logiclife
05-16 12:14 PM
No need to have Durbin's bill. Just ban Outsourcing, then all jobs will come back and everybody will be happy here in US.
US congress cannot force investors to invest money only in US and get work done only in US.
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
US congress cannot force investors to invest money only in US and get work done only in US.
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
wallpaper Magical McIlroy cruising to
gimme_GC2006
03-23 02:19 PM
hey buddy are they digging your case just because you worked for the top 5 indian IT and does it start with a "S*****" , just wondering are they digging up all those who worked for them?
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
Munna Bhai
07-09 05:06 AM
We won`t get any letter from that comapany as my husband din`t exit in good terms.(Ofcourse if they won`t pay him for months).
I do believe in our case the reasons are more to do with the officer dealing the case than with actual technical issues.
In the NOID they said the reason mainly was( he changed from company A to B to C but when he reentered he entered on B instead of C .at that time was not very knowledgeable about all this stuff)he reentry was not legal and was willful misrepresentaton of facts.
Then our lawyer in our reply sent that as long as both visas are still valid it is legal.Then now they state ok his reentry is not wrong only the paystubs part is wrong and stating he never worked for that company chose to deny.
Your case is doable, get hold of some good attorney and tell them all the fact and as long as employer-employee relationship exist, you are on valid H1b. Hence since your Husband was without paystub but his I-94 was valid,it should not create much problem.
But do get intouch with old company.
I do believe in our case the reasons are more to do with the officer dealing the case than with actual technical issues.
In the NOID they said the reason mainly was( he changed from company A to B to C but when he reentered he entered on B instead of C .at that time was not very knowledgeable about all this stuff)he reentry was not legal and was willful misrepresentaton of facts.
Then our lawyer in our reply sent that as long as both visas are still valid it is legal.Then now they state ok his reentry is not wrong only the paystubs part is wrong and stating he never worked for that company chose to deny.
Your case is doable, get hold of some good attorney and tell them all the fact and as long as employer-employee relationship exist, you are on valid H1b. Hence since your Husband was without paystub but his I-94 was valid,it should not create much problem.
But do get intouch with old company.
2011 Rory McIlroy wins U.S. Open 16
virtual55
08-05 02:21 PM
Admins,
why are you not closing this thread
why are you not closing this thread
more...
xyzgc
12-25 03:41 PM
Why worry so much about some random terrorist acts in India when billions of people are dying of disease and hunger all over the globe?
Like somebody once said - let's worry about the enlightened self interests tomorrow, let's be concerned with the self-interests today. Before we even think about becoming Charitable Mr. Gates, let's first come close to being Mr. Gates first!
You will find your ties to India very difficult to break. You and I are part of the international business community and India plays a significant role in this global economy! Terrorism, anywhere in this economic zone not just India, will impact either you or your employer directly.
India has a dark chapter in history of repeated Islamic infiltrations, invasions, barbarism and terrorism - all of which goes back to 11th and 12th centuries and more significantly of caving in to them. We see only history repeating itself and all of us must be aware of this fact. Pakistani terrorists attack India with impunity, while the rest of the world dismisses it as an outcome of Kashmir conflict, Hindu-Muslim religious divide and so on. Not realizing that there are deep economic ramifications.
I'll do my best to educate/remind everyone of this fact, even if it means being branded on immigration forums as a hate-monger.
I believe that the world opinion has long reaching influence - it may be a slow-acting antidote but its curative effects will be long lasting.
Like somebody once said - let's worry about the enlightened self interests tomorrow, let's be concerned with the self-interests today. Before we even think about becoming Charitable Mr. Gates, let's first come close to being Mr. Gates first!
You will find your ties to India very difficult to break. You and I are part of the international business community and India plays a significant role in this global economy! Terrorism, anywhere in this economic zone not just India, will impact either you or your employer directly.
India has a dark chapter in history of repeated Islamic infiltrations, invasions, barbarism and terrorism - all of which goes back to 11th and 12th centuries and more significantly of caving in to them. We see only history repeating itself and all of us must be aware of this fact. Pakistani terrorists attack India with impunity, while the rest of the world dismisses it as an outcome of Kashmir conflict, Hindu-Muslim religious divide and so on. Not realizing that there are deep economic ramifications.
