Wednesday, June 29, 2011

bethenny frankel peta ad

images PETA said vegetarians bethenny frankel peta ad. Stars who stripped for PETA
  • Stars who stripped for PETA

  • whoever
    07-17 01:55 PM
    United nations, some days back I sent you a private message. could you please please reply to that private message as a private message? thank you.

    wallpaper Stars who stripped for PETA bethenny frankel peta ad. announcement for PETA.
  • announcement for PETA.

  • waitnwatch
    08-05 03:32 PM
    If that's the law then there is not much of a debate here!

    I think admin should close the thread as the point of a lawsuit is moot.
    Incorrect. Read for yourself.

    Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.



    (e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) ( , (2) ( , or (3) ( priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) ( or 205 ( of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.

    US Permanent Resident since 2002

    bethenny frankel peta ad. Audrina Patridge PETA Ad
  • Audrina Patridge PETA Ad

  • Macaca
    05-01 05:49 PM
    The New Virtual Political System ( By Elizabeth C. Economy and Jared Mondschein | Council on Foreign Relations

    As uprisings spread throughout the Middle East during the early months of 2011, a small band of Chinese citizens and expatriates began to call for their own Jasmine Revolution. Like their African and Middle Eastern counterparts, these activists used the Internet to urge people to gather in support of political change. However, unlike in Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya, security forces in China quickly locked down the proposed demonstration sites and arrested anyone thought to be a potential source of unrest. The demonstrations proved ephemeral, with many more police than protesters. It was a massive deployment of China�s public security forces that signaled not only the power of the country�s security apparatus but also the enormous insecurity of the country�s leaders and their concern about the organizing power of the Internet.

    While the Internet may not have produced a revolution in China�s political system, it most certainly is producing an evolution. The Internet has become a virtual political system, providing an almost unprecedented level of transparency, rule of law, and official accountability. With over 450 million Chinese Internet users�and the number is increasing daily�information crosses gender, age, professional, and provincial boundaries in ways that Beijing often considers threatening. News of government corruption and cover-ups go viral in a matter of minutes, forcing the government to think quickly and flexibly and react decisively�not traditionally strengths of China�s political system.

    Netizens Demand Change

    What do the Chinese people want? Nothing unusual. They want their concerns heard and addressed. Chinese nationalists, for example, often rally support for their causes via the Internet. Anti-Japanese sentiment, in particular, has been a recurring theme among online Chinese nationalists. Periodically, Chinese nationalists have taken to the Internet and the street�often in very large numbers�to protest historical inaccuracies in Japanese textbooks and to call for retribution. Nationalists have also initiated anti-Japanese protests after recent territorial disputes in the South China Sea, perhaps encouraging the government to adopt a tougher stance in its negotiations with Japan.

    Yet online activism in China is the domain not only of the nationalist but also of the political reformer. Much of what transpires on the Web in China is bringing transparency to the political system. In late 2010, Chinese netizens contradicted official reports by covering a significant environmental disaster in Jilin province, where thousands of barrels of pollutants were dumped into a water source by a local chemical plant. In the ten days that it took Chinese officials to admit to the disaster, thousands of citizens were informed of the cover-up via the Internet. They responded by purchasing a massive amount of bottled water and angrily denouncing the government�s inaction. It was only after citizens refused to believe the official stories that the government finally acknowledged the disaster and handed out free bottles of water to those in the afflicted areas. Similarly, a year earlier in Guangzhou, online transparency had caused a reversal in local government policy. Middle-class-led protests over a planned incinerator were picked up by young online netizens, who then spread the news through social media websites. Even though the activists, themselves, were not affected by the plans, they wanted the word to get out. Once enough citizens became involved, the government agreed to halt the project until a full environmental assessment was completed.1

    The Internet has also become a means of holding officials accountable. In a now-famous case, in October 2010, Li Qiming, the son of a local deputy police chief. Li Gang, ran over two Hebei University students in his car while drunk�fatally injuring one and breaking the other�s leg. As he tried to escape the scene, he yelled out, �Sue me if you dare. My father is Li Gang!� Communist officials attempted to suppress information about the event but failed, as netizens from all over the country latched onto Li Qiming�s threat. Despite official reports alleging that the victim�s families were content with the government�s handling of the situation and with public apologies from both father and son, the online activists demanded (and got) more: Li Qiming was sentenced to six years in prison, his family was forced to pay over $70,000 to the families of the two students, and much of China�s online population has adopted the phrase �My father is Li Gang� as a shorthand for the widely held belief that the powerful and politically connected do not have to face the consequences of their actions.

