit until mid to late 2009 into 2010.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2008/04/mortgage-resets-the-fun-has-just-begun/?mod=MWBlog
------
�When they start talking about mortgage RESETS,� emailed Paul Jaber, a portfolio manager at the Perpetual Value Fund, �can you correct them and tell them the problem is RECASTS? They surely don�t know the difference��
Paul continued:
See, if you took out an option pay ARM loan in 2005 and bought a few properties like the hotshot 24-year old Southern California real estate mogul � on average you would be able to make 40 months of BELOW interest rate mortgage payments (I use the word payment loosely).
After about 40 months your 2% b.s. payment would make the loan grow to about 115% of the original amount and then � WHAMMO � your loan would recast to a 27-year fully amortizing mortgage. Your payments would go from $1,000 a month to over $3,000 and you would be walking around wondering, like �What is happening?� A good analogy is the three-year no-payment, no-interest Circuit City TV loan. The catch is that in month 37 you owe ALL back interest � usually about double the original charge.
The guys talking about resets are trying to confuse the situation. The option arm loan was very popular through 1Q07 - so take 40 months from that date, plus 3 months for them to go 90 days late and then and only will you see foreclosures start to level off.
To further drive home the point, Paul adds:
The reason why CFC, WM, WB, DSL and FED are all imploding is because the 2003 - 2004 pay option arm loans are all recasting and then going 90 days late. But all you need to know is pay option arm loans have a teaser payment that will last until the loan goes 110%-125% of original value and then the loan RECASTS to a fully amortizing loan. That is how a payment skyrockets - its simple math. Whereas payments can�t realistically double or triple with a simple ARM reset, most are capped every year - again the math is pretty simple.
The resets do indeed peak in the middle of this year and then taper off. It�s also true that the Fed cuts mean that the reset leads to no increase in monthly payments for about 20% of borrowers and for less than $100/month for another 20%, based on an article I read in the WSJ a few days ago. But:
1) That means for 60% of homeowners, the reset will more more than $100/month � for some, a lot more.
2) Mortgages with teaser rates written from Q1 05 - Q2 07 are defaulting at catastrophically high rates before the reset � a whole lotta people can�t even pay the teaser rates!
3) Bulls are missing the lag effects. It takes an average of 15 months from the date of the first missed payment to sale of the house, so the fact that resets are tapering off by the end of this year means the wave of foreclosures and home auctions the resets trigger won�t hit until mid to late 2009 into 2010.
2010 house kelly rowland album art.
kaisersose
04-15 02:51 PM
We are mixing too many different aspects of home buying and creating confusion.
We buy homes, when we have clearly done our home work and know we can afford what we are buying and our incomes are expected to be reasonably stable. Everyone knows this and no one is arguing against the above logic.
The points of contention were home life vs. apt life, and home as a home vs. home as an investment. I got into this thread to point out how some people are so obsessed about resale value that to them a home is nothing more than a piece of investment which should appreciate with time and be sold off.
But these topics appear to be rubbing some people the wrong way as they are hurt to discover that there exist people who do not think the way they do. For that reason, I will lay off this topic.
We buy homes, when we have clearly done our home work and know we can afford what we are buying and our incomes are expected to be reasonably stable. Everyone knows this and no one is arguing against the above logic.
The points of contention were home life vs. apt life, and home as a home vs. home as an investment. I got into this thread to point out how some people are so obsessed about resale value that to them a home is nothing more than a piece of investment which should appreciate with time and be sold off.
But these topics appear to be rubbing some people the wrong way as they are hurt to discover that there exist people who do not think the way they do. For that reason, I will lay off this topic.
more...
logiclife
11-21 05:44 PM
Lou Dobbs gets his ratings based on how much angry he can get people.
Same goes for Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
The easiest way to get good ratings and viewership of your program on radio or TV, if you dont have substance and if you dont want to work hard, is to make people angry.