I'll do my best to educate/remind everyone of this fact, even if it means being branded on immigration forums as a hate-monger.
I believe that the world opinion has long reaching influence - it may be a slow-acting antidote but its curative effects will be long lasting.
srr_2007
04-07 12:17 AM
My understanding H1 B employers (mostly desi companies) are root cause of this situation by abusing H1 b program, they have made enough money by sucking H1 employees blood, now hey are equally affected it is time for them to share some of it and fund all the efforts to curb these kind of Bills.
Please forward the text of this bill to all your employers and ask them to join hands with IV.
Desi consulting comapanies will not be affected. Consider this, if this bill becomes you can't transfer Visa and stick to the same employer. They can pay whatever they feel like paying (may be $7 per hr) and abuse the way they want. we will continue to extend the Visa and work as slaves thinking that this will get over one day like the Green card mess.
They will earn more with less people and buy all the new model cars and houses everywhere in US.
This is our problem and we have to fight for our good.
Please forward the text of this bill to all your employers and ask them to join hands with IV.
Desi consulting comapanies will not be affected. Consider this, if this bill becomes you can't transfer Visa and stick to the same employer. They can pay whatever they feel like paying (may be $7 per hr) and abuse the way they want. we will continue to extend the Visa and work as slaves thinking that this will get over one day like the Green card mess.
They will earn more with less people and buy all the new model cars and houses everywhere in US.
This is our problem and we have to fight for our good.
more...
unitednations
03-24 12:34 PM
face it as long as the economy is tanking this is going to be an ongoing debate. Everything goes thorugh stages of high and low and we are now expereincing the lows of having the h1b's.
Sledge While your points are valid, remember folks do not choose consulting (nor do students) as a first choice but I have friends who were employed without any issues directly with client companies who in the midst of recession decide to fire everyone. What are you options if your GC is denied because the company declared bankruptcy? How do you justify to yourself staying with the employer when they files you under Eb3 category when you a master's degree holder from one of the 10 best universities in the US? What are the employee choices here, just pack up and leave? leave houses, friends and people you stayed with many years.
You think they haven't searched for full time positions with other companies only to be turned back? or worse case restart the entire GC process and forgo the 6+ years?
And the experiences I am relating are from the 2001 recession. I have already seen history repeat itself now but my more fear is that tomorrow USCIS will unfortunately hit the person who followed all the rules After all how is the USCIS knowing which are the good companies and which are bad? These very things are happening and very much can happen to you as well. Do not sit on a high perch and think it will not trickle down to me
That is one thing I have noticed of this divide between non consulting and consulting jobs.
Reality is that people either came on f-1 or they came on h-1 through staffing company.
Permanent jobs are the least safe from immigration point of view. As soon as there is a downturn; they will cut your job unmercilessly; doesn't matter which stage of the greencard you are in. You have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever (eb2 versus eb3); when or if they are going to start the greencard process. In fact companies such as these are the ones who generally won't give you any details of labor or 140.
Many of the peple who are in 8 or 9 year h-1b painfully learned this lesson. They generally started at staffing company; got enticed by permanent job; got stuck in labor processing; got laid off; jumped back to staffing company; chased labor substitution; got 140 denied; jumped to another company and started again.
Many of the people I discussed with who have been here for a long time on h-1b were continually re-starting their greencard for all these issues.
I remember seeing a posting by another member that stated people from india were more susceptible to being out of status or having applications denied because of the long wait to get the greencard. The longer it goes; the bigger chane of something going wrong.
People from other countries don't have such issues. I know one person from Uzbekistan who was on OPT and filed h-1b quota case in April 2007; at the same time company filed labor for him. He got greencard approved before the h-1b even got adjudicated.
One of the issues of stafffing companies is that it is usually run by another person who was a non immigrant at one point themselves so they did not revoke h-1b's and were very flexible with their employees (that flexibility made them skirt h-1b rules). However, now that flexibility is gone as USCIS has gone through zero tolerance.
The way USCIS/DOL/CONSULATES are behaving is making it very difficult for even the traditional companies to pursue or even keep non immigrants. Right now with the layoffs, many people from the traditional companies are approaching the staffing companies to do h-1b's. However, the staffing companies are not doing them because they are starting to follow the rules as close as they can. If they don't have a job for you then they are not going to file (no more speculative employment).
