kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon

images Watch Robert Pattinson Kiss kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Robert Pattinson about New
  • Robert Pattinson about New

  • Macaca
    01-30 06:48 PM
    The article Round 2: H-1B Battle: American engineers vs. President Bush (! has the following paras.

    Lou Dobbs exposed a complete lack of enforcement of H-1B caps by the federal government for the last 2 years. According to the USCIS report, over 75,000 additional H-1B visas were issued above the cap during 2004 and 2005. He openly challenged Congressmen, Senators and the President to enforce our laws. He posed the questions:

    1) Why was the report released on November 20th, 2006, immediately after the last election?

    2) Why was his report not made available to the public?

    3) Why aren�t guest worker Visa caps being enforced?

    4) Why does neither Congress nor the executive branch fulfill their constitutional duties?

    These good questions lead to the bigger question of who is responsible for enforcing these laws?

    wallpaper Robert Pattinson about New kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Robert Pattinson had to lock
  • Robert Pattinson had to lock

  • waitnwatch
    05-24 10:38 PM
    I agree. But lets not scare away people either by such open criticism and rudeness. If no one responds to such questions, then ppl will automatically start looking things up in this or other web-sites.


    you're right! I got a bit carried away given that the discussion in the thread was kind of intense at that moment. your point is taken.

    kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. for Best Kiss for New Moon
  • for Best Kiss for New Moon

  • bfadlia
    01-08 10:43 AM
    I have use the word bastard after you used for Jews. You have said, your war will end till Jews are defeated. So get my reply. Don't cry!!!!! foul !!!

    read your comments:

    Originally Posted by bfadlia
    I agree, the conflict discussed here is a political conflict. It could have been resolved much easier if all sides stopped looking at it with the religious-end-of-times lens (jews: nile-to-euphrates empire belonged to us 3000 years ago, christians: jews from all over the world must be transfered back there for the messiah to return.. and muslims: end of times won't come until jews fight the muslims and we beat them)..

    Originally Posted by bfadlia
    you called all non christian nations "satanic nations that will be wiped out", called 95% of egyptians war children, brain washed bastards and terrorists.. u r right, u don't use vulgar language, only racist hate speech..

    you have serious language comprehension issues.. I used bastards on palestinians not jews in a post where i was defending palestinians, so i was being sarcastic
    and in the other post you refer to, i was criticizing jews, cristians and muslims for taking the end of time scenarios too seriously and applying it now.. no ones knows we are the the end of times anyway.. and even if that in some way offends you, that doesn't make name-calling all egyptians any less racist

    2011 Robert Pattinson had to lock kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Kristen Stewart amp; Robert
  • Kristen Stewart amp; Robert

  • Rolling_Flood
    07-14 02:28 AM
    Dude, you are one confused person.........whats the point here??
    EB-3 India is somehow "special" and all you whiners in EB-3 India should get your GCs before EB-2 folks becuase blah blah blah........WHAT???

    are you insane?? you make no sense in your argument.

    Numbers fall as EB1--> EB2 --> EB3.

    Dont like it, go get an education and/or an EB-2 level job. Else shut up. You have nothing to say.

    Hi kutra,

    Good post I can understand what you want to do here, you are diffusing the tensions between EB2 and EB3. I hope many more people write posts like you and I appreciate it. But factually what you said is not correct "The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3".

    What I am posting here I sent the same in private messages to some other members and it helped to diffuse this bad arguments between EB3 and EB2 folks.. I am posting here because I thought with this I can give the right(my?) perspective on this and bring some �sanity� to these arguments.

    Here is my take on this EB1, EB2 and EB3.

    Out of the total 140K each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%. So if each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%, then what and where is the priority? EB1, EB2 and EB3 are just groups, it just means that US need these categories of jobs to be filled by immigrant workers.

    By definition always number applications filed in EB3>EB2>EB1 there is no argument there. And the waiting time also will be EB3>EB2>EB1. That is fair, there is no competition here across groups, each have a quota and its own queue, every one competes with in the group.