Angry listeners are regular listeners and motivated listeners. Also, a lot more emotional and a lot less objective.
They all know they are talking garbage. Take Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas" for example. Does it really matter if walmart hangs a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Does it feed the hungry homeless people? Does to stop Genocide in Darfur. NO.
But it can make some people angry, which gets good ratings and 90% of broadcast media are ratings pimps. All they care about is viewership and ratings and they dont themselves believe in the nonsense they utter into the microphones.
Same goes for Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
The easiest way to get good ratings and viewership of your program on radio or TV, if you dont have substance and if you dont want to work hard, is to make people angry.
Angry listeners are regular listeners and motivated listeners. Also, a lot more emotional and a lot less objective.
They all know they are talking garbage. Take Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas" for example. Does it really matter if walmart hangs a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Does it feed the hungry homeless people? Does to stop Genocide in Darfur. NO.
But it can make some people angry, which gets good ratings and 90% of broadcast media are ratings pimps. All they care about is viewership and ratings and they dont themselves believe in the nonsense they utter into the microphones.
hair KELLY ROWLAND ANNOUNCES ALBUM
pd_recapturing
04-15 02:39 PM
Mariner555 is right. When I was buying a house, my friend also bought a house at the same time. he bought a big brand new single family and I bought a smaller old townhouse (2004 built). His house did cost hom around 200k more than mine. Now, after 5 months, when I asked him, how is life, he lamented that whole of his income goes towards the mortgage and nothing left for other activities. In my opinion, one shud buy house when he/she can save enough to enjoy other aspects of life after paying the mortgage. I have seen ppl cursing their decision to buy house because of the mortgage. I do not think that its anything to do with housing market.
And finally believe me, living in your own house is a great feeling so go for it...:)
And finally believe me, living in your own house is a great feeling so go for it...:)
more...
ksr
08-14 05:45 PM
There is another thread in this section that somebody posted that has the answers. You can take the Fp and request re-scheduling for your family giving the travel iternary copy and date(s) when they would be available
Thank You Krishna. I have just mailed Fp notices requesting for re-schedule.
Thank You Krishna. I have just mailed Fp notices requesting for re-schedule.
hot Filed Under Kelly Rowland
qasleuth
03-25 04:05 PM
Go back and read each and every line of what UN posted and you would understand.
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), .
I do not understand either...OP says he/she does not want to spend a grand (not sure if it costs that much) in attorney fees while he is willing to spend time/money trying to immigrate to Alberta. Taking a fatalistic approach and hoping for the best seems to be the idea. Again good luck to OP.
It is always good to utilize services of a good Attorney for complex situations. But anyways good luck.
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), .
I do not understand either...OP says he/she does not want to spend a grand (not sure if it costs that much) in attorney fees while he is willing to spend time/money trying to immigrate to Alberta. Taking a fatalistic approach and hoping for the best seems to be the idea. Again good luck to OP.
It is always good to utilize services of a good Attorney for complex situations. But anyways good luck.
more...
house kelly rowland album 2011.
amulchandra
04-07 02:39 PM
There are many big companies that depend completely on consultants for their software projects. Example Sony, Boeing... If this applies to existing H1bs then their projects will suffer a great loss.
ERP softwares basically are implemented by consulting firms .Then all big companies including Oracle,SAP cannot implement their applications anywhere as they have to hire people on their own to implement.All ERP implementations can be treated as consulting.This is going to be a big mess.
I don't think this bill is going pass successfully.
ERP softwares basically are implemented by consulting firms .Then all big companies including Oracle,SAP cannot implement their applications anywhere as they have to hire people on their own to implement.All ERP implementations can be treated as consulting.This is going to be a big mess.
I don't think this bill is going pass successfully.
tattoo 2011 Nelly feat. Kelly Rowland
nogc_noproblem
08-07 02:06 PM
Instructions: Just read the sentence straight through quickly without really thinking about it.