Sledge While your points are valid, remember folks do not choose consulting (nor do students) as a first choice but I have friends who were employed without any issues directly with client companies who in the midst of recession decide to fire everyone. What are you options if your GC is denied because the company declared bankruptcy? How do you justify to yourself staying with the employer when they files you under Eb3 category when you a master's degree holder from one of the 10 best universities in the US? What are the employee choices here, just pack up and leave? leave houses, friends and people you stayed with many years.
You think they haven't searched for full time positions with other companies only to be turned back? or worse case restart the entire GC process and forgo the 6+ years?
And the experiences I am relating are from the 2001 recession. I have already seen history repeat itself now but my more fear is that tomorrow USCIS will unfortunately hit the person who followed all the rules After all how is the USCIS knowing which are the good companies and which are bad? These very things are happening and very much can happen to you as well. Do not sit on a high perch and think it will not trickle down to me
That is one thing I have noticed of this divide between non consulting and consulting jobs.
Reality is that people either came on f-1 or they came on h-1 through staffing company.
Permanent jobs are the least safe from immigration point of view. As soon as there is a downturn; they will cut your job unmercilessly; doesn't matter which stage of the greencard you are in. You have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever (eb2 versus eb3); when or if they are going to start the greencard process. In fact companies such as these are the ones who generally won't give you any details of labor or 140.
Many of the peple who are in 8 or 9 year h-1b painfully learned this lesson. They generally started at staffing company; got enticed by permanent job; got stuck in labor processing; got laid off; jumped back to staffing company; chased labor substitution; got 140 denied; jumped to another company and started again.
Many of the people I discussed with who have been here for a long time on h-1b were continually re-starting their greencard for all these issues.
I remember seeing a posting by another member that stated people from india were more susceptible to being out of status or having applications denied because of the long wait to get the greencard. The longer it goes; the bigger chane of something going wrong.
People from other countries don't have such issues. I know one person from Uzbekistan who was on OPT and filed h-1b quota case in April 2007; at the same time company filed labor for him. He got greencard approved before the h-1b even got adjudicated.
One of the issues of stafffing companies is that it is usually run by another person who was a non immigrant at one point themselves so they did not revoke h-1b's and were very flexible with their employees (that flexibility made them skirt h-1b rules). However, now that flexibility is gone as USCIS has gone through zero tolerance.
The way USCIS/DOL/CONSULATES are behaving is making it very difficult for even the traditional companies to pursue or even keep non immigrants. Right now with the layoffs, many people from the traditional companies are approaching the staffing companies to do h-1b's. However, the staffing companies are not doing them because they are starting to follow the rules as close as they can. If they don't have a job for you then they are not going to file (no more speculative employment).
2010 US Open 2011: Rory McIlroy is
sanju
12-17 03:08 PM
This is exactly I hate. To divert focus of terrorism to Hindu group, Muslim leader comes out - WOW!
Sounds like LeT informed Hindu group in advance that they are going to attack so as a by-product they can kill Karkare. Ha ha ha.
Times Of India Headline: Antulay raises doubts over Karkare's killing
Marphad,
In the recent past, I expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not faded, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to discuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
Sounds like LeT informed Hindu group in advance that they are going to attack so as a by-product they can kill Karkare. Ha ha ha.
Times Of India Headline: Antulay raises doubts over Karkare's killing
Marphad,
In the recent past, I expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not faded, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to discuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
more...
kawosa
12-25 09:26 AM
We suffer due to the unfairness of a system that hinges upon the place of your birth! We demand that there be no quotas based on "country of birth" and that we ask for equitable treatment.
Singling someone out due to his/her "national origin" should be something we backlogged EB2/3 I folks should understand more than others. And yet if someone from Pakistan gets a green card - we gang up on him and are outraged that someone from a terrorist country got it before us!!!! Does that mean we would be ok as long as he got it after us?