    In this way, online activism can also promote a form of the rule of law�albeit one that often resembles vigilante justice. During the summer of 2010, for example, Chinese reporter Qiu Ziming was forced into hiding after police placed him on a wanted list for writing critical stories about a local business. Qiu took his case to his blog, and a poll on Chinese website recorded that of the more than thirty thousand people polled, 86 percent opposed the police pursuit of Qiu.2 Bowing to public pressure, the government rescinded the order of arrest and ordered the police to apologize to the reporter.

    Microblogs such as Twitter and Weibo, despite being heavily censored or even blocked, have become particularly politicized Internet venues, especially among middle-class urban youth. According to the popular netizen Michael Anti, microblogs are the most important political organizing force in China today. Anti notes that through Twitter, over 1.4 million yuan were raised for the Open Constitution Initiative (Gongmeng), an NGO of rights defense lawyers. He also points to the uncensored discussion held between the Dalai Lama and Chinese citizens in May 2010 as an example of the political influence that Twitter can exert. According to Anti, the people who participated stopped referring to the Dalai Lama as Dalai and now call him by the more respectful Dalai Lama.3 With over 120 million microblogs in China, censors haven�t yet discovered a viable long-term response and are generally reduced to attempting stop-gap measures to block certain news from going viral.4

    The Party�s Response: Nailing Tofu to the Wall

    Despite the inherent challenge of �trying to nail Jell-O to the wall,� as former president Bill Clinton once characterized China�s attempts to regulate cyberspace, China�s leaders are committed to controlling this evolving virtual political system. While they see the advantage of the Internet as a medium for better understanding the views of the Chinese people, their overwhelming objective is to prevent the Internet from contributing to a broad-based call for political change. To this end, Beijing has deployed both Internet police to monitor traffic and insert government opinion and the full range of technical solutions to shut down websites or blogs that the party views as particularly destabilizing.

    Beijing has also sought to use the Internet to engage with the populace as a transmission vehicle from the party to the people. In what is now commonly referred to as �AstroTurf advocacy,� Internet police often add favorable opinions of the government to various social media websites under the guise of grassroots support by anonymous citizens. The party has also had its top leaders participate in Internet chats in a bid to show its engagement with the growing online community. Both President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao have engaged in online chats, with the latter receiving almost ninety thousand questions from a massive online audience in only two hours. However, efforts to make such Internet engagement a permanent feature of Beijing�s interaction with the Chinese people have faltered in the face of often politically sensitive questions from the Internet public.

    For China�s leaders, who are already confronting over one hundred thousand protests annually,5 the Internet adds another layer of uncertainty in their bid to manage an increasingly restive society. While Beijing haltingly pushes greater transparency, the rule of law, and official accountability within the political system, the Internet forces it upon them. In the end, political evolution via the Internet may produce its own form of system revolution.

    Malcolm Moore, �China�s middle-class rise up in environmental protest,� Daily Telegraph, November 23, 2009.
    �Public outcry forces Chinese police to revoke arrest warrant on journalist,� Times of India, July 31, 2010.
    Elizabeth C. Economy, �Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiaobo and the Future of Political Reform in China,� testimony before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, November 9, 2010.
    Keith B. Richburg, �In China, microblogging sites become free-speech platform,� Washington Post, March 27, 2011.
    Murray Scot Tanner, �Unrest in China and the Chinese State�s Institutional Responses,� testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, February 25, 2011.

    2011 announcement for PETA. bethenny frankel peta ad. The PETA Files |
  • The PETA Files |

  • Macaca
    05-27 05:56 PM
    U.S. Must Adapt to China's New Patterns of Growth ( | World Politics Review) By IAIN MILLS | World Politics Review

    The global financial crisis catapulted China into a position of international economic leadership a decade earlier than Beijing's strategists had intended. That significantly increased the urgency of rebalancing the Chinese economy away from the low-quality, export model toward higher-value, domestically driven growth.

    One consequence has been new and accelerated patterns of Chinese trade and investment abroad. For the United States, China's largest economic partner, the implications of this new multidirectionalism are significant. But with recent figures showing that bilateral investment between the two countries is contracting, the U.S. must adapt its approach to this issue to ensure it benefits from the forthcoming chapter in China's domestic growth story.

    American investment and consumption were the two key drivers of China's economy in its early reform years. By the time the global financial crisis struck, China had amassed $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, and it has added another trillion since. The U.S. economy benefitted from cheap, inflation-suppressing Chinese goods, while China's absorption of American debt was a key facilitator of the pre-2008 credit bubble.

