kirupa
06-25 08:01 PM
Hey Marigold,
I really don't know much about Poser. Post in the good old Flashkit Swift 3D forum: board.flashkit.com/board/...forumid=20 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
I'm sure the good guys there will be able to help you out!
I really don't know much about Poser. Post in the good old Flashkit Swift 3D forum: board.flashkit.com/board/...forumid=20 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
I'm sure the good guys there will be able to help you out!
wallpaper Ferrari Car Magnets
lecter
November 21st, 2004, 11:34 PM
wow, great option for someone wanting to get into the MP race, but cannot go a 1Ds or a Mark II of any name
fetch_gc
09-05 05:08 PM
No receipts for 485 pkg to NSC on July 16th,2007 at 11.16 am, signed by F.HEINAUER
Anybody in th same boat??
Thx
FETCH_GC
Anybody in th same boat??
Thx
FETCH_GC
2011 The latest car from Ferrari,
Blog Feeds
05-05 12:50 PM
I am fortunate enough to have a pretty good arts and sports immigration practice. I've met a lot of really talented people from both fields over the years. I can't say I remember a family that has had members who have achieved as much as the Kleiza family, originally from Lithuania. Mother Kristina and afther Egidijus are two very successful painters. Kristina was a very successful artist in Lithuania and Egidijus was an art professor and furniture designer. The two moved to the United States with their children 14 years ago and run an art studio in New York. You...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/immigrants-of-the-day-the-kleiza-family-artists-and-an-athlete.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/immigrants-of-the-day-the-kleiza-family-artists-and-an-athlete.html)
more...
Dr. Barry Post
03-31 10:56 PM
:snug:
nb_des
10-11 03:53 PM
So if I have GC do they allow me without Visa in those countries. I thought only US citizens would not require Visa.
more...
prajwal123
05-27 04:09 PM
Can I work with different employer without my sponsor company knowing about it? I have a EAD and I can change jobs(180 days is over). Now planning to start a company/to work on W2 with new company. I want to use the medical benefits from sponsor company(withought quitting the job).
currently I am on Bench. so parent company not paying anything. I appreciate your responses.
Please let me know any good immigration lawyer in Newjersey (princeton) area.
Thanks
currently I am on Bench. so parent company not paying anything. I appreciate your responses.
Please let me know any good immigration lawyer in Newjersey (princeton) area.
Thanks
2010 2011 ferrari sports cars 458
KKumarGC
07-27 04:03 PM
Hello Everyone,
My dates are current last month. I added my wife couple weeks back [I couldnt add her earlier as i was not married then]. I got her receipt notices and also fingerprinting. My question is :
is there a way to say that she is linked to my application ?
becuase when I call USCIS, they say: This is separate application and they cant say if it is linked to primary or not.
--> Does receiving receipt notices mean that they accepted her application and linked to primary ?
--> does Fingerprinting appointment means that they accepted her application.
My concern is if my GC is approved and if she is not linked, it would be a problem,I guess.
So, please advise me as to how would i know if she is linked to my application?
please advise
kumar
My dates are current last month. I added my wife couple weeks back [I couldnt add her earlier as i was not married then]. I got her receipt notices and also fingerprinting. My question is :
is there a way to say that she is linked to my application ?
becuase when I call USCIS, they say: This is separate application and they cant say if it is linked to primary or not.
--> Does receiving receipt notices mean that they accepted her application and linked to primary ?
--> does Fingerprinting appointment means that they accepted her application.
My concern is if my GC is approved and if she is not linked, it would be a problem,I guess.
So, please advise me as to how would i know if she is linked to my application?
please advise
kumar
more...
gc_perm2k6
09-26 11:04 PM
Hi,
My friend had done 7th Yr Extension last month. By Mistake she gave dates such that it showed that she was out of USA for 1 year. So the lawyer filed for 3 yr extension and USCIS permitted. Is this rectifiable?
Thanks
PD 1st May 2006
Perm Labor Approved
My friend had done 7th Yr Extension last month. By Mistake she gave dates such that it showed that she was out of USA for 1 year. So the lawyer filed for 3 yr extension and USCIS permitted. Is this rectifiable?
Thanks
PD 1st May 2006
Perm Labor Approved
hair The swanky Ferrari cars are
cfa
05-18 08:40 PM
I will just ask one more time so that this thread stays on top and let it slide. Sorry for asking non-gc question. Thanks for your understanding.
more...
aroranuj
10-26 04:14 PM
Hello,
My original I-140 in the EB3 skilled category was denied by the TSC & is pending @ AAO because the attorney's cover letter asked for the application to considered in the professional category, instead of the skilled category.
I have been told that while that I-140 is pending at AAO I can file a new I-140 under the "Other" category &they will adjudicate that case on the same Lobor Certification. Is that accurate for the TSC?
We will also file another EB3 Skilled category I-140 which obviously will be kept in abeyance till the AAO rules on my original application.
Can an attorney please advise if I can have 2 I -140's on the same Labor Certification for different categories?
Thanks.