    If first, all(9K Ind)(140K Total) Visas are given to E1 and any leftover are given to EB2 and then any leftover from EB2 are given to EB3 then you can say the priority is EB1>EB2>EB3. The spillover that to from a particular preference has priority I understand. But at the least every group will get its 33.33% if those many category applications are present in that group.

    Yes, unused ROW EB1 go EB2 and then to EB3. Yes unused ROW EB2 and ROW EB3 and to EB3. That makes sense and it dos not contradict what I am saying. Now EB2 is special case that there are lots of EB2 India applications are pending so they get only the spillover from EB1.

    I agree with you on your statement below, and I feel the same way. Looks like if either Eb2 or EB3 is mentioned in a thread it turning into a bad arguments between EB2 and EB3 hope this ends soon.
    As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.


    kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. In this scene, Kristen Stewart
  • In this scene, Kristen Stewart

  • lskreddy
    12-27 09:52 PM
    As much as terrorism is an evil thing, surgical strikes and stuff won't do crap. It will further alienate and give fodder to the mullahs to create more Kasab's. Really, do you think we can stop 20 yr old guys who are willing to kill themselves, think again? These guys are just washed out completely, there is no retribution, pain, all they see is a target and blow themselves out.

    Instead, we should concentrate on the war within that we face. Be it from communal/political/socio-economic violence or lack of regard for the common man's life. By no means I am saying inaction but war is certainly not the solution. Pakistan will meet its fate sooner than later if they continue the path they have chosen. We don't have to hasten it.

    200 Indians dying is painful but look at these figures to put things into perspective.

    Accidents in India:


    Infant Mortality:


    These are all staggering numbers and something none of us have to depend on a third country to seek the cure.

    I hope India continues to apply diplomatic pressure and show the world the parasite Pakistan it has become. As Zardari today acknowledged, they have a cancer within the country, its eating up. If they don't, its just a matter of time. To cure that, if they find mullahs as their doctors, time will be up pretty soon..

    kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. New Day – New “New Moon” News
  • New Day – New “New Moon” News

  • kshitijnt
    06-25 10:22 PM
    I am not foreclosed and neither is anyone I know. Who do you know is foreclosed? Were they smart or stupid in their investment? How much did they put down? Did they crunch the numbers and do the math?

    You do not invest without a plan to cover all scenarios and you definitely do not invest beyond your means. The people that caused the meltdown and caused foreclosures couldnt afford the property to begin with. Is that you? Do you fit into that category? If so, do not buy.

    ValidIV, Based on your quote, we should be prepared for prices going down further and I485 getting rejected as being the worst case scenario.

    Also when I rent, I rent a 2-3 bedroom house, but I would want to buy a larger house say 5 bedroom (because I am planning long term).
    Hence my rent is 1500 whereas with mortgage payment its going to be 3000.

    I could save extra 15000 each year for down payment. So lets say I have 30K cash on hand, I can save 30K more in next 2 years and either go for a bigger house or hedge against rate increase. We all know that prices are not going to go up until 2011. Speculate or don't.
    Even Suze Orman will tell you that more the mortgage , more you pay in the end.

    Although your theory of buying 3 properties with 800 K is ambitious, it is riddled with risks and with biggest assumption that rents will not go down and property prices will go up. If this assumption falls apart, your investment starts making loss.

    My last landlord had victorian homes and she had trouble renting them because they needed constant upgrades to keep up with newly constructed communities. So she took out a equity loan and then the house prices dropped.

    And she still had trouble finding renters. This was in a community where I found hard to find a rental home. What will you

    And lets say they do go up defying expectations, you can watch trend for 3-4 months and then jump in at any time. Whats the hurry? We build up piles of cash waiting for the right opportunity and jump in at the right time.

    Do you agree even though interest rates are going up, house prices are not for the next 3 years? At this moment all Rent vs Buy calculators are saying its going to take me 11 years with 1% price increase to break even on my investment. Who knows where I will be in 11 years?

    How can we decide when we do not know what future holds for us beyond next 2-3-5 years?

    I am from same school as SauveSandeep.

