| Username |
Post |
| nepali |
Posted
on 13-Dec-00 10:48 PM
any thoughts?
|
| nepali |
Posted
on 13-Dec-00 10:57 PM
how?
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 13-Dec-00 11:25 PM
Kaag Laai Bel Paakyo Harsha Na Bismaat!
This is our host country's internal matter.Among five reknowned
candidates,however,he was my fourth choice,next to Buchanan.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 14-Dec-00 11:34 AM
>any thoughts?
In certain high political circles in Nepal,
Bush has been viewed as being more favorable
to Nepal because, well, Bush is likely to be
less for India than Gore would have been.
And, as this kind of reasoning goes in Nepal,
anyone who is less for India is more for
Nepal.
How these pundits have reached this
conclusion, I have yet to find out.
Bush is likely to cut back on aid to
IIIrd World countries, including to Nepal.
He is likely to not be as liberal on
immigration matters as a Democratic
prez would have been.
At the end of the day, what matters more to
Nepal is NOT US-Nepal relations, but US-India
relations and, to some extent, US-China
relations.
The challenge for foreign policy pundits in Nepal
is how to take advantage of the relations of the
US with both China and India.
BTW, I thought Gore gave an excellent and
dignified concession speech.
oohi
ashu
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 14-Dec-00 12:02 PM
Based on the speeches last night, it's clear that Gore was the best man for the job.
|
| SJP |
Posted
on 14-Dec-00 01:42 PM
Dear Ashu dai,
I don't think Clinton-Gore administration was (and still is) never
liberal to immigration issues. Instead I have found Republicans more liberal on immigration issues. Here is why:
* Clinton-Gore Administration were always against quota increase
for H1-B visa but the Republicans passed the bill on Senate and
Clinton was forced to sign the bill.
* Before Clinton's administration it was lot easier to get Social
Security for students and even for tourists but nowdays it is
almost immpossible even for students with F-1 visa.
* Green Card lottery was introduced by Bush Administration in
1990.
* It was much easier to renew and reapply the visa even
you are out of status in Bush administration but nowdays if you
stay a day more than your visa you are banned for 3-10 years
automatcally.
* President Clinton increased the fees for all the visa
applications and renewals.
There are many other issues on which Democrates have voted against
immigration reforms. One thing I really don't like about Democrates is that they make too many rules which stops us from
what we are really capable of doing without worrying about
our status.I think they really need to loosen up a bit or just GO TO HELL.
|
| SJP |
Posted
on 14-Dec-00 01:44 PM
Dear Ashu dai,
I don't think Clinton-Gore administration was (and still is) ever
liberal to immigration issues. Instead I have found Republicans more liberal on immigration issues. Here is why:
* Clinton-Gore Administration were always against quota increase
for H1-B visa but the Republicans passed the bill on Senate and
Clinton was forced to sign the bill.
* Before Clinton's administration it was lot easier to get Social
Security for students and even for tourists but nowdays it is
almost immpossible even for students with F-1 visa.
* Green Card lottery was introduced by Bush Administration in
1990.
* It was much easier to renew and reapply the visa even
you are out of status in Bush administration but nowdays if you
stay a day more than your visa you are banned for 3-10 years
automatcally.
* President Clinton increased the fees for all the visa
applications and renewals.
There are many other issues on which Democrates have voted against
immigration reforms. One thing I really don't like about Democrates is that they make too many rules which stops us from
what we are really capable of doing without worrying about
our status.I think they really need to loosen up a bit or just GO TO HELL.
|
| SJP |
Posted
on 14-Dec-00 02:05 PM
I think people will remember this election for not the winner but
how Gore lost (...or should I say forced out ? ). Gore sure has
credibility problem but he is a passionate person. I wish him all the best for 2004.
|
| rajendra |
Posted
on 17-Dec-00 10:32 AM
How's this as a source for Gore's credibility problem -- massive exaggeration of his own accomplishments and massive spins (aka lies) of his opponent's?
Well, he finally paid the price for it. And he really shouldn't have listened to his own supporter's idea of distancing from Clinton.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 17-Dec-00 01:05 PM
Gore LOST:
a) NOT the popular vote.
b) BUT the electoral College ko Vote through the
one vote of the US Supreme Court.
Our man from Harvard and TN was far better
than that boy from Yale and TX.
But, hey, who am I question the choice of the US
Supreme Court?
oohi
ashu
|
| rajendra |
Posted
on 18-Dec-00 09:32 AM
I personally liked Bill Bradley. He's neither from Harvard nor Yale, but so what? He was a better person, in my opinion. A person I'd have liked to see win.
|
| sangita |
Posted
on 18-Dec-00 12:13 PM
>
>Our man from Harvard and TN was far better
>than that boy from Yale and TX.
>
That BOY from Yale and TX proved to be a better
stragegist to beat the clock and the
MAN from Harvard.
Moral: Not to underestimate the potentials of a boy.
Gore was not manly enough (to your context).
|