My original I-140 in the EB3 skilled category was denied by the TSC & is pending @ AAO because the attorney's cover letter asked for the application to considered in the professional category, instead of the skilled category.
I have been told that while that I-140 is pending at AAO I can file a new I-140 under the "Other" category &they will adjudicate that case on the same Lobor Certification. Is that accurate for the TSC?
We will also file another EB3 Skilled category I-140 which obviously will be kept in abeyance till the AAO rules on my original application.
Can an attorney please advise if I can have 2 I -140's on the same Labor Certification for different categories?
Thanks.
hot Tags: Ferrari , Ferrari car
penguin80
08-14 09:42 AM
I worked for an employer on h1b from oct,2005 to jun, 2007 and then for another employer from jun, 2007 till now (Aug, 2009). My I797 says my H1b is valid only till 05/2010. Since i wud complete my 5years in US only in Oct, 2010, is it possible for me to get H1 extension for another year in 05/2010 even if my employer doesn't file for GC or he starts GC now but I don't get I140 by 05/2010. How and when do I need to apply for H1B extension.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
house Labels: Ferrari Cars
paskal
03-01 01:14 PM
Please help reactivate this group. We have 27 members on our group but it's hard to get 1 reply. We have successfully met two lawmakers recently and more such contacts are urgently needed. A mail was sent out to the group today. If you do not get it, check your junk/spam folders and make sure the group id is added to your safe list. Folks, this time we do not want to come up short. Let's not be in a position to regret our failings in hindsight.
tattoo The new Ferrari Car Models 458
Blog Feeds
07-02 04:30 PM
On June 25, President Obama met with a bipartisan group of 30 key legislators beginning a dialogue that he hopes will lead to comprehensive immigration reform in 2009 or early in 2010. Among the topics discussed were border security, family reunification and reform of the outdated quota system. Following the meeting, the President stated, �but what I�m encouraged by is that after all the overheated rhetoric and the occasional demagoguery on all sides around this issue, we�ve got a responsible set of leaders sitting around the table who want to actively get something done and not put it off until...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/president-obama-and-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/06/president-obama-and-immigration-reform.html)
more...
pictures Ferrari 458 Italia
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
dresses Ferrari+cars+2011
jai_immigration
04-28 02:33 PM
Bumped, I know many of you would have done AC21, Please advise.
more...
makeup Price: $ 1000000
immi_2006
05-20 05:36 PM
I sent my 485 to NSC in July 2007 and got the receipt from NSC after 2 months. I filed my wifes 485 in first week of August 2007 to NSC but got the receipt from TSC. We live in Texas but our employer was from NJ when i applied 485. After that we have been applying for EAD and AP regulary at respective service centers with out any issues.
1. Has any one been in this situation and got their GC approved?
2. Do i need to request my wife's application to be moved to NSC if that can be done?
I am few days short of getting current and hope this doesn't delay approving our cases.
1. Has any one been in this situation and got their GC approved?
2. Do i need to request my wife's application to be moved to NSC if that can be done?
I am few days short of getting current and hope this doesn't delay approving our cases.
girlfriend ferrari car
nisargpatel_ce
04-14 03:42 AM
Dear all,
I have got the H1B Visa in Nov. 2008.
and because of current market situation I have not found any job.
I want to process Greencard, so how much time it takes and how would I go further?
Please help me
I have got the H1B Visa in Nov. 2008.
and because of current market situation I have not found any job.
I want to process Greencard, so how much time it takes and how would I go further?
Please help me
hairstyles Tags: 2012 Ferrari FF Price,
bhjodokast
11-10 08:52 AM
Interested in the design and development process? Your experience will be different, depending on what you need online. For instance, if you sell a product and you want it featured on it's own website, we can create a website for you.
Visit Blue Fugu Network today at http://bluefugu.biz.tm/ for more information.
Thank you!
Visit Blue Fugu Network today at http://bluefugu.biz.tm/ for more information.
Thank you!
Blog Feeds
11-21 03:20 AM
Lou Dobbs said on Thursday he is considering career options including possible runs for the White House or U.S. Senate. Dobbs has drawn fire from Latino leaders and civil rights groups for frequent on-air remarks about U.S. border control and immigration that critics saw as demonizing illegal immigrants. I personally feel that even considering him for public office will be an insult to the American Public. Let's hope that his plans will remain a far away fiction.
Read the Reuters article here (http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN1917286020091119)....
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/11/lou_dobbs_possible_white_house.html)
Read the Reuters article here (http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN1917286020091119)....
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/11/lou_dobbs_possible_white_house.html)
krn2010
02-23 11:17 AM
I am currently on H1B with a temp status (B1) and in-between jobs. My partner is in the process of becoming a US citizen. He has had his Green Card for years and obtained it through his ex-spouse's job while they were still married. He has been divorced for about a year now and started the citizenship application process a couple of months ago. We are thinking of getting married after he gets his citizenship. My question is: does it matter if we get married before or after he obtains his citizenship? We heard rumors that a previous marriage might be a factor in whether I will be able to obtain a Green Card. Thank you very much in advance for your help!