xyzgc
12-28 04:05 PM
So Mr. Trained Reservist,
Let's say the war is won in 15-20 days based on your expert knowledge, what is next? India occupies Pakistan? and acquires 160 million muslim population along with Talibans? You think that will end terrorism and riots in India?
Oh BTW, there is another trained reservist in the history who claimed Iraq war would be won in two weeks. Do you know who he is? Hint: he became the worst president in the history of the US.
The war was won in two weeks. Americans have traditionally poured billions of dollars in rebuilding nations that they have destroyed. What was unexpected was the insurgencies and the sectarian violence, which Iraqis themselves are guilty of. The war went horribly wrong because of the atrocious cost of the war and the drain on the failing economy. Saddam was an evil dictator and the fact that there is so much insurgency is a clear indication that Iraq was the hotbed of terror.
That is why its taking longer than expected.
If you want to debate on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, read the kind of savages the Japanese were. Read about comfort women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women. It will make you really uncomfortable. Worse, till date the Japs are unapologetic saying there is no credible proof that this ever existed. Also, read about Bangladesh war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War where 200k women were repeatedly raped giving birth to thousands of war babies, who were exported to orphanages in Europe and America.
Let's say the war is won in 15-20 days based on your expert knowledge, what is next? India occupies Pakistan? and acquires 160 million muslim population along with Talibans? You think that will end terrorism and riots in India?
Oh BTW, there is another trained reservist in the history who claimed Iraq war would be won in two weeks. Do you know who he is? Hint: he became the worst president in the history of the US.
The war was won in two weeks. Americans have traditionally poured billions of dollars in rebuilding nations that they have destroyed. What was unexpected was the insurgencies and the sectarian violence, which Iraqis themselves are guilty of. The war went horribly wrong because of the atrocious cost of the war and the drain on the failing economy. Saddam was an evil dictator and the fact that there is so much insurgency is a clear indication that Iraq was the hotbed of terror.
That is why its taking longer than expected.
If you want to debate on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, read the kind of savages the Japanese were. Read about comfort women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women. It will make you really uncomfortable. Worse, till date the Japs are unapologetic saying there is no credible proof that this ever existed. Also, read about Bangladesh war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War where 200k women were repeatedly raped giving birth to thousands of war babies, who were exported to orphanages in Europe and America.
wallpaper new pills to replace methadone
ujjwal_p
01-06 09:33 PM
Recently during Diwali celebration, one boy fired a rocket and it killed more than six people in Tamil Nadu. Offcourse this rocket was made in Sivakasi and it was an accident. It was a fire cracker. A simple fire cracker can make big accidents like this.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man. You are condemning the killing of 4 Isrealis and not even bothered to feel about 600 innocent palestinians including school kids. What a hypocricy and what kind of human being you are?
Hiding behind Civilian, hiding behind school kids, hiding in hospitals - Full of bullshit lies told by jewish owned medias like CNN and Fox. Have you ever heard from any moderate palestinians about thier plight? This is what those media feed us.
Infact Isreal blocked medias including CNN from entering Gaza. Why? They don't want the world to watch their attrocities. Simple.
I neither support Hamas nor justify their action. My point is, one nation is freely killing civilians and school kids, bombard schools, infrastructer, bomb goverment and civilian buildings, destroy roads and bridges, hospitals and destroying everything including their livelyhood and this world is watching silently. So called leaders of peaceful nations are encouraging this massacre. This is what troubles me.
Its so pathetic and funny to see the world asking Hamas to stop firing and at the same time encouraging other side to kill more and more.
Listen dude, I actually feel your frustration. A month and half back, I was going through the same feelings watching the Mumbai attacks unfold.
Let's get to your arguments. First the Diwali incident. This is a lame comparison. That's an accident and you are comparing that against Hamas shooting rockets to kill and maime people. Accidents by children will happen in India in Diwali, in Karachi by another kid and also probably kids playing with guns and rockets in Gaza. So I'll ignore this one.
Next, You believe we all are biased because of CNN and Fox and they are mouthpieces of a vast Jewish conspiracy. Ok, let's grant you that. How can you convince me that *you* are not being fed Arab and Muslim propaganda? I am not saying that they do, but the basic deal is : there is truth and there are versions. Maybe none of us know the truth, so don't go around blaming only one segment of the media because it's convenient to you. I actually go and read news from the media all over the world, be it Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Strait Times. I consider myself reasonably informed and have seen some bias everywhere.
Second, I absolutely condone the loss of innocent lives. Please don't insult me by paraphrasing what I said. I know and love people from all over the world, including Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and don't need to hear stuff like this. However you cannot prove that Israelis are purposely targetting civilians. Also I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to do something knowing the amount of bad press that action will get. Maybe it was collateral damage or maybe it was a mistake. But yes Israel should be asked to clarify this.
I hate that innocent lives are being lost. My stomach churns when I see photos of little kids being ferried to hospitals in Gaza. It's a most terrible situation. But we have an extremely irresponsible government in Gaza. It's a bit like the Taliban governing Afghanistan. Look at the West Bank. Fatah/PA runs it and while there are still problems, atleast there is a certain calm there. Yes the issue of settlements is ongoing but it's a thousands time better problem to have than daily skirmishes or even worse like what's happening in Gaza. People can go about living their lives, doing business, going to school, things normal people should be expected to do etc.
This is the world's biggest flashpoint and people like Hamas and Hezbollah or atleast elements in them ( i know hezbollah has a strong social and civic organization too) don't really help the situation.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man. You are condemning the killing of 4 Isrealis and not even bothered to feel about 600 innocent palestinians including school kids. What a hypocricy and what kind of human being you are?
Hiding behind Civilian, hiding behind school kids, hiding in hospitals - Full of bullshit lies told by jewish owned medias like CNN and Fox. Have you ever heard from any moderate palestinians about thier plight? This is what those media feed us.
Infact Isreal blocked medias including CNN from entering Gaza. Why? They don't want the world to watch their attrocities. Simple.
I neither support Hamas nor justify their action. My point is, one nation is freely killing civilians and school kids, bombard schools, infrastructer, bomb goverment and civilian buildings, destroy roads and bridges, hospitals and destroying everything including their livelyhood and this world is watching silently. So called leaders of peaceful nations are encouraging this massacre. This is what troubles me.
Its so pathetic and funny to see the world asking Hamas to stop firing and at the same time encouraging other side to kill more and more.
Listen dude, I actually feel your frustration. A month and half back, I was going through the same feelings watching the Mumbai attacks unfold.
Let's get to your arguments. First the Diwali incident. This is a lame comparison. That's an accident and you are comparing that against Hamas shooting rockets to kill and maime people. Accidents by children will happen in India in Diwali, in Karachi by another kid and also probably kids playing with guns and rockets in Gaza. So I'll ignore this one.
Next, You believe we all are biased because of CNN and Fox and they are mouthpieces of a vast Jewish conspiracy. Ok, let's grant you that. How can you convince me that *you* are not being fed Arab and Muslim propaganda? I am not saying that they do, but the basic deal is : there is truth and there are versions. Maybe none of us know the truth, so don't go around blaming only one segment of the media because it's convenient to you. I actually go and read news from the media all over the world, be it Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Strait Times. I consider myself reasonably informed and have seen some bias everywhere.
Second, I absolutely condone the loss of innocent lives. Please don't insult me by paraphrasing what I said. I know and love people from all over the world, including Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and don't need to hear stuff like this. However you cannot prove that Israelis are purposely targetting civilians. Also I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to do something knowing the amount of bad press that action will get. Maybe it was collateral damage or maybe it was a mistake. But yes Israel should be asked to clarify this.
I hate that innocent lives are being lost. My stomach churns when I see photos of little kids being ferried to hospitals in Gaza. It's a most terrible situation. But we have an extremely irresponsible government in Gaza. It's a bit like the Taliban governing Afghanistan. Look at the West Bank. Fatah/PA runs it and while there are still problems, atleast there is a certain calm there. Yes the issue of settlements is ongoing but it's a thousands time better problem to have than daily skirmishes or even worse like what's happening in Gaza. People can go about living their lives, doing business, going to school, things normal people should be expected to do etc.
This is the world's biggest flashpoint and people like Hamas and Hezbollah or atleast elements in them ( i know hezbollah has a strong social and civic organization too) don't really help the situation.
sanju
05-17 10:08 AM
You have no arguments that make sense. You are arguing that doing something illegal is a great thing to do. Not so. And yes, I do support the bill as it will weed out some fraudsters from amongst us, who give the H-1B program a very bad rep.