    There are risk profiles of investors, I believe you have more tolerance than we do.

    My parents back in India, rented till the kids were 10 yr olds, then they bought a house at 58 my dad is retired with abundant financial security.

    :) I want to live life like that.


    kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. robert pattinson and kristen
  • robert pattinson and kristen

  • abracadabra102
    01-03 02:48 PM
    Writer, Shuja Nawaz

    Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
    December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (
    Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
    The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
    For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
    The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
    The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
    NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
    Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
    Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
    An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
    This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (

    This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.

    Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.

    In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.

    Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (

    If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.

    But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.

    2010 for Best Kiss for New Moon kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Watch Robert Pattinson Kiss
  • Watch Robert Pattinson Kiss

  • pthoko
    07-10 10:07 PM
    Hi UN,
    First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.

    Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)

    I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.

    H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.

    So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.

    Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??

    If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.

    From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
    Do they catch this during I-140 stage??


    Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??



    kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Robert Pattinson, the New Moon
  • Robert Pattinson, the New Moon

  • gc28262
    09-26 09:41 AM
    For me Obama and Mccain are equally good candidates. I would prefer Hillary Clinton over both of them.

    McCain is a great guy, but he is with the wrong party. A party that aligns itself with anti-immigrants.

    Now that we don't have much hopes for HR-5882, we should start targeting the CIR right now. Maybe we can talk to the Hispanic and other groups which will have an influence over CIR and have our provisions taken care of.

    It will definitely be easier to tie-up with Hispanic caucus and other groups than anti-immigrants.

    hair Kristen Stewart amp; Robert kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Best Kiss: Robert Pattinson
  • Best Kiss: Robert Pattinson

  • nogc_noproblem
    08-06 06:44 PM
    A man was sitting reading his papers when his wife hit him round the head with a frying pan.

    'What was that for?' the man asked.

    The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.

    The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'

    The wife apologized and went on with the housework.

    Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.

    Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'


    kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen
  • Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen

  • puddonhead
    06-05 05:22 PM
    Your leverage is $270,000 in this investment, and you pay 5% interest on it which is tax deductible. You don't suppose one can borrow 270Gs to invest in, per my example, S&P 500 to get 10% annually? Of course the you are able to borrow that much on a home is because it is considered relatively a safe debt for the lender. That can't be said for stocks.

    How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).

    Now we are getting into another different fun topic - how does a real estate "investment" compare with other forms of investment.

    1. Leverage = speculation = risk. By taking the leverage and buying the house - you lock in a 3-5% return and a lot of risk (for a 200k house - that would be 10k/year max). The 3-5% comes from long term price appreciation trends.

    If I did not buy that 200k house - I would invest the initial 40k and the rest of 160k gradually every month. For simplistic calculations:
    return from 40k - 5% (I can show you reward checking accounts with that rate even now). Inflation protected TIPS could be a good place if you are afraid of hyperinflation
    Earnings = 2k.

    You save 3k each year by renting.
    Running Total = 5k.

    Every year - you put in some money to your investment vehicle = mortgage amortization. So over 30 years - you would have been earning investment income on $80k @5% on an average = 4k.
    Running Total = 9k.

    So you are making 1k more by buying - AND taking a lot of leverage = risk.

    Inflation can upset this calculation - but not much. 1980 - 2008 was an unusual period of low inflation and high growth = high housing price increase. Any bets on how sustainable that would be? Typically housing price appreciation would be at or below inflation - which would favor other investment vehicles over real estate.

    I personally would need much more compelling reasons than the above to buy.

    This calculation does not take into account the flexibility in relocation if you do not buying a house. It alos does not consider the risk associated with having the largest chunk of your portfolio invested in a single non-diversified house instead of having a properly diversified portfolio.

    Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB ( Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.

    hot In this scene, Kristen Stewart kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Kristen Stewart and Robert
  • Kristen Stewart and Robert

  • Macaca
    12-20 08:07 AM
    Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year ( By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007

    The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.

    But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.

    Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.

    "I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).

    On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."

    Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.

    The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.

    Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.

    The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.

    "This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."

    Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.

    Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.

    Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.

    Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.

    With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.

    But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.

    Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."

    "Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.

    But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.

    The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.

    Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.

    Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.

    Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.

    This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.

    Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.

    "Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.


    house scaled 560x420 Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen Stewart Win MTV Movie Award kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. kristen stewart and robert
  • kristen stewart and robert

  • unitednations
    08-02 11:57 AM
    I am on H1 since 1999 with same employer except for a long interval of 16 months. I filed my labor in April 2001 (assuming 245(i) will cover me). I was not on payroll during Aug 03 to Dec 04. So my W2 for 2003 is 33% less than LCA and no W2 for 2004. I last entered US in Sept. 03
    I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
    My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
    Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
    I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
    Thanks a lot

    As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.

    tattoo New Day – New “New Moon” News kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. So, what was Rob#39;s pick?
  • So, what was Rob#39;s pick?

  • myuname
    04-07 07:55 PM
    When there is no solution is to be found for the illegal immigration issue...then the obvious thing to mess with is the legal immigration! Isn't It? ;)

    Good Job! Kudos to whoever is doing it! :p

    Corporate world drives the laws and lobbying. This bill will be in the bin even before you know it. As for the STIVE etc. none will make it as long as they are comprehensive in nature. That said, the relief to the EB segment is coming soon, so sit tight.


    pictures robert pattinson and kristen kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Tags: kristen stewart, new
  • Tags: kristen stewart, new

  • dealsnet
    01-07 04:49 PM
    You lived in India and hate India, because of your wicked religion.
    Equating Bombay with Palastine is only a traitor can do.
    Even passive support is act of betrayel.
    Evil will be destoyed, it is God's will. They are preparing the kids for suicide bomber. So it is their fate to die little early, without harming any one.
    Any way your religion and its founder are blasphamy for real children of God.
    Only retard minded can follow it. Do suicide bomb to get 72 virgins. If any one of the virgin is a lesbian, what will do ?. If the guy is old, do he get viagara???They don't know in heaven no sex. No flesh, people in spiritual state.

    I know you won't respond me anymore. Because you know your believe/ideology/prophecy/unjust acts will be exposed here.

    dresses Kristen Stewart and Robert kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen
  • Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen

  • nojoke
    04-14 11:57 AM
    Most of the posts here are not relevant to the original topic of the thread � buying a home when 485 is pending.

    You basically buy a home not to sell it off, but to live in it. Circumstances may lead one to sell a home, but no one can predict if that will happen for sure or when it may happen.

    For selling a home � just like stocks � it does not matter if the real estate market is doing well today or not. It only matters how the seller market is when it is time to sell. And again, no one can predict that in advance. Given this simple logic, it is totally useless to speculate resale values of homes which you may never even sell!

    I see people are so obsessed about resale value that they almost have never gone out to see homes, look at floor plans and see what they want, what the other family members want in a home or any of that. They instead prefer to calculate resale value based on current market conditions.

    Stop seeing a home as an investment and start seeing it as a place where you will live and where your kids will grow up. Obsessing too much about the monetary aspects just takes all the fun away.

    No body can predict how much it is going down exactly. But you can predict it is going down considerably.
    No body can predict what the dollar value is going to be. So just spend all the money in the bank and enjoy your life while you can. No body can predict death for that matter. :confused: Just eat all you can and don't worry about your health. You need to have fun in life after all. Now what is wrong with my logic?
    My point is that the house price is out of whack with income. I don't see the logic in why it would not go down. The whole mess is started because people started looking at houses as investment. Buying now and seeing the housing value drop won't be fun.
    Whether you sell your house or not, it matters when you buy. You don't buy at the top of the bubble.


    makeup Robert Pattinson, the New Moon kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. scaled 560x420 Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen Stewart Win MTV Movie Award
  • scaled 560x420 Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen Stewart Win MTV Movie Award

  • NKR
    12-24 10:58 AM
    but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality�

    Thought I will stay out of this debate, but I couldn�t especially when innocents are getting killed�

    In India, Muslims have their own justice system according to their beliefs. Government sponsors Haj pilgrimage to poor muslims. We treat Taj Mahal as our symbol of love, fair enough.

    Abdul Kalam was the president of India, he is widely respected and all his lectures go full house even now.

    According to forbes, Wipro�s CEO Azim Premji was rated the richest person in the country from 1999 to 2005. He is the richest Muslim enterpreneur of the world. Many Hindus are working in Wipro and are proud of it.

    The three Khans in Bollywood are adored in India, Amir Khan�s Lagaan was India�s official entry for Oscars and now his �Taare Zameen Par� is this year�s official entry. We all will be happy if it wins.

    Azharuddin was the captain of Indian cricket team, though he was associated with match fixing and selling his country�s pride in cricket, he still roams scotfree.

    So where is the lack of justice and equality?. All the above chose to use the system wisely and prospered. They did not chose to lag behind and then rebel against the system.

    Now, If you think whoever is sponsoring terrorism are doing it in Islam�s favor, you are dead wrong, they are doing it so that they can lead a lavish life in their fortified mansions, they continue to sponsor terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and what not�all at the expense of poor brainwashed people who are mere cannon fodders.

    A poor person from Pakistan comes all over to Mumbai to carry terrorist activities and I do no understand how you can say that he is rebelling against lack of justice and equality in India. For one there is no lack of equality as mentioned above, second, who gave them authorization even if you all think there was one. That is our internal problem for crying out loud.

    Even after showing proof that the captured terrorist was from Pakistan, they are back to their old lying game telling that the person�s name is not in their official records. What next, will they give that person�s dad to India to carry out DNA test?.. hell no, they will ask for DNA sample from India and say it did not match. Seems like the trait of lying and misleading the world is in their DNA.

    girlfriend So, what was Rob#39;s pick? kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. New Moon
  • New Moon

  • ganguteli
    03-24 02:32 PM
    I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.

    - Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?

    - If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.

    - Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?

    - If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?

    - Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?

    - Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.

    - Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.

    The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .

    hairstyles Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen kristen stewart and robert pattinson kissing in new moon. Kristen Stewart won for Best
  • Kristen Stewart won for Best

  • GCScrewed
    07-13 06:34 PM
    Needless to say that the distincation between EB2 and EB3 has become so meaniningless now. How many positions really satisfy the EB2 requirements? From what I heard that most people just try to get around the system to get an EB2. One of the persons who filed EB2 told me that a high school graduate would probably be able to work in that position too.

    Just my observation.

    If you believe this to be the case. ie that a high school graduate should be able to do that job. Then that person should not get a green card for that job.

    People, please think before you post and write letters. It is important to be rational and not put your foot in your mouth.

    This is EB immigration and it is hierarchial. That is quite simply a fact not an opinion. The sooner people understand that, the better, and then everyone can channel their frustrations into broader fixes. Unless that can be done we will see these less than well planned, less than well coordinated, fitful efforts, and an internecine warfare that will make us a laughing stock and undermine the heroic efforts of IV core.[/QUOTE]

    I am just stating the fact. The position was not my position. So I can't speak too much about it. But that was the person who worked there told me. The most important point is that a lot of EB2s do not deserve it at all. This is especially true for smaller companies including those body shops, where a lot of wiggle room exist on how you describe the job requirements. In large companies, they tend to have more strigent requirments on what category to file. A lot of people filed under EB3 before the retrogression starting in late 2004 and 2005 because they did not pay too much attention on this issue (that's their bad - lessons learned).

    Although I don't see the data yet, I bet if you compare the proportion of EB2 applicants (or EB3 applicants), you will see a great difference before and after late 2004. Why? Because that's when the EB3 retrogression started and people began to move onto EB2. Are there so much more EB2 positions after 2004 than before? I doubt.

    I think that's what really make people upset, esp. those got stuck in every stage, from BEC, I140, from name check and 485. All these simply because they changes something without considering those in line already.

    12-24 02:19 PM
    I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!

    Excellent article!

    01-09 01:34 PM
    The discussion tuned nasty! Admin got involved.

    why are you digging it up?

    Its good we talk healthy now!