I got plenty of red dots after my mere mention of the stupidity of ganging up on the fella... red dots are ok... it was the messages that came along with that were offensive - traitor , paki pork, etc - I just deleted my posts after that and stopped commenting on that particular thread.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the history of India and Pakistan, nothing woring in discussing organized vs. unorganized religion, nothing wrong with pointing out the the flaws in Islam or any other religion - The problem is that such discussions always end up with insults hurled at each other. While we may start with the noble intention of having a civil discussion about these issues - every thread like this ends up with offensive remarks that drives people away. The simple question then becomes - is it worth it? Is this the place to do it? Would such a thread be allowed to continue on Ron Gotcher's website? I hope the moderators of this site realize that inaction on their part seems like they condone this type of behavior.
All the red dots coming my way are more than welcome... just a small request about the insults .... please be brave enough to post them publicy!
So let us now go back to solving all the controversial theological, anthropological and geopolitical issues. Let us continue to demand for fairness and an immigration system blind to our country of birth - but make sure we point out other people's national origin... no wonder the most anti-immigration people are generally the most recent immigrants.
What a tiresome thread!!!
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
Singling someone out due to his/her "national origin" should be something we backlogged EB2/3 I folks should understand more than others. And yet if someone from Pakistan gets a green card - we gang up on him and are outraged that someone from a terrorist country got it before us!!!! Does that mean we would be ok as long as he got it after us?
I got plenty of red dots after my mere mention of the stupidity of ganging up on the fella... red dots are ok... it was the messages that came along with that were offensive - traitor , paki pork, etc - I just deleted my posts after that and stopped commenting on that particular thread.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the history of India and Pakistan, nothing woring in discussing organized vs. unorganized religion, nothing wrong with pointing out the the flaws in Islam or any other religion - The problem is that such discussions always end up with insults hurled at each other. While we may start with the noble intention of having a civil discussion about these issues - every thread like this ends up with offensive remarks that drives people away. The simple question then becomes - is it worth it? Is this the place to do it? Would such a thread be allowed to continue on Ron Gotcher's website? I hope the moderators of this site realize that inaction on their part seems like they condone this type of behavior.
All the red dots coming my way are more than welcome... just a small request about the insults .... please be brave enough to post them publicy!
So let us now go back to solving all the controversial theological, anthropological and geopolitical issues. Let us continue to demand for fairness and an immigration system blind to our country of birth - but make sure we point out other people's national origin... no wonder the most anti-immigration people are generally the most recent immigrants.
What a tiresome thread!!!
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
hair Rory McIlroy - US Open 2011
desi3933
03-23 05:09 PM
Wow...that is a pretty harsh list. Is it possible for you to politely point out that you need to prove legal status from your last entry into the country on H1B and not go all the way back to 2000 giving contracts and all ?
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
more...
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:39 AM
What do you mean "i am eligible for EB2"?????
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
hot Rory McIlroy, runaway US Open
Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
more...
house rory mcilroy us open 2011
paskal
07-08 05:10 PM
united nations,
welcome back. it would be interesting to hear your views on the whole July VB fiasco and it's aftermath. thanks!
welcome back. it would be interesting to hear your views on the whole July VB fiasco and it's aftermath. thanks!
tattoo Rory McIlroy, 2011 U.S. Open
sanjaymk
08-05 05:34 PM
no joke list is complete without little johnny's joke..here is one. This is the only decent one that I found which will not get me into trouble here..
Little Johnny's teacher asks, "George Washington not only chopped down his father's Cherry tree, but also admitted doing it. Do any of you know why his father didn't punish him?"
Little Johnny replies, "Because George was the one holding the axe?
Little Johnny's teacher asks, "George Washington not only chopped down his father's Cherry tree, but also admitted doing it. Do any of you know why his father didn't punish him?"
Little Johnny replies, "Because George was the one holding the axe?
more...
pictures winning the 2011 U.S. Open
GCapplicant
07-13 11:47 AM
Here is my 2 cents worth...
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
I agree with that...spillover should have a releif to highly retrogressed also.Common 2001 EB3 is still hanging when will we get our solution.EAD is not a GC.This not relief.I understand unity is required here ,but how aboutEB3
.Even we need required justice.
Atleast we can address the problem.
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
I agree with that...spillover should have a releif to highly retrogressed also.Common 2001 EB3 is still hanging when will we get our solution.EAD is not a GC.This not relief.I understand unity is required here ,but how aboutEB3
.Even we need required justice.
Atleast we can address the problem.
dresses rory mcilroy us open 2011 pics
desi3933
08-05 03:39 PM
Don't remember exactly, I can look into the wording of the law but I think post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
Incorrect. Law does not mention 5 years. It simply says advanced degrees or their equivalent. Read for yourself (again!)