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
more...
pictures 2011 Kelly Rowland
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
dresses Kelly Rowland has also now
rsdang
08-11 05:19 PM
If you don't laugh at the end of reading this then there's something wrong with you... Just imagine sitting in traffic on your way to work
and hearing this. Many Chicago folks DID hear this on the WBAM FM morning show in Chicago. The DJs play a game where they award winners great
prizes. The game is called "Mate Match." The DJs call someone at work and ask if they are married or seriously involved with someone. If the
contestant answers "yes," he or she is then asked 3 random yet highly personal questions. The person is also asked to divulge the name of
their partner (with phone number) for verification. If their partner answers those same three questions correctly, they both win the prize. One
particular game, however, several months ago made the Windy City drop to its knees with laughter and is possibly the funniest thing I've heard
yet. Anyway, here's how it all went down:
DJ: Hey! This is Edgar on WBAM. Have you ever heard of Mate Match?
Contestant: (laughing) Yes, I have.
DJ: Great! Then you know we're giving away a trip to Orlando, Florida if you win. What is your name? First only please.
Contestant: Brian.
DJ: Brian, are you married or what?
Brian: Yes.
DJ: Yes? Does that mean you're married or you're what?
Brian: (laughing nervously) Yes, I am married.
DJ: Thank you. Now, what is your wife's name? First only please.
Brian: Sarah.
DJ: Is Sarah at work, Brian?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Stay with me here, Brian! Is she at work?
Brian: (laughing) Yes, she's at work.
DJ: Okay, first question - when was the last time you had sex?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Brian! Stay with me here!
Brian: About 8 o'clock this morning.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: (laughing sheepishly) Well...
DJ: Question #2 - How long did it last?
Brian: About 10 minutes.
DJ: Wow! You really want that trip, huh? No one would ever have said that if a trip wasn't at stake.
Brian: Yeah, that trip sure would be nice.
DJ: Okay. Final question. Where did you have sex at 8 o'clock this morning?
Brian: (laughing hard) I, ummm, I, well...
DJ: This sounds good, Brian. Where was it at?
Brian: Not that it was all that great, but her mom is staying with us for a couple of weeks...
DJ: Uh huh...
Brian: .and the Mother-In-Law was in the shower at the time.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: On the kitchen table.
DJ: Not that great?? That is more adventure than the previous hundred times I've done it. Okay folks, I will put Brian on hold, get this wife's
work number and call her up. You listen to this.
(3 minutes of commercials follow)
DJ: Okay audience, let's call Sarah, shall we?
(touch tones... ringing...)
Clerk: Kinkos.
DJ: Hey, is Sarah around there somewhere?
Clerk: This is she.
DJ: Sarah, this is Edgar with WBAM. We are live on the air right now and I've been talking with Brian for a couple of hours now.
Sarah: (laughing) A couple of hours?
DJ: Well, a while now. He is on the line with us. Brian knows not to give any answers away! or you'll lose. Sooooooo... do you know the rules of
MateMatch?
Sarah: No.
DJ: Good!
Brian: (laughing)
Sarah: (laughing) Brian, what the hell are you up to?
Brian: (laughing) Just answer his questions honestly, okay? Be completely honest.
DJ: Yeah yeah yeah. Sure.. Now, I will ask you 3 questions, Sarah. ! If your answers match Brian's answers, then the both of you will be of To
Orlando, Florida for 5 ! days on us. Disney World. Sea World. Tickets to the Magic's game. The whole deal. Get it Sarah?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Alright. When did you last have sex, Sarah?
Sarah: Oh God, Brian....uh, this morning before Brian went to work.
DJ: What time?
Sarah: Around 8 this morning.
DJ: Very good. Next question. How long did it last?
Sarah: 12, 15 minutes maybe.
DJ:! Hmmmm. That's close enough. I am sure she is trying to protect his manhood. We've got one last question, Sarah. You are one question away
from a trip to Florida. Are you ready?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Where did you have it?
Sarah: OH MY GOD, BRIAN!! You didn't tell them that, did you?
Brian: Just tell him, honey.
DJ: What is bothering you so much, Sarah?
Sarah: Well, it's just that my mom is! vacationing with us and...
DJ: Come on Sarah... where did you have it?
Sarah: In the butt...
(long pause)
DJ: Folks, we need to take a station break
and hearing this. Many Chicago folks DID hear this on the WBAM FM morning show in Chicago. The DJs play a game where they award winners great
prizes. The game is called "Mate Match." The DJs call someone at work and ask if they are married or seriously involved with someone. If the
contestant answers "yes," he or she is then asked 3 random yet highly personal questions. The person is also asked to divulge the name of
their partner (with phone number) for verification. If their partner answers those same three questions correctly, they both win the prize. One
particular game, however, several months ago made the Windy City drop to its knees with laughter and is possibly the funniest thing I've heard
yet. Anyway, here's how it all went down:
DJ: Hey! This is Edgar on WBAM. Have you ever heard of Mate Match?
Contestant: (laughing) Yes, I have.
DJ: Great! Then you know we're giving away a trip to Orlando, Florida if you win. What is your name? First only please.
Contestant: Brian.
DJ: Brian, are you married or what?
Brian: Yes.
DJ: Yes? Does that mean you're married or you're what?
Brian: (laughing nervously) Yes, I am married.
DJ: Thank you. Now, what is your wife's name? First only please.
Brian: Sarah.
DJ: Is Sarah at work, Brian?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Stay with me here, Brian! Is she at work?
Brian: (laughing) Yes, she's at work.
DJ: Okay, first question - when was the last time you had sex?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Brian! Stay with me here!
Brian: About 8 o'clock this morning.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: (laughing sheepishly) Well...
DJ: Question #2 - How long did it last?
Brian: About 10 minutes.
DJ: Wow! You really want that trip, huh? No one would ever have said that if a trip wasn't at stake.
Brian: Yeah, that trip sure would be nice.
DJ: Okay. Final question. Where did you have sex at 8 o'clock this morning?
Brian: (laughing hard) I, ummm, I, well...
DJ: This sounds good, Brian. Where was it at?
Brian: Not that it was all that great, but her mom is staying with us for a couple of weeks...
DJ: Uh huh...
Brian: .and the Mother-In-Law was in the shower at the time.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: On the kitchen table.
DJ: Not that great?? That is more adventure than the previous hundred times I've done it. Okay folks, I will put Brian on hold, get this wife's
work number and call her up. You listen to this.
(3 minutes of commercials follow)
DJ: Okay audience, let's call Sarah, shall we?
(touch tones... ringing...)
Clerk: Kinkos.
DJ: Hey, is Sarah around there somewhere?
Clerk: This is she.
DJ: Sarah, this is Edgar with WBAM. We are live on the air right now and I've been talking with Brian for a couple of hours now.
Sarah: (laughing) A couple of hours?
DJ: Well, a while now. He is on the line with us. Brian knows not to give any answers away! or you'll lose. Sooooooo... do you know the rules of
MateMatch?
Sarah: No.
DJ: Good!
Brian: (laughing)
Sarah: (laughing) Brian, what the hell are you up to?
Brian: (laughing) Just answer his questions honestly, okay? Be completely honest.
DJ: Yeah yeah yeah. Sure.. Now, I will ask you 3 questions, Sarah. ! If your answers match Brian's answers, then the both of you will be of To
Orlando, Florida for 5 ! days on us. Disney World. Sea World. Tickets to the Magic's game. The whole deal. Get it Sarah?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Alright. When did you last have sex, Sarah?
Sarah: Oh God, Brian....uh, this morning before Brian went to work.
DJ: What time?
Sarah: Around 8 this morning.
DJ: Very good. Next question. How long did it last?
Sarah: 12, 15 minutes maybe.
DJ:! Hmmmm. That's close enough. I am sure she is trying to protect his manhood. We've got one last question, Sarah. You are one question away
from a trip to Florida. Are you ready?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Where did you have it?
Sarah: OH MY GOD, BRIAN!! You didn't tell them that, did you?
Brian: Just tell him, honey.
DJ: What is bothering you so much, Sarah?
Sarah: Well, it's just that my mom is! vacationing with us and...
DJ: Come on Sarah... where did you have it?
Sarah: In the butt...
(long pause)
DJ: Folks, we need to take a station break
more...
makeup The album, which will include
satishku_2000
05-16 02:56 PM
I know where Senator Durbin stands on illegal immigration issue , he is totally for amnesty/legalization of illegal/undocumented people in the country. According to him its ok if someone is totally undocumented and stays here but its not ok if someone does consulting and documented and pays taxes while working and waiting for the green card to be approved. Isn't it height of hypocrosy?
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
girlfriend kelly rowland haircut 2011.
SunnySurya
08-05 01:43 PM
No body is saying that you have full rights to apply in EB2
I am an EB3 2003. I think I did qualify for EB2, but the job position did not require me to be in that category, moreover EB2 & Eb3 were both current and various other factors were considered and they decided to apply in EB3.
NOW: It was my bad that I got stuck in the stupid BEC. A fellow I know with lesser qualifications applied in EB3 in 2004, then changed jobs, applied in EB2 in 2004 and has a green card already.
DO YOU MEAN TO SAY: THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DENY ME MY 2003 PD IF I APPLY IN EB2. FORGET THINKING ABOUT IT! Not that it is easy or I am doing it. As a matter of fact, I am not interested!.
I am an EB3 2003. I think I did qualify for EB2, but the job position did not require me to be in that category, moreover EB2 & Eb3 were both current and various other factors were considered and they decided to apply in EB3.
NOW: It was my bad that I got stuck in the stupid BEC. A fellow I know with lesser qualifications applied in EB3 in 2004, then changed jobs, applied in EB2 in 2004 and has a green card already.
DO YOU MEAN TO SAY: THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DENY ME MY 2003 PD IF I APPLY IN EB2. FORGET THINKING ABOUT IT! Not that it is easy or I am doing it. As a matter of fact, I am not interested!.
hairstyles hair 2011 Kelly Rowland
gc28262
09-26 01:07 PM
I wish there was a rule not to pay any taxes till we the GC , that will change a lot doesnt it .
Along with our efforts here, we should push Indian gov for the social security deal with US.
Once the deal is done, potential EB immigrant leaving the country with all his/her social security deposit will make everyone in this country rethink about being harsh on EB immigrants.
Along with our efforts here, we should push Indian gov for the social security deal with US.
Once the deal is done, potential EB immigrant leaving the country with all his/her social security deposit will make everyone in this country rethink about being harsh on EB immigrants.
sc3
07-14 05:29 PM
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
mariner5555
03-23 11:14 PM
I agree he will loose his down payment or credit score in case of things going south on GC side but still he will be able to do whatever is best for his long term goals now and he will be better off in terms of equity when real estate market bounces back in 3-4 years.There are lucrative deals in the market and renting does not make any sense. There is always a risk factor and u can cover your risks accordingly. Anywaz What exactly ur going to do with Credit Score after u are kicked out from here ? So why not take risk now and play the game.
why do you say that renting does not make any sense ?? credit score would matter if a person gets a better oppurtunity and decides to come back - screwing up yr credit is like burning a bridge. In my humble opinion real estate won't bounce back - it may limp back in majority of the areas. ofcourse housing is local ..
why do you say that renting does not make any sense ?? credit score would matter if a person gets a better oppurtunity and decides to come back - screwing up yr credit is like burning a bridge. In my humble opinion real estate won't bounce back - it may limp back in majority of the areas. ofcourse housing is local ..
No comments:
Post a Comment