    Beijing seemed content to watch the coffers swell, while largely ignoring the need to rebalance the Chinese economy and devise strategies for making use of its mounting foreign exchange reserves. But the post-crisis collapse of investment and demand from developed economies has forced China to mobilize newly acquired national wealth to maintain economic momentum.

    China's overseas investment strategy was originally aimed at securing key natural resources. Recently, there has been a growing focus on importing advanced technology and machinery, particularly in "strategic sectors" identified in the 12th Five-Year Plan. International expansion is being led by increasingly cash-rich state-owned enterprises and their affiliates, with sovereign wealth vehicles such as China Investment Corporation and China Development Bank also adopting more active investment strategies.

    But early indicators suggest the U.S. is missing out on the first wave of new Chinese overseas spending. As one recent report on the subject notes, "the main event in 2010 was a flood of [Chinese] money into the Western Hemisphere outside the U.S., led by Brazil but also featuring Canada, Argentina and Ecuador." Last year, China's total nonfinancial outbound direct investment (ODI) jumped 38 percent, to $60 billion, even as Chinese ODI to the U.S. contracted slightly, to just less than $6 billion. Inversely, April's foreign direct investment (FDI) into China was up by more than 15 percent on the year, but American FDI dropped 28 percent.

    For China, the benefits of reducing asymmetric interdependence with the U.S. economy are clear, but it is less apparent whether the U.S. can currently afford to miss out on the huge opportunities presented by China's continued domestic growth and rapidly increasing overseas spending. Therefore, while the yuan remains a critical issue in bilateral relations, reaching consensus on the scale and scope of bilateral nonfinancial investment is an equally significant emerging topic. And although a series of diplomatic disputes in 2010 may have been partly to blame for depressed Chinese investment, the institutional arrangements of U.S.-China relations have generally failed to keep pace with China's rapid economic ascent.

    Nowhere is this clearer than in bilateral investment agreements.

    China is keen to expand its investments in the U.S. agricultural, natural resource, advanced manufacturing and financial sectors. But political resistance in the U.S. is high, and sources in Beijing claim that Washington is giving mixed signals over how welcome Chinese investment is. Chinese officials are seeking a list of acceptable investment areas from Washington and seem frustrated by the complex institutional arrangements of the U.S. political economy. Meanwhile, American officials have expressed concern about the security implications of Chinese capital, and a general lack of transparency on the Chinese side continues to exacerbate these fears.

    Clearly, resolving these issues requires action from both sides. Washington must accept Chinese overseas investment as an economic reality going forward and design a strategy capable of deploying it in support of the national interest. The politicization of the yuan has damaged Washington's credibility in Beijing; avoiding a similar degeneration of legitimate debate on investment parameters must be a strategic priority. Washington should consider mechanisms for targeting Chinese capital in areas where it is needed most, such as urban real estate development and manufacturing. These need not amount to a centrally imposed directory, as produced annually by Beijing, but rather a semi-formal consensus that provides some kind of consistent framework for prospective Chinese investors.

    Washington could also learn from the European Union's approach, which tends to maintain a greater distinction between ideological and economic policy differences with Beijing. Although the EU has the luxury of leaving political criticism to national governments, Brussels has been more low-key and consistent in discussions with Beijing on potentially inflammatory economic issues such as the yuan and China's "market economy" status. As a result, financial and nonfinancial economic integration between the two has increased substantially since 2008.

    For its part, China must accept that poor standards of domestic corporate governance remain a major barrier to future economic development at home and abroad. The credibility of Chinese companies is undermined by opaque ownership structures and a general lack of transparency regarding strategic and commercial intentions. Notably, over the past five years, there has been a direct correlation between total Chinese investment in a given country and the volume of failed deals, regardless of the developmental level of the host nation. Moreover, foreign investment in China remains heavily regulated. Beijing must accept greater liberalization at home before it can push the issue too far with international partners.

    Clearly, China has the responsibility to improve its domestic culture of openness and accountability. Greater and more symmetrical engagement with experienced capitalist nations can hasten this process while providing much-needed capital injections to the latters' ailing economies.

    For the U.S., the central challenge is to formulate more consistent and strategically constructive responses to China's economic rise. That would entail initiating a paradigm shift in Washington -- one that focuses less on "the China threat" and more on how to benefit from new opportunities presented by China's rise.