----------------------------------------------------------------
INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS
Sec. 203. [8 U.S.C. 1153]
....
....
....
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, an d whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
.....
Incorrect. Law does not mention 5 years. It simply says advanced degrees or their equivalent. Read for yourself (again!)
----------------------------------------------------------------
INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS
Sec. 203. [8 U.S.C. 1153]
....
....
....
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, an d whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
.....
more...
makeup This Rory McIlroy photo is
Macaca
08-14 11:37 AM
Congressman, It's (Still) on Us: The Ethics Law's Many Loopholes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300980.html?hpid=topnews) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | Washington Post, August 14, 2007
Activists on the reform side of the lobbying debate have been celebrating that Congress finally got around to passing an ethics bill. The question is: Should voters celebrate as well?
Paul A. Miller, a former president of the American League of Lobbyists, thinks the hoorahs should be muted, and he has a point. The legislation bars lobbyists from providing meals and gifts to lawmakers, a provision long sought by the advocates of change as a way to keep well-heeled interests from buying their way into the hearts of decision-makers.
But Miller and others point out that the ban is full of loopholes. The largest of the gaps, Miller said, could end up worsening the public's perception that lawmakers are for sale.
If lobbyists are prevented from buying meals for lawmakers for lobbying purposes, he noted, lobbyists will almost certainly make up for the loss by boosting the number of meals they buy lawmakers as part of campaign fundraising events.
And believe it or not, they will be perfectly able to do so. Lobbying laws are separate from campaign finance laws, and the new ban on meals and gifts applies only to lobbying laws. That means the legislation does not rein in fundraising events, so lobbyists and their clients will still be able to buy food and entertainment for lawmakers at those events.
Hence the following perversity: Lobbyists will not be able to pick up the check for members of Congress unless they also hand the lawmakers a check to help their reelections.
"Lobbyists will move lunches and dinners to the campaign side of things," Miller predicts. "They will increasingly get members of Congress for an hour or so to give them a campaign check; that's a better deal for the lobbyists and will also make it more likely for corruption to happen."
Jan W. Baran, the campaign finance expert at the law firm Wiley Rein, finds it hard to imagine that lawmakers can schedule more fundraisers than they already do. But he does think there will continue to be plenty of lobbyist-financed partying thanks to the nearly two dozen exceptions to the meal-and-gift ban.
Baran said that members of Congress will be able to accept invitations from lobbyists to events that are widely attended, including receptions and charity golf tournaments. Lobbyists will also still be allowed to underwrite visits by lawmakers if they have some official or ceremonial role. Members of Congress generally cannot accept tickets to sporting events from lobbyists. But they can be comped to a baseball game if they throw out the first pitch, to a football game if they toss the opening coin or to a NASCAR race if they wave the checkered flag. That's nice work if you can get it, and you can bet there'll be a lot more of it available soon.
Interest groups are also expressing concern about another feature of the legislation. The provision would require more disclosure by organizations about who is paying for and actively participating in the lobbying activities of coalitions and trade groups. At the moment, most of that information is proprietary and protected by Supreme Court decisions that shield the members of many kinds of groups. Organizations are worried that they might, for the first time, have to disclose who their top members are.
But they probably need not worry. Ways are always found to get around laws like this one. "The balloon will be pressed, and the air will come out another way," said Kenneth A. Gross, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
Activists on the reform side of the lobbying debate have been celebrating that Congress finally got around to passing an ethics bill. The question is: Should voters celebrate as well?
Paul A. Miller, a former president of the American League of Lobbyists, thinks the hoorahs should be muted, and he has a point. The legislation bars lobbyists from providing meals and gifts to lawmakers, a provision long sought by the advocates of change as a way to keep well-heeled interests from buying their way into the hearts of decision-makers.
But Miller and others point out that the ban is full of loopholes. The largest of the gaps, Miller said, could end up worsening the public's perception that lawmakers are for sale.
If lobbyists are prevented from buying meals for lawmakers for lobbying purposes, he noted, lobbyists will almost certainly make up for the loss by boosting the number of meals they buy lawmakers as part of campaign fundraising events.