The problem is not that it will "weed out some fraudsters from amongst us", the problem is that it will also force deserving people to leave, people waiting in line for 6 or more years in green card line. No one is arguing that "something illegal is a great thing to do" but the argument is, it is justified to implicate and screw-up someone who has done nothing wrong. Durbin-Grassley bill says that it intends to stop abuse and it goes ahead to screw-up everybody. Do you think that everybody here waiting for employment based green card is "illegal"???
The problem is not that it will "weed out some fraudsters from amongst us", the problem is that it will also force deserving people to leave, people waiting in line for 6 or more years in green card line. No one is arguing that "something illegal is a great thing to do" but the argument is, it is justified to implicate and screw-up someone who has done nothing wrong. Durbin-Grassley bill says that it intends to stop abuse and it goes ahead to screw-up everybody. Do you think that everybody here waiting for employment based green card is "illegal"???
2011 pills sale, speed extasy
Administrator2
01-08 03:56 PM
I just copied and pasted the coward Refugee_New's msg to me. I'll be careful about 'quoting others' also!
Did you consider banning him?
CreatedToday,
We have not considered banning you or anyone else. Refugee_New has apologized for sending unfriendly messages.
We work hard to keep the forums civil, without any use of abusive language. We need your help to achieve this goal before we are successful with the bigger challenges ahead of us in 2009.
Thank you for your participation in the community effort.
Administrator2
Did you consider banning him?
CreatedToday,
We have not considered banning you or anyone else. Refugee_New has apologized for sending unfriendly messages.
We work hard to keep the forums civil, without any use of abusive language. We need your help to achieve this goal before we are successful with the bigger challenges ahead of us in 2009.
Thank you for your participation in the community effort.
Administrator2
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-05 12:44 PM
A psychotherapist was having a roaring business since he started from scratch.
So much so that he could now afford to have a proper shop banner advertising his wares. So he told a kid to paint the sign board for him & put it above his shop entrance. But, instead of his business building up, it began to slacken. He had especially noticed the ladies shying away from his shop after reading the sign board. So he decided to check it out himself.
Then he understood why...
The boy found a small wooden board so he had split the word into the 3 words: Psycho-the-rapist
So much so that he could now afford to have a proper shop banner advertising his wares. So he told a kid to paint the sign board for him & put it above his shop entrance. But, instead of his business building up, it began to slacken. He had especially noticed the ladies shying away from his shop after reading the sign board. So he decided to check it out himself.
Then he understood why...
The boy found a small wooden board so he had split the word into the 3 words: Psycho-the-rapist
hopefulgc
08-07 12:59 PM
All monkeys also interfiled and became lions
hilarious!
hilarious!
more...
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.
2010 my bf pocket pill Thesethe
Macaca
02-15 05:34 PM
San Francisco's Democrat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303714722970265.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
more...
nozerd
12-26 05:25 PM
I am no military expert but it seems Pak is concentrating its forces on Punjab border and POK. I wonder why India cant do something unique this time. Like use aircraft carriers to enter Pak territory from Baluchistan and hit Karachi or attack from the South from Gujarat border. Something unique other than just attacking in Punjab/POK. Ofcourse I sure am no strategist, but if someone knows please inform.
hair freebasing methadone
BECsufferer
06-20 10:28 AM
Buying a home in US Now is a foolish thing to do. There are no green cards for Indians or Chinese. Hence we should not buy a home here. There is no long term security or equal opportunity. If we take all savings back, we can buy a house with cash and need not worry about interest. So until you get green cards, hold onto your money tight.
Real estate is always a local phenomena. So those of you who are following national guidelines are misleading yourselves. Unless you are major investor, who would like to keep his/her real estate portfolio diverse, national level real estate indicator is not of much use.
I bought a foreclosed house few months ago, but before that did thorough study at personal level. Not only analytically study your market, but also "go to genba". Feel the pulse, find where and what kind of people live in those sub-divisions.
If you are leaning towards investing, lean with good intent. Avoid risk by thouroughly understanding your financial situation. I went with 30 yr fixed, to be conservative.