    GOP sees red over China ( By Alexander Burns | Politico
    America And China: Finding Cooperation, Avoiding Conflict? ( By Doug Bandow | Forbes
    Henry Kissinger on China. Or Not.
    Statesman Henry Kissinger takes a cautious view of Beijing's reaction to the Arab Spring, and U.S. relations with the world's rising power. (
    By BRET STEPHENS | Wall Street Journal
    Kissinger and China ( By Jonathan D. Spence | The New York Review of Books
    Henry Kissinger’s On China ( By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
    General Chen’s Assurance Not Entirely Reassuring ( By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Skeptics
    Go to China, young scientist ( By Matthew Stremlau | The Washington Post
    No go
    The Western politician who understands China best tries to explain it—but doesn’t quite succeed (
    The Economist
    Europe Frets Over Trade Deficits With China ( By FLOYD NORRIS | New York Times
    China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy ( By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times


    bethenny frankel peta ad. Bethenny#39;s already proved that
  • Bethenny#39;s already proved that

  • HawaldarNaik
    12-28 01:25 AM
    I am begining to beleive that WAR is not the answer, even though for the past 20 odd years, they have bled Kashmir, driven certain relegion members out, making them penniless, killing some of them and their family members mercilessly, doing the same in punjab (thanks to KPS Gill that was eradicated from the core), and using India's peace measures in the last 7 odd years to infilitrate members who have created havoc in India.
    What India needs to do is strengthen internal security ('our sardar.....the chief...respectfully meant as i am a admirer of him, has done the right thing by bringing in his most trusted man, PC to run home ministry....that man has been an asset in which ever position he has of v.v. high integrity and honesty like our chief)
    Secondly as i said before,...... the super powers also are pretty much behind India and will not make the same mistake as they have done in the past as they know that this is universal/global problem...and the doublespeak will not work...the worry is....who to talk to there...(neighbouring country)....there are so many power centres....its total i agree we should not go for war as that could be disastrous and open a exit strategy for all the dangerous elements and give them a longer/extended life to survive..........and continue with their nonsense......globally....WHY because once the war breaks out these dangerous elements will use their deadly toys that they have been provided with thanks to some of the regional powers....who....will then step in and insist on a dialogure....peace...etc etc..
    I am also surprised how sri lanka has agreed to go ahead with their cricket tour...i mean come on such a huge India....clear evidence...and to think and we sacrified a leader(possible PM) for them....STRANGE Behaviour....

    bethenny frankel peta ad. Bethenny says she was
  • Bethenny says she was

  • LostInGCProcess
    01-07 05:28 PM
    Anyway, i'll sign off and i won't post any more message in this thread again.

    On page 8 or 9 you said you would not post any more message and still you continue to post !!!! Don't say anything that you can't keep up with.


    bethenny frankel peta ad. Tweet of the Night
  • Tweet of the Night

  • zxcvb
    07-17 11:05 PM
    Does any one knows the answer to this?


    2010 Audrina Patridge PETA Ad bethenny frankel peta ad. PETA said vegetarians
  • PETA said vegetarians

  • sri1309
    12-18 05:53 PM
    PLEASE dont post any threads unrelated to immigration here.
    Can the moderators please delete this thread. I see hardly a post a day on important ones like, and loooks like we have time to get into these.. Please..


    bethenny frankel peta ad. 2010 - Bethenny Frankel
  • 2010 - Bethenny Frankel

  • Macaca
    12-30 06:23 PM
    India-China Relations: It’s the economy, and no one’s stupid ( By Joe Thomas Karackattu | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

    The recent visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao clearly had a productive focus - SinoIndian economic ties have been re-enforced, and there has been an effort to re-balance the trading relationship. This Brief uses irony to communicate five propositions (i.e. the intended meaning of these five statements is the opposite of what is stated), that can be found in several discourses on Sino-Indian ties. It evaluates these propositions in the light of the tangible and intangible gains from Premier Wen Jiabao’s second official visit to India.

    1. Obama’s visit had more substance for India

    How do you weigh a visit by a foreign Head of State or Government – one that prods a relationship in an incremental way versus one that promises a turnaround from a low baseline? The political and strategic dimension of the India-US partnership received an immense boost with Obama’s visit, and so did the economy. However, with Wen Jiaobao’s visit, India and China have prepared the ground for what hopefully shapes up to be a balanced economic and a healthy political partnership. If Premier Wen has second-placed talk of India and China being rivals – surely the political gains are waiting to be realized. Incidentally, the MoUs signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit are worth $16 billion (against $10 billion worth of agreements signed during the Obama visit).

    Re-balancing of the Indian deficit (roughly USD 20 billion) from its trade with China has been promised through enhanced trade facilitation in the pharma and IT/Engineering sectors, a proposed CEO’s forum, more openness to Indian agro products, greater presence in Chinese trade fairs, and the desire for a strategic economic partnership. The present focus on infrastructure financing in India through Chinese banks is demonstrative of a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. China’s consumer price index (CPI) 1 , a key measure of inflation, hit a two-year high of 5.1 per cent year-on-year in November 2010. Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC; the equivalent of the RBI in India) raised banks’ reserve requirement ratio (the deposits mandated to be withheld) for the sixth time in 2010 as a sterilization measure to prevent excess money supply from adding to inflation. Under such circumstances, Chinese banks have been foraying into lending operations elsewhere as well (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s (ICBC) commercial property loan in summer 2010 to a group led by private-equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in the United States is a case in point)

    Policy Focus: The push for horizontal investments from China i.e. market seeking FDI through local production seems to have received less attention. This is an area which needs to be explored fully to address employment generation in India, and for Chinese firms to have a visible household presence in India (similar to Korean and Japanese consumer durables, for instance).

    2. China has not changed. It cannot be trusted. Politically, there seems to be no progress on resolving the border dispute, and in the economic sphere there seems to be an in-built incongruence in the growth trajectories of the two countries.

    The 1962 war was the reflection of the variance in India and China’s diplomatic, ideological and political approach to bilateral ties and international affairs. Those were the years running up to the Sino-Soviet split, the US engagement in Korea, Taiwan, and the second Indochina war (all involving China), and the domestic misfortune of the Great Leap forward. China had real and perceived fears of India’s oscillation between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, today China is placed in different circumstances, both as a political power and as an economic power. It is now more deeply entrenched in the economic architecture of the world. China’s concern to develop its Western regions coupled with diminishing incentives to foreign investors on the East Coast implies a patient and consistent effort at domestic restructuring in China. The stimulus measures and other construction projects need to be absorbed, the idea of “soft infrastructure” over “hard infrastructure” i.e. transparency and corruption-control has to be pushed through, and inequity needs to be tackled both between cities and rural areas, and between provinces in China. That is a long-drawn process of reforming social security and healthcare in China, apart from administrative reforms relating to land and labour rights (hukou system).

    Intuitively, the prospects of relying on Europe and the United States as consumer markets for China over the long term are dicey (imagine how long an economy growing at 8 to 10 per cent could rely on markets that grow at between 2 and 3 per cent?). The present incongruence in the growth trajectories of India and China is ascribed to the market-first approach in China versus the business-first approach in India’s liberalization of its economy. Almost as a visible consequence, China is a larger trading nation even as the private sector there is yet to benefit from lenient financial intermediation (the State plays a big role even today). India on the other hand has a promising private sector and vibrant secondary markets even as its integration into the international economy is hindered by relatively higher tariff barriers in the country. The absence of overlap in the key growthdrivers of both countries (Industry versus Services in China and India, respectively) actually presents the most important reason for India to work with China, and for China to work with India.

    The economic imperatives for China to engage with the larger Asian region are borne out by the trends in consumption expenditures in this region. China presently is mired in the need to revive consumption expenditure internally, in order to offset the export-dependent economic engine of its growth. The Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, the flagship annual statistical data book of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), indicates the role that Asia stands to play as an alternate consumer market in the long term. The resilience of the middle class in Asia during the 2008-09 recession is highlighted by an estimated USD 4.3 trillion in annual expenditures during the crisis (ADB 2010). This was nearly a third of the private consumption in OECD countries, and is projected to account for 43 per cent of the worldwide consumption in 2030.

    Policy Focus: India and China have a real chance of promoting mutual economic growth and development if their economic ties are not ‘securitized’, and the issue of tariff (from India’s side) and non-tariff barriers (China’s side) and protectionism (both countries) is addressed. The CEO’s forum, for one, could initiate linkages with Chinese Universities to develop internship programmes drawing on China’s younger generation of graduates to visit Indian companies desirous of expanding operations in China.

    As for border talks, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed in the past to have mid-level bureaucrats handle talks for mediating the border issues (Hoffmann 1990: 32). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have reached an understanding to have foreign ministers of the two countries deal with the vexed problem. Certainly, the level of engagement has been upgraded specifically vis-�-vis the border issue.

    Another important point to note is that, as per the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project (October 2010), in 2009 46 per cent of Indians expressed a positive view of China, compared with just 34 per cent in 2010. The Chinese Ambassador to India may think that the fragility in India-China relations emerges from over-reaction to issues concerning China in India. However, the same report qualifies that only 3 per cent of Indians surveyed consider China as the greatest threat for India, whereas, despite a sanctioned media, more Chinese have negative opinion on India (only about one-third of Chinese respondents (32 per cent) have a favourable opinion).

    So where does the fragility come from? Does it arise from the ‘looseness’ of a democratic apparatus to shape public opinion? But Chinese public opinion is negative despite the regimented approach to the dissemination of information. Clearly, even if it is not the final word, these perceptions reveal how both countries need to do more to genuinely take forward the elationship at the level of ordinary citizens. The leadership in both countries has to find ways to shape debates within their countries to soft-land negotiated outcomes, if there is a genuine and concerted effort to resolve the border issue, and other contentious issues that may arise.

    Policy Focus: There is a need to cultivate individual perceptions of the other, at the level of citizens. This exercise could be executed at the level of greater tourist facilitation measures or exposure to popular culture through mass media. More Indian television programmes, dubbed in Chinese, should be promoted in China (currently only a few such programmes are broadcast in China). Surprisingly, Chinese programming (similar to NHK, DW-Asia or Russia Today) is not even on offer on most satellite networks in India. Events such as the ‘Festival of India in China’ or the ‘Festival of China in India’ should be promoted on a wider scale to involve citizen participation beyond the diplomatic corps.

    hair The PETA Files | bethenny frankel peta ad. The PETA Files |
  • The PETA Files |

  • Macaca
    12-26 09:33 PM
    Wal-Mart Lobbies Above Retail Value (http:// By DIBYA SARKAR | Associated Press, Dec 26, 2007

    WASHINGTON -- Wal-Mart's message to America is "Save money. Live better." Its motto in Washington might best be summed up another way: Spend more. Lobby harder.

    The world's largest retailer spent nearly $1.8 million in the first six months of 2007 and is on pace to break the nearly $2.5 million it spent for all of 2006.
    While overall spending on lobbying appears to be slowing a bit, some industries, such as private equity, and companies, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., are bucking the trend.

    A relative newcomer to lobbying, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company is making sure Capitol Hill knows it doesn't take a discount approach to getting its message out about everything from immigration to financial-services licensing.

    Wal-Mart spent more than $4 million lobbying in the past 18 months compared with the $6.6 million it collectively spent in the prior seven years, according to federal lobbying reports.

    The retail sector as a whole isn't a lobbying juggernaut in Washington, where defense, energy and pharmaceutical industries write the big checks. For example, Target Corp. spent $100,000 in lobbying expenses in the first six months this year, Sears Holding Corp. spent about $141,000, while defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. spent $4.8 million in the same period.
    Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar would not comment on specific legislation or issues. He said the company's spending depends on the congressional agenda.

    This year, that agenda included immigration reform legislation that failed and a minimum wage-hike bill that passed. The company has said higher wages will push up the cost of goods for customers.

    For their part, Wal-Mart lobbyists pushed for tougher tactics against organized retail crime and for legislation promoting electronic health records and other technology aimed at reducing health-care costs.

    But, Wal-Mart, long criticized for having skimpy employee health-insurance benefits, also lobbied against legislation that would allow employees to form, join or help labor organizations. Its employees are not unionized.

    In the financial services arena, Wal-Mart dropped a bid for a bank license earlier this year after it was strongly opposed by banks, unions and other critics. It continues to push for the ability to offer other financial services, such as prepaid Visa debit cards for millions of low-income shoppers who don't have bank accounts.

    Other issues listed on the disclosure form included legislation tied to international trade matters, currency, taxes and banking.

    Brian Dodge, spokesman for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which counts Wal-Mart, Costco Wholesale Corp. and Target among its 60 retail members, said in the last few years his group's lobbying efforts have increased involving various issues, including product safety, the environment, organized retail crime, health insurance and jobs.

    While he couldn't speak specifically about Wal-Mart, Dodge said the retail industry must deal with more complex matters, such as imported products involving increased government oversight by several agencies.

    Wal-Mart, which established a Washington shop about 10 years ago, spent just $140,000 in 1999. It spent about a $1 million annually for the next several years, before increasing its lobbying representation and funds in 2005 amid increased criticism of labor practices and benefits.

    "For a long time, Sam Walton really didn't think that Wal-Mart should be involved in politics," said Lee Drutman, a University of California at Berkeley doctoral student who is writing his dissertation on lobbying. "That was part of his actual belief so Wal-Mart was late to the game."


    bethenny frankel peta ad. PETA
  • PETA

  • walking_dude
    10-01 11:11 AM
    I agree to point (1) for both Obama and McCain. Chances of them happening are very high. I, however, disagree with point (2) for both of them.

    A bill similar to HR5882 can be added to CIR as an amendment (like the Cornyn-Cantwell amendment to CIR2007, which unfortunately didn't get voted on as the CIR died!). Most of the CIR backers like Hispanic caucus or Sen Menedez aren't opposed to EB increases/recaptures as such, but have prevented the passage to make pro-business Republicans make concession toward legalization. If Legalization passes through, they are unlikely to stand in our way.

    On the other hand, anti-immigrant groups such as FAIR, CIS etc. oppose us as much as they oppose legalization ( according to their bizzaro definition every immigrant is illegal). They will oppose stand-alone bills such as HR 5882 as much as they oppose the CIR . Infact it was filibustering by Repubs such as Steve King and Smith - who are sympathetic to these groups - that killed our bill.

    CIR + our EB ammendments will face only opposition from anti-immigrants, where as Hispanic Congressmen and CIR backers will be supporting our bills as well, where as EB-only bill face the ire of both anti-immigrants as well as the CIR backers and the powerful Hispanic caucus. That's the lesson we should learn from the failures of this year.

    Focus may be on Economy, but Immigration cannot be ignored due to political considerations. If there is a democratic senate, democratic House and democratic President - Hispanic lawmakers will not let them rest, until they get the CIR on the floor.

    IMO, our focus should be to find the EB-killer clauses in the CIR, get them ammended, and add our bills as ammendments to CIR. And not to oppose it in favor of highly-unlikely-to-pass piecemeal legislation.

    If Obama becomes Prez

    1)Sen. Durbin will play major role in immigration policy which may take us to Stone Age.
    2)CIR is only resolution for the immigration ( Bills like HR 5882 will go away)

    If McCain becomes Prez

    1)Anti �immigrant lobbyist will take center stage and will not allow CIR to pass through
    2)Smaller measures like HR 5882 will have chances to pass through

    This is my opinion and it may differ from others. Its like catch 22, I have very little hope on either of them, more over based on the current economic situation. whoever the prez their focus will be on fixing the economy rather than immigration - my 2 cents

    hot Bethenny#39;s already proved that bethenny frankel peta ad. This new provocative ad was
  • This new provocative ad was

  • CT_Green
    02-02 01:42 PM
    We can atleast send an email to CNN and let them know that they should be ashamed of themselves by alowing someone to go on air and use it as a platform to spread his own views and then call it independent reporting.

    I have sent an email via
    I know it might not make much of a difference, but atleast they should know that he is not reporting on facts.


    house PETA president Ingrid Newkirk bethenny frankel peta ad. Twilight#39;s Kellan Lutz PETA Ad
  • Twilight#39;s Kellan Lutz PETA Ad

  • Macaca
    12-23 10:53 AM
    Pelosi's first year as House speaker marked by little change on war ( By Zachary Coile | SF Chronicle, Dec 23, 2007

    The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.

    In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.

    But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.

    Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.

    "The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.

    The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.

    And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.

    Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.

    "Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.

    But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.

    "We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.

    The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.

    Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.

    But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.

    "Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."

    Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.

    Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.

    Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.

    Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.

    "I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."

    Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.

    In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.

    Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.

    "I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."

    The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.

    "We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."

    Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.

    "At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."

    Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."

    "Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."

    Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.

    Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.

    "It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.

    But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.

    "The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.

    The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.

    Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.

    If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.

    "One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."

    tattoo Bethenny says she was bethenny frankel peta ad. Bethenny Frankel on her
  • Bethenny Frankel on her

  • gimme_GC2006
    03-24 12:24 PM
    No; I am saying I am suspicious of original poster because when in local USCIS offices they swear you in that you are going to tell the truth and if you don't have a lawyer with you then they make you sign a statement that you are self representing yourself at the itnerview.

    Because of these formalities; I have my doubts with a Phone call received from the local office and asking for documnets, questions on some very substantive matters without going through the formalities that local uscis office is supposed to do.

    - I went to two local uscis office interviews; so I am pretty versed in their procedure.

    can you kindly enlighten me on what you exactly mean by "suspicious" original poster?

    Yeah..even I went to local office..without attorney..they didnt ask me to sign a statement..just sworn


    pictures Tweet of the Night bethenny frankel peta ad. PETA is definitely not
  • PETA is definitely not

  • alisa
    04-07 02:17 PM
    Why is senator Durbin insisting upon providing American trained (and in some cases, even American educated) high-skilled individuals to low-cost competitors of America (India and China)?

    I agree with you that the ability to file for 485 without a visa number would be a blessing for all of us.

    What are we doing about this situation btw?

    You will not be able to convince the lawmakers who introduced this draconian law to make any exemptions for h1 extensions. These people introduced this measure with a well thought out strategy to kill h1 without actualy saying they want to kill h1.

    A good way to protect people already on h1 from these draconian laws is through the ability to file for 485 without priority date. Every passing day will only make it worse for people on h1 not just new h1 but also people already on h1 waiting for h1 extension or renewal or transfer.

    dresses This new provocative ad was bethenny frankel peta ad. Animal rights group PETA is
  • Animal rights group PETA is

  • unitednations
    08-08 04:26 PM

    Glad to see you back in the forums!

    Do you have any idea why attorneys strongly discourage their clients to travel after filing 485 but before receiving the receipt notices?

    If you have a H/L visa it may not problem to re-enter US with your visa, but will it affect the 485 filing if you did not have the receipt notice when you traveled outside?

    I had posted before. They don't know exactly when they are going to send out the case. They may have told you they sent it and then you go and they actually send it later and you were not in usa when uscis received it.

    package gets returned due to missing signatures, initial evidence, etc. and they need you to be here to file it again.

    Leaving after August 17th if you have a valid h or L visa you are safe even without the receipt notices.


    makeup 2010 - Bethenny Frankel bethenny frankel peta ad. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk
  • PETA president Ingrid Newkirk

  • validIV
    06-25 03:36 PM
    The only way renting is not throwing money away is if you can claim it as a tax expense (business for example). Otherwise you may as well be smoking that money every month. There is no way for you to recoup rent money, no matter what logic you may claim is sound. Renting should only be used as a stepping stone, to save up enough money to buy.

    If your monthly rent is less than your mortgage and you do not believe the house price is going to appreciate in near term (both true in the area I live in) then renting is NOT throwing money away. Don't borrow lines from realtors. If you pay more for living in a comparable house and your house is not appreciating what's the return on your money that you are paying extra?

    girlfriend Bethenny Frankel on her bethenny frankel peta ad. Glee Star Lea Michele#39;s PETA Ad. Glee Star Lea Michele#39;s PETA Ad
  • Glee Star Lea Michele#39;s PETA Ad. Glee Star Lea Michele#39;s PETA Ad

  • sands
    08-07 05:25 PM
    A couple drove down a country road for several miles, not saying a word.

    An earlier discussion had led to an argument and neither of them wanted to concede their position. As they passed a barnyard of mules, goats, and pigs, the husband asked sarcastically, "Relatives of yours?"

    "Yep," the wife replied, "in-laws."
    This is hilarious! :)

    hairstyles PETA bethenny frankel peta ad. Bethenny Frankel and Andy
  • Bethenny Frankel and Andy

  • waitnwatch
    08-05 03:24 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.

    If it's the law then Yates 2000 memo is having unintended consequences after retrogression hit.

    03-23 11:31 AM
    looks like your case have been picked up for random check.......Do you have US masters degree?

    No..I dont have a US masters degree.

    Also, yea..I understand that my case was picked up for random check..but they already picked up in Apr 2008 and sent it to NBC..and then in Aug 2007 they sent it to local office where I was interviewed..

    My PD was current in both Aug 07 and Sep 07 per bulletin..but during interview in Aug07,we realized that visa numbers were long gone (which was confirmed by DOS in sep)..that was the only reason we didnt get stamped that time..per..Interviewing officer..

    So not sure what this is now..also they wanted copy of Degree certificates?..comeon we sent those along with 485 application.. :D:D

    Anyway thanks to you and chandu for respoding :)

    08-05 12:27 PM
    Five Englishmen in an Audi Quattro arrived at an Irish border.

    Checkpoint Paddy the officer stops them and tells them: "It is illegal to put 5 people in a Quattro, Quattro means four".

    "Quattro is just the name of the automobile," the Englishmen retorts with disbelief "Look at the papers: This car is designed to carry five persons".

    "You can not pull that one on me," replies Paddy "Quattro means four You have five people in your car and you are therefore breaking the law"

    The Englishmen replies angrily, "You idiot! Call your supervisor over I want to speak to someone with more intelligence!".

    "Sorry," responds Paddy, "Murphy is busy with 2 guys in a Fiat Uno"

    No comments:

    Post a Comment