And believe it or not, they will be perfectly able to do so. Lobbying laws are separate from campaign finance laws, and the new ban on meals and gifts applies only to lobbying laws. That means the legislation does not rein in fundraising events, so lobbyists and their clients will still be able to buy food and entertainment for lawmakers at those events.
Hence the following perversity: Lobbyists will not be able to pick up the check for members of Congress unless they also hand the lawmakers a check to help their reelections.
"Lobbyists will move lunches and dinners to the campaign side of things," Miller predicts. "They will increasingly get members of Congress for an hour or so to give them a campaign check; that's a better deal for the lobbyists and will also make it more likely for corruption to happen."
Jan W. Baran, the campaign finance expert at the law firm Wiley Rein, finds it hard to imagine that lawmakers can schedule more fundraisers than they already do. But he does think there will continue to be plenty of lobbyist-financed partying thanks to the nearly two dozen exceptions to the meal-and-gift ban.
Baran said that members of Congress will be able to accept invitations from lobbyists to events that are widely attended, including receptions and charity golf tournaments. Lobbyists will also still be allowed to underwrite visits by lawmakers if they have some official or ceremonial role. Members of Congress generally cannot accept tickets to sporting events from lobbyists. But they can be comped to a baseball game if they throw out the first pitch, to a football game if they toss the opening coin or to a NASCAR race if they wave the checkered flag. That's nice work if you can get it, and you can bet there'll be a lot more of it available soon.
Interest groups are also expressing concern about another feature of the legislation. The provision would require more disclosure by organizations about who is paying for and actively participating in the lobbying activities of coalitions and trade groups. At the moment, most of that information is proprietary and protected by Supreme Court decisions that shield the members of many kinds of groups. Organizations are worried that they might, for the first time, have to disclose who their top members are.
But they probably need not worry. Ways are always found to get around laws like this one. "The balloon will be pressed, and the air will come out another way," said Kenneth A. Gross, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
girlfriend Rory McIlroy - US Open 2011
mariner5555
04-13 12:17 AM
agree with Jung.lee. if you are in california or florida ..it definitely makes sense to wait. MSN reported that lot of people are just walking away ..
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomeFinancing/HomeownersWhoJustWalkAway.aspx
-------
Ismael, 37, still lives in his four-bedroom house in Menifee, Calif., for now. But he is ready to leave.
"The situation I am in is really ugly," said Ismael, who asked that his last name be omitted. "It's better for me to walk away and leave the stress and everything that is involved in this home. I am about 95% sure I am walking away."
The single parent of a 3-year-old, Ismael bought his $370,000 home in 2005 for no money down, qualifying on his mid-$40,000s salary. (That's about triple what he might have qualified for under more traditional lending guidelines used in MSN Money's Housing Affordability Calculator.) He was paying $2,700 a month for an adjustable 8.25% loan.
Photo by Joseph A. Garcia
Then he and his girlfriend split up, reducing his household income to a single paycheck at the same time the mortgage was adjusting upward. To add to his struggles, the value of his house dropped by $145,000.
Yadira Maga�a, left, with her children Lizeth Torres, 13, and Conrad Torres III, 10, have lived at her mother's Oxnard, Calif., home since walking away from their previous residence in 2007.
Yadira Maga�a, a medical biller in her early 30s in Oxnard, Calif., has a similar story. She walked away from her $585,000 home in June 2007. When she bought it, Maga�a thought she had gotten a great deal. She made a $16,000 down payment on the house. But she lived there only eight months before her marriage collapsed.
She couldn't afford to pay the $4,500 monthly interest-only mortgage, plus taxes and insurance separately, on her own $50,000 income. So she and her two children moved into her mother's house.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomeFinancing/HomeownersWhoJustWalkAway.aspx
-------
Ismael, 37, still lives in his four-bedroom house in Menifee, Calif., for now. But he is ready to leave.
"The situation I am in is really ugly," said Ismael, who asked that his last name be omitted. "It's better for me to walk away and leave the stress and everything that is involved in this home. I am about 95% sure I am walking away."
The single parent of a 3-year-old, Ismael bought his $370,000 home in 2005 for no money down, qualifying on his mid-$40,000s salary. (That's about triple what he might have qualified for under more traditional lending guidelines used in MSN Money's Housing Affordability Calculator.) He was paying $2,700 a month for an adjustable 8.25% loan.