Finally, have guts to make a call, either way. It's the right time, I would say.
Real estate is always a local phenomena. So those of you who are following national guidelines are misleading yourselves. Unless you are major investor, who would like to keep his/her real estate portfolio diverse, national level real estate indicator is not of much use.
I bought a foreclosed house few months ago, but before that did thorough study at personal level. Not only analytically study your market, but also "go to genba". Feel the pulse, find where and what kind of people live in those sub-divisions.
If you are leaning towards investing, lean with good intent. Avoid risk by thouroughly understanding your financial situation. I went with 30 yr fixed, to be conservative.
Finally, have guts to make a call, either way. It's the right time, I would say.
more...
GCScrewed
07-13 09:30 AM
No matter what discouragement there is, it is definitely worth the try. With the trying, you may not get relieved. But without the trying, you will definitely not. People should also add their own arguments in the letter too. All the comments on how to make this letter better should be welcome. Now it is time to see if this community is really sticking together and if those who benefit will help those suffering.
hot scars and methadone more
aachoo
03-23 02:14 PM
The other day someone called me offering to sell some services.
I said, this is a great service and thank you for calling. I also have a great service to sell. Could you please give me your home phone number. She said she does not have a phone. I said, how come you live in USA without a phone?
She said, she does not want to give me and be bothered with such sales calls.
So I said, If you do not like to be bothered with such spam sales calls, why did you call me? :)
Did you send Seinfeld a royalty? :D
-a
I said, this is a great service and thank you for calling. I also have a great service to sell. Could you please give me your home phone number. She said she does not have a phone. I said, how come you live in USA without a phone?
She said, she does not want to give me and be bothered with such sales calls.
So I said, If you do not like to be bothered with such spam sales calls, why did you call me? :)
Did you send Seinfeld a royalty? :D
-a
more...
house acne x26 diet methadone clinic
smuggymba
07-30 08:11 AM
100 thousand is not for a president to worry about. But 11-12 Million is a different story..
I emailed Sen Hutchinson from Texas to vote NO for the DREAM Act and I called it "Organized and Controlled" amnesty as illegal kids who will get GCs will be able to sponsor their illegal parents for GC after 4 years.
All the illegals who have kids in college will get get GC's in 4 yrs after their kids pass college while EB3 has to wait for 20 years. This is a joke. Look at the reply from the Sen below:
On March 26, 2009, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced S. 729, the DREAM Act, which would allow states to offer in-state tuition rates to long-term resident immigrant students. The bill also would allow certain long-term residents who entered the United States as children to have their immigration or residency status adjusted to conditional permanent resident status or permanent resident status. The DREAM Act has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on which I do not serve. Should S. 729 come before the full Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.
I emailed Sen Hutchinson from Texas to vote NO for the DREAM Act and I called it "Organized and Controlled" amnesty as illegal kids who will get GCs will be able to sponsor their illegal parents for GC after 4 years.
All the illegals who have kids in college will get get GC's in 4 yrs after their kids pass college while EB3 has to wait for 20 years. This is a joke. Look at the reply from the Sen below:
On March 26, 2009, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced S. 729, the DREAM Act, which would allow states to offer in-state tuition rates to long-term resident immigrant students. The bill also would allow certain long-term residents who entered the United States as children to have their immigration or residency status adjusted to conditional permanent resident status or permanent resident status. The DREAM Act has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on which I do not serve. Should S. 729 come before the full Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.
tattoo pill to be Methadone .
abcdgc
12-27 01:06 AM
Well...
Thats a bit like asking one's father to explain the actions of Josef Fritzl.
Why are you so obsessed with Jews? No reason to go in circles trying to obfuscate the subject.
Are you not from Pakistan? Why are you asking others to explain the reason why Pakistani Prime Minister/Foreign Minster and ISI is doing what they are doing? Shouldn't you be the one to explain why they are doing all this drama? Why are you asking others to explain why your country is behaving erratically?
Thats a bit like asking one's father to explain the actions of Josef Fritzl.
Why are you so obsessed with Jews? No reason to go in circles trying to obfuscate the subject.
Are you not from Pakistan? Why are you asking others to explain the reason why Pakistani Prime Minister/Foreign Minster and ISI is doing what they are doing? Shouldn't you be the one to explain why they are doing all this drama? Why are you asking others to explain why your country is behaving erratically?
more...
pictures where methadone acne drug,
Macaca
12-20 08:47 AM
Resolve To End Hyper-Partisanship (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/resolve_to_end_hyperpartisansh.html) By Mort Kondracke | Roll Call, December 20, 2007
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
dresses methadone cause acne,
gcsim
08-06 03:49 PM
Bihar Driving License...
DRIVING LICENSE APPLIKASON PHOROM
------------------------------------------ -----------------------
NOTE: Please do not soot the person at the applikason kounter.
He will give you the licen.
For phurthar instructions, see bottom applikason.
1. Last name:
(_) Yadav (_) Sinha (_) Pandey (_) Misra (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
2. First name:
(_) Ramprasad (_) Lakhan (_) Sivprasad (_) Jamnaprasad (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
3. Age:
(_) Less than phipty (_) Greater than phipty (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
4. Sex: ____ M _____ P(F) _____ not sure _____not applicable
5. Chappal Size: ____ Lepht ____ Right
6.Occupason:
(_) Politison (_) Doodhwala (_) Pehelwaan (_) House wife (_) Un-employed
(Check karet box)
7. Number of children libing in the household: ___
8. Number that are yours: ___
9. Mather name: _______________________
10. Phather Name: ____________________ (If not no,leave blank)
11. Ejjucason: 1 2 3 4 (Circle highest grade completed)
12. Dental rekard:
(_) Ellow (_) Berownish-ellow (_) Berown (_) Belack (_) Other -__________
Give egjhakt color
(Check karet box)
13.Your thumb imparesson :
____________________________
(If you are copying from another applikason pharom, please do not copy
thumb impression also. Please
provide your own thumb impression.)
PELEASE DO NOT USE PHINGERS OF YOUR LEGS
Use thumb on y our lepht hand only. If you dont have le pht hand, use your
thumb on right hand. If you do not have right hand, use thumb on lepht
hand.
NOTE: IF YOU DONT HAVE BOTH HANDS, YOU CANNOT DRIVE.
WE ARE VARY ISTRICT ABOUT THIS .
WOW guys too good .....love this bihari joke....keep going
DRIVING LICENSE APPLIKASON PHOROM
------------------------------------------ -----------------------
NOTE: Please do not soot the person at the applikason kounter.
He will give you the licen.
For phurthar instructions, see bottom applikason.
1. Last name:
(_) Yadav (_) Sinha (_) Pandey (_) Misra (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
2. First name:
(_) Ramprasad (_) Lakhan (_) Sivprasad (_) Jamnaprasad (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
3. Age:
(_) Less than phipty (_) Greater than phipty (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
4. Sex: ____ M _____ P(F) _____ not sure _____not applicable
5. Chappal Size: ____ Lepht ____ Right
6.Occupason:
(_) Politison (_) Doodhwala (_) Pehelwaan (_) House wife (_) Un-employed
(Check karet box)
7. Number of children libing in the household: ___
8. Number that are yours: ___
9. Mather name: _______________________
10. Phather Name: ____________________ (If not no,leave blank)
11. Ejjucason: 1 2 3 4 (Circle highest grade completed)
12. Dental rekard:
(_) Ellow (_) Berownish-ellow (_) Berown (_) Belack (_) Other -__________
Give egjhakt color
(Check karet box)
13.Your thumb imparesson :
____________________________
(If you are copying from another applikason pharom, please do not copy
thumb impression also. Please
provide your own thumb impression.)
PELEASE DO NOT USE PHINGERS OF YOUR LEGS
Use thumb on y our lepht hand only. If you dont have le pht hand, use your
thumb on right hand. If you do not have right hand, use thumb on lepht
hand.
NOTE: IF YOU DONT HAVE BOTH HANDS, YOU CANNOT DRIVE.
WE ARE VARY ISTRICT ABOUT THIS .
WOW guys too good .....love this bihari joke....keep going
more...
makeup about best pills for acne,
sledge_hammer
06-05 04:49 PM
Your leverage is $270,000 in this investment, and you pay 5% interest on it which is tax deductible. You don't suppose one can borrow 270Gs to invest in, per my example, S&P 500 to get 10% annually? Of course the you are able to borrow that much on a home is because it is considered relatively a safe debt for the lender. That can't be said for stocks.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
>> But going with the spirit of my original post, in the long run, the equity you build (15K/yr) will far out weigh the yearly savings you get by renting.
You are right in 90% of cases - where people will otherwise spend the money and not save it.
If you have a mortgage - you are "forced" to save because the monthly amortization automatically builds equity. If you are renting - you are not "forced" to save that amount - and hence would probably be spent (in my case) in a gaming machine with I7 processor (which has NO long term value).
However, in the hypothetical 10% scenario (in case of immigrants, specially Indians, my gut feel is that it is significantly more than 10%) - where the amount is saved in some sort of investment vehicle instead of being frittered away - you would come out ahead in the long term.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
>> But going with the spirit of my original post, in the long run, the equity you build (15K/yr) will far out weigh the yearly savings you get by renting.
You are right in 90% of cases - where people will otherwise spend the money and not save it.
If you have a mortgage - you are "forced" to save because the monthly amortization automatically builds equity. If you are renting - you are not "forced" to save that amount - and hence would probably be spent (in my case) in a gaming machine with I7 processor (which has NO long term value).
However, in the hypothetical 10% scenario (in case of immigrants, specially Indians, my gut feel is that it is significantly more than 10%) - where the amount is saved in some sort of investment vehicle instead of being frittered away - you would come out ahead in the long term.
girlfriend acne x26 diet methadone clinic
mbawa2574
09-26 11:11 AM
Though I like Obama as a person who promises positive change, I am afraid this will turn into disaster for all of us. Obama in white house to me translates into 'Curtains' for all legal high skilled immigration.
If all of you had watched the drama unfolding last year with CIR and Durbin's proposed draconic measures you will all know what is in store for us. We all know who will be pulling the strings as far as immigration policy making goes with democrats in the white house.
Mccain is good for us as long as he seperates himself from house republicans. Obama is good if he gets rid of that stupid durban.
Though Mccain is business friendly. There are talks on CNBC and Wallstreet about rebuidling capital in this country and skilled immigration is part of it. I think Michele..I don't know last name wrote an article in Wall Street Journal Today supporting Legal Immigration , innovation and creating demand for housing in this country. It's the protectionist lobby which is screwing the country.
If all of you had watched the drama unfolding last year with CIR and Durbin's proposed draconic measures you will all know what is in store for us. We all know who will be pulling the strings as far as immigration policy making goes with democrats in the white house.
Mccain is good for us as long as he seperates himself from house republicans. Obama is good if he gets rid of that stupid durban.
Though Mccain is business friendly. There are talks on CNBC and Wallstreet about rebuidling capital in this country and skilled immigration is part of it. I think Michele..I don't know last name wrote an article in Wall Street Journal Today supporting Legal Immigration , innovation and creating demand for housing in this country. It's the protectionist lobby which is screwing the country.
hairstyles pain pills || methadone
GCwaitforever
05-31 06:01 PM
Lou is an arm-chair critic. I have nothing more to say.
NKR
03-25 02:32 PM
I completely agree that buying a house is a long term move. But I disagree with some of the points:
1. Does rent always go up? No, my rent did not go up at all during the real estate boom as the number of ppl renting was low. Recently my rent has gone up only $75 pm. (love rent control!!!) So in 5 years, my monthly rent has gone up a total of $125 per month
2. I hear about tax rebate for homeowners. But what about property tax?
3. What about mortgage insurance payments?
It is a misconception that 5-10 years is the cycle for real estate.
Here's how in a sane real estate market the cycle should work:
No population influx in your area or there is no exodus from your area:
Your real estate ownership should be 25 years because that's when the next generation is ready to buy houses.
However, in places like SF Bay Area/new York/Boston where there is continuous influx of young working ppl this cycle can be reduced to 15-20 years.
Over the last few years, nobody thought of longevity required to make money in RE. Now that it is tanking ppl are talking about 5-10 years. Unless you are buying in a booming place, your ownership has to be 15+ years to turn a real profit.
This is purely the financial aspect of ownership. If you have a family I think its really nice to have a house but you don't have to really take on the liability. You can rent the same house for much less. But if you are clear in your mind that no matter what I am going to live in XYZ town/city for the next 20 years, go for it.
As a sidenote for Indians. We all have either aging or soon to start aging parents. The way I see it, caring for aging parents is a social debt that we must pay back. This will need me to go back to India. Therefore, if you feel you need to care for your parents, don't commit to a house.
When you sell, you need to pay 3% as commission to both the seller and buyer agent. You will break even as soon as the house appreciates 6% plus your closing costs, anything above that would be your profit.
Now with the market going down, my guess as to when the house appreciates is as good as anybody else�s.
As far as Rent vs Mortgage goes, I would go with owning a house and paying mortgage than being on rent, I just cannot live in an apartment anymore. Caring for aging parents is our duty and responsibility as much as providing a decent home to our children and giving them a life. If I can strike a balance and fulfill my duties to both, I am happy. Coming to think of it, sometimes I wonder why I did not buy the small house I am in a couple of years ago.
1. Does rent always go up? No, my rent did not go up at all during the real estate boom as the number of ppl renting was low. Recently my rent has gone up only $75 pm. (love rent control!!!) So in 5 years, my monthly rent has gone up a total of $125 per month
2. I hear about tax rebate for homeowners. But what about property tax?
3. What about mortgage insurance payments?
It is a misconception that 5-10 years is the cycle for real estate.
Here's how in a sane real estate market the cycle should work:
No population influx in your area or there is no exodus from your area:
Your real estate ownership should be 25 years because that's when the next generation is ready to buy houses.
However, in places like SF Bay Area/new York/Boston where there is continuous influx of young working ppl this cycle can be reduced to 15-20 years.
Over the last few years, nobody thought of longevity required to make money in RE. Now that it is tanking ppl are talking about 5-10 years. Unless you are buying in a booming place, your ownership has to be 15+ years to turn a real profit.
This is purely the financial aspect of ownership. If you have a family I think its really nice to have a house but you don't have to really take on the liability. You can rent the same house for much less. But if you are clear in your mind that no matter what I am going to live in XYZ town/city for the next 20 years, go for it.
As a sidenote for Indians. We all have either aging or soon to start aging parents. The way I see it, caring for aging parents is a social debt that we must pay back. This will need me to go back to India. Therefore, if you feel you need to care for your parents, don't commit to a house.
When you sell, you need to pay 3% as commission to both the seller and buyer agent. You will break even as soon as the house appreciates 6% plus your closing costs, anything above that would be your profit.
Now with the market going down, my guess as to when the house appreciates is as good as anybody else�s.
As far as Rent vs Mortgage goes, I would go with owning a house and paying mortgage than being on rent, I just cannot live in an apartment anymore. Caring for aging parents is our duty and responsibility as much as providing a decent home to our children and giving them a life. If I can strike a balance and fulfill my duties to both, I am happy. Coming to think of it, sometimes I wonder why I did not buy the small house I am in a couple of years ago.
Macaca
01-30 06:48 PM
The article Round 2: H-1B Battle: American engineers vs. President Bush (http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4480)! has the following paras.
Lou Dobbs exposed a complete lack of enforcement of H-1B caps by the federal government for the last 2 years. According to the USCIS report, over 75,000 additional H-1B visas were issued above the cap during 2004 and 2005. He openly challenged Congressmen, Senators and the President to enforce our laws. He posed the questions:
1) Why was the report released on November 20th, 2006, immediately after the last election?
2) Why was his report not made available to the public?
3) Why aren�t guest worker Visa caps being enforced?
4) Why does neither Congress nor the executive branch fulfill their constitutional duties?
These good questions lead to the bigger question of who is responsible for enforcing these laws?
Lou Dobbs exposed a complete lack of enforcement of H-1B caps by the federal government for the last 2 years. According to the USCIS report, over 75,000 additional H-1B visas were issued above the cap during 2004 and 2005. He openly challenged Congressmen, Senators and the President to enforce our laws. He posed the questions:
1) Why was the report released on November 20th, 2006, immediately after the last election?
2) Why was his report not made available to the public?
3) Why aren�t guest worker Visa caps being enforced?
4) Why does neither Congress nor the executive branch fulfill their constitutional duties?
These good questions lead to the bigger question of who is responsible for enforcing these laws?
No comments:
Post a Comment