Photo by Joseph A. Garcia
Then he and his girlfriend split up, reducing his household income to a single paycheck at the same time the mortgage was adjusting upward. To add to his struggles, the value of his house dropped by $145,000.
Yadira Maga�a, left, with her children Lizeth Torres, 13, and Conrad Torres III, 10, have lived at her mother's Oxnard, Calif., home since walking away from their previous residence in 2007.
Yadira Maga�a, a medical biller in her early 30s in Oxnard, Calif., has a similar story. She walked away from her $585,000 home in June 2007. When she bought it, Maga�a thought she had gotten a great deal. She made a $16,000 down payment on the house. But she lived there only eight months before her marriage collapsed.
She couldn't afford to pay the $4,500 monthly interest-only mortgage, plus taxes and insurance separately, on her own $50,000 income. So she and her two children moved into her mother's house.
hairstyles makeup rory mcilroy us open
irock
08-05 08:42 PM
Pl close this stupid thread. Thx!
Can someone note the
- Best funny post on this thread
- Best post of the thread
- Worse post of the thread
for the 3 awards and I will go through just those 3 posts and close the thread. :D
I will open the thread once Rollling_flood files the lawsuit:D.
What do you say?
Can someone note the
- Best funny post on this thread
- Best post of the thread
- Worse post of the thread
for the 3 awards and I will go through just those 3 posts and close the thread. :D
I will open the thread once Rollling_flood files the lawsuit:D.
What do you say?
ArkBird
01-10 03:36 AM
man, what r u talking about?!!!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
And your source is RASHID KHALIDI!
I rest my case. Anyone knowing anything about Middle East conflict knows how biased and pro-Palestinian this guy is.
Partition of Palestine was done as per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
Stop smoking pot!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
And your source is RASHID KHALIDI!
I rest my case. Anyone knowing anything about Middle East conflict knows how biased and pro-Palestinian this guy is.
Partition of Palestine was done as per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
Stop smoking pot!
xyzgc
01-06 07:49 PM
I am not spewing venom against anyone or any faithful members of other religion.
When you blamed entire muslims and their faith for the actions of few people, i am just showing how people kill muslims unjustly and how this world watch silently.
Why its ok to say Muslims killed Hindus and NOT OK to say Hindus killed Muslims?
Why its ok to say Muslims killed Jews and NOT OK to say Jews killed Muslims???
I think you are missing lot of points here.
It is not OK either way. But you must count the number of islamic aggressions on India since 1600 A.D.
If Hindus have killed 10 muslims, muslims have killed 1000! They have continued violence despite given their own land! It is a surprise Hinduism actually has survived despite so many attacks and conversions.
The same can't be said of Jews of course, they are killing 10 for every 10!
And nobody blamed entire muslims for Bombay attack, people were angry because some IVians didn't want to acknowledge this issue of terrorism and justified it on some ground or the other.
Other good Pakis like Alisa acknowledged it very openly but refused to apologize, which is good because for some dirty people the world doesn't need to apologize. Most Pakis simply left hateful messages instead of acknowledging this issue.
If others have already said this, excuse me, I didn't read the other posts.
When you blamed entire muslims and their faith for the actions of few people, i am just showing how people kill muslims unjustly and how this world watch silently.
Why its ok to say Muslims killed Hindus and NOT OK to say Hindus killed Muslims?
Why its ok to say Muslims killed Jews and NOT OK to say Jews killed Muslims???
I think you are missing lot of points here.
It is not OK either way. But you must count the number of islamic aggressions on India since 1600 A.D.
If Hindus have killed 10 muslims, muslims have killed 1000! They have continued violence despite given their own land! It is a surprise Hinduism actually has survived despite so many attacks and conversions.
The same can't be said of Jews of course, they are killing 10 for every 10!
And nobody blamed entire muslims for Bombay attack, people were angry because some IVians didn't want to acknowledge this issue of terrorism and justified it on some ground or the other.
Other good Pakis like Alisa acknowledged it very openly but refused to apologize, which is good because for some dirty people the world doesn't need to apologize. Most Pakis simply left hateful messages instead of acknowledging this issue.
If others have already said this, excuse me, I didn't read the other posts.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий