maverick_joe
02-12 02:24 PM
I've been trying to find out the same info for a while now. Has anyone been successful trying to make use of cross chargeability? I had read sometime back that when you file for ur 485 you could provide a covering letter to say "Please consider Cross Chargeability", but isnt there a better way of doing it?
Jonty,
But the question is how do we change it when I-485 has already been applied. Is there a form for it? Or just a letter with what details attached?
Regards,
Anurag
Jonty,
But the question is how do we change it when I-485 has already been applied. Is there a form for it? Or just a letter with what details attached?
Regards,
Anurag
wallpaper Children of Bodom
mps
04-26 11:02 PM
Normally there should be a LUD on 485 after FP is done (same day/next)..
Gurus:
I don't see any LUD after my FP in November. My RD for 485 is July 02 1007.
However there was LUD on my approved I-40 in December 2007 (140 was approved in September 2006).
What could it mean possibly?
Reagrds,
Gurus:
I don't see any LUD after my FP in November. My RD for 485 is July 02 1007.
However there was LUD on my approved I-40 in December 2007 (140 was approved in September 2006).
What could it mean possibly?
Reagrds,
GSingh
07-13 10:44 AM
Its a good idea but make sure you guyz are comfortable. It must be hot out there.
2011 children of odom wallpaper.
BharatPremi
07-11 11:18 PM
Thanks to the person who posted the link to the Ombundsman report earlier - this is beginning to make sense now.
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
"For example, when employment-based visas are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not available for future use without special legislation. In FY 06, over 10,000 employment-based visas were lost, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards.36 - Based on USCIS use of visa numbers as of May 2007, at present consumption rates approximately 40,000 visas will be lost in FY 07 without a dramatic increase in USCIS requests of visa numbers.37
- As illustrated below, since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
Dept of State: Sees visa numbers not being used, chances of visas going unutilized/unused/wasted/lost again this year. Makes July visa bulletin CURRENT for all countries & categories.
USCIS: Scrambles to approve as many visas as possible to 1) Prove they're working hard, in light of the Ombundsman Report from June 2) Save themselves from the avalanche of I-485s, EADs and AP filings in June, knowing 3) Filing fees go up like crazy on 30th July.
End Result: More visa numbers requested (but they didn't complete issuing all of them, even over the weekend).
As things stand, if they approved stuff on 1st July, it means visa numbers were in fact available on 1st July.
If they approved without completing FBI check - that's going to raise a stink and isn't entirely legal anyways.
If they *still had visa numbers available on July 2* - request from DoS but not approved, they're in bigger trouble, imho.
Anybody thinks the above makes sense?
jazz
When you were Jazzing, everybody already spent time to know this...a month ago.. Anyway welcome to the party... "Der se aye Durast Aye... welcome :) :)
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
"For example, when employment-based visas are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not available for future use without special legislation. In FY 06, over 10,000 employment-based visas were lost, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards.36 - Based on USCIS use of visa numbers as of May 2007, at present consumption rates approximately 40,000 visas will be lost in FY 07 without a dramatic increase in USCIS requests of visa numbers.37
- As illustrated below, since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
Dept of State: Sees visa numbers not being used, chances of visas going unutilized/unused/wasted/lost again this year. Makes July visa bulletin CURRENT for all countries & categories.
USCIS: Scrambles to approve as many visas as possible to 1) Prove they're working hard, in light of the Ombundsman Report from June 2) Save themselves from the avalanche of I-485s, EADs and AP filings in June, knowing 3) Filing fees go up like crazy on 30th July.
End Result: More visa numbers requested (but they didn't complete issuing all of them, even over the weekend).
As things stand, if they approved stuff on 1st July, it means visa numbers were in fact available on 1st July.
If they approved without completing FBI check - that's going to raise a stink and isn't entirely legal anyways.
If they *still had visa numbers available on July 2* - request from DoS but not approved, they're in bigger trouble, imho.
Anybody thinks the above makes sense?
jazz
When you were Jazzing, everybody already spent time to know this...a month ago.. Anyway welcome to the party... "Der se aye Durast Aye... welcome :) :)
more...
WaitingYaar
10-02 08:17 AM
This is how PD and RD work.
ASSUME ALL ARE EB3
Mr. A PD JULY 2004 RD MARCH 2005(1)
Mr B PD FEB 2004 RD DECEMBER 2005 (2)
MR C PD JAN 2003 RD JANAURY 2006 (3)
USCIS Processes applications based on RD. After they are processed they are in the "staging area" (pre-adjudicated)
IF ALL visa bulletin DATES ARE "CURRENT" MR A would get GC first
If visa bulletin date has a PD of "May 2003" Mr. C would get GC first
If visa bulletin date has a PD of "MAY 2004 "MR B would get GC first
If visa bulletin date is August 2004 "Mr A would get GC first"
In a summary, when PD is current, people with the earliest RD would get GC first. Your PD HAS to be CURRENT to be eligible for a visa number.
What about if PD is current, and your RD is outside their normal processing time. If you do not see any LUD change, what does this mean?
ASSUME ALL ARE EB3
Mr. A PD JULY 2004 RD MARCH 2005(1)
Mr B PD FEB 2004 RD DECEMBER 2005 (2)
MR C PD JAN 2003 RD JANAURY 2006 (3)
USCIS Processes applications based on RD. After they are processed they are in the "staging area" (pre-adjudicated)
IF ALL visa bulletin DATES ARE "CURRENT" MR A would get GC first
If visa bulletin date has a PD of "May 2003" Mr. C would get GC first
If visa bulletin date has a PD of "MAY 2004 "MR B would get GC first
If visa bulletin date is August 2004 "Mr A would get GC first"
In a summary, when PD is current, people with the earliest RD would get GC first. Your PD HAS to be CURRENT to be eligible for a visa number.
What about if PD is current, and your RD is outside their normal processing time. If you do not see any LUD change, what does this mean?
mpadapa
03-24 01:31 PM
Excellent Job, Mark.
U'r response was crisp. Thanks to caller Andy for clarifying few things
U'r response was crisp. Thanks to caller Andy for clarifying few things
more...
DallasBlue
07-15 12:01 AM
Conference call for the TX state chapter every first and third sunday at 3pm cst of the month.
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge:
Thanks
Dial-In #: 1-218-486-1300
Bridge:
Thanks
2010 children of odom wallpaper. Music - Heavy Metal Wallpaper
boogie2007
04-15 07:46 PM
can we change from regular 485 processing to consular processing may be this is fast i dont know but is it a good idea for those who are stuck in name check ? its finally 180 days past from name check, but whenever i contact IO now they say a new release came out from USCIS & FBI which mentions name check for >180 days will be done by Feb2009 , who knows by that time priority date will be current ? and if priority date is current then no guarantee if job is current.................. ?:confused:
more...
gc_check
01-19 09:06 PM
Every other year, there is election and only this damn. election drives what is done and what is not done in congress year after year. The good old time, bills are passed that are important and good for the general people and this some times was not popular, but now only the issues popular are are being taken and rather than voting on what is good, the law makers tend to go with what people like, and people's likes and dislikes keep changing and the same change work against them sometimes. Also people on one area does not like what is liked in other area and when we have a product that contains both, well the same people now unite and start to not like the final product and this goes on ..... It is same CHANGE that President Obama mentions too often, but the same change is Now liked by Republicans, and Dems did not like the change this time around. Also with the communication revolutions, the election campaign seems to have become much much long.... And Oh !! Well... now our President apart from Health Care Reform, Immigration Reform and climate change issue, also need to work on his re-election from now on, if he doesn't want the change he loves some much, in White House in 2012 election... HOPE - at least people in this group, see CHANGE for better, CHANGE from AOS to LPR .... Now, let us see what will this loss of filibuster majority by Dems do in the interim.... Only time can tell. Change we can believe in !!!
hair Children of Bodom; children of odom wallpaper. Tags: children of odom
kumargn
11-24 05:23 PM
you can use any of the consulates in india.
but usually dates opens up if any cancellation. check vfs site often. nowadays it is easier to get appt than it used to be.
disclaimer: I'm not an immigration attroney, so consult one for your situations as laws/procedures are changing often.
Thanks arnet ,
As you mentioned i kept checking the chennai consulate, and it opened up like a blessing in disguise, with slots again and i was able to get my dates .Only problem was it forced me to cancel my earlier appointment and redo all the application again .That was because i had booked an appointment with Mumbai consulate in distress of not finding any with chennai .
but usually dates opens up if any cancellation. check vfs site often. nowadays it is easier to get appt than it used to be.
disclaimer: I'm not an immigration attroney, so consult one for your situations as laws/procedures are changing often.
Thanks arnet ,
As you mentioned i kept checking the chennai consulate, and it opened up like a blessing in disguise, with slots again and i was able to get my dates .Only problem was it forced me to cancel my earlier appointment and redo all the application again .That was because i had booked an appointment with Mumbai consulate in distress of not finding any with chennai .
more...
Suvendra
01-11 01:53 PM
I am on EAD and using AC21 working for new employer.
hot children of odom wallpapers
gk_2000
01-26 09:41 PM
Can he add an amendment to divide spillover equally between EB2 and EB3 India. This will help a lot.
Seeing the number of reds of this kind of views, I feel IV should split into two camps, red and green. Then I will also start expressing these views and embrace red....
Seeing the number of reds of this kind of views, I feel IV should split into two camps, red and green. Then I will also start expressing these views and embrace red....
more...
house children of odom wallpaper.
ibbu_arif
11-17 03:03 PM
Thanks for your replies.
Yes, I understood AP approvals cannot be posted to Outside US. You have to be physically present in US while it gets approved.
But one thing is NOT clear from the "rsdang's" statement "Caution - Please talk to lawyer as there is some stuff around abandoning your petition is you go out of country before approval... "..
"Are you referring to AP extension petition or the Original GC petition?"
Any other opinions from other Gurus of the forum?
I checked with my attorney and he confirmed that there shouldn't be any issue with the AOS petition. But he didn't confirm what will happen to my AP extension petition. I am still waiting for his response.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/HandLFinalRule110107.pdf
Looking at this PDF doc, there doesn't seem to be requirement that you need to have the AP to travel as long as you have valid H1B stamping.
Yes, I understood AP approvals cannot be posted to Outside US. You have to be physically present in US while it gets approved.
But one thing is NOT clear from the "rsdang's" statement "Caution - Please talk to lawyer as there is some stuff around abandoning your petition is you go out of country before approval... "..
"Are you referring to AP extension petition or the Original GC petition?"
Any other opinions from other Gurus of the forum?
I checked with my attorney and he confirmed that there shouldn't be any issue with the AOS petition. But he didn't confirm what will happen to my AP extension petition. I am still waiting for his response.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/HandLFinalRule110107.pdf
Looking at this PDF doc, there doesn't seem to be requirement that you need to have the AP to travel as long as you have valid H1B stamping.
tattoo Children-Of-Bodom-76-1
ch102
04-04 03:09 PM
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
more...
pictures #3 Children of Bodom - quot;Royquot;
jonty_11
01-16 04:43 PM
Yes , I am planning to take the test too......
dresses children of odom wallpaper.
FinalGC
05-10 02:49 PM
ICICI cheats you on the conversion rate. Try simply money gram from walmart
more...
makeup Children of Bodom wallpaper (9
chanduv23
04-13 11:08 AM
Also, one should know we are not getting help from our group, I know many guys who are effected by GCs in my office in my neighbourhood, I can't even get them to make one call to senator office,
how do you expect some other organization to help us, when we can't help ourselves
People make fun of me and call me "Immigration specialist" when I take up this issue with them. No one understands the complexity of the situation and no one wants to talk about it. But I am sure many actually monitor these sites for some news they want to hear and pretend to be silent.
No one wants to contribute for a good cause but want to reap benefits when others work hard for it
how do you expect some other organization to help us, when we can't help ourselves
People make fun of me and call me "Immigration specialist" when I take up this issue with them. No one understands the complexity of the situation and no one wants to talk about it. But I am sure many actually monitor these sites for some news they want to hear and pretend to be silent.
No one wants to contribute for a good cause but want to reap benefits when others work hard for it
girlfriend Children-Of-Bodom-76-9
jonty_11
06-18 01:22 PM
you are lucky if u get one....!!! Dont have ur cake and eat it too!!!
Justkidding!
Justkidding!
hairstyles children of odom wallpaper.
GCwaitforever
08-15 11:39 AM
08/15/2006: Multiple I-140 Petitions: Uniform Policy in Negative Fashion?
* We reported on August 3, 2006 USCIS lack of uniform policy on multiple petitions on a single EB-2 labor certification application. It appears that the disease has spread to the TSC adopting a similar negative policy of denying EB-3 petition when EB-2 and EB-3 petitions are filed concurrently using single certified EB-2 labor certification application on the ground that "original" of the certified application was not available for the EB-3 I-140 petition since the original had to accompany the EB-2 I-140 petition. Obviously this is a deviation from the traditional INS/USCIS policy in a negative way and we hope that the USCIS leaders are not turning around from the liberal policies under Yates-Divine era to the narrow-restrictive policies.
This should be a solution to the problem. Submit the approved EB-3 I-140 petition with EB-2 I-140 petition.
"The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition."
* We reported on August 3, 2006 USCIS lack of uniform policy on multiple petitions on a single EB-2 labor certification application. It appears that the disease has spread to the TSC adopting a similar negative policy of denying EB-3 petition when EB-2 and EB-3 petitions are filed concurrently using single certified EB-2 labor certification application on the ground that "original" of the certified application was not available for the EB-3 I-140 petition since the original had to accompany the EB-2 I-140 petition. Obviously this is a deviation from the traditional INS/USCIS policy in a negative way and we hope that the USCIS leaders are not turning around from the liberal policies under Yates-Divine era to the narrow-restrictive policies.
This should be a solution to the problem. Submit the approved EB-3 I-140 petition with EB-2 I-140 petition.
"The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition."
john2255
07-21 08:31 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
blacktongue
01-26 01:07 PM
I don't dislike people from Andhra. I have close friends from Hyderabad.
I dislike irrelevant discussions that are motivated by race, region, or people of a certain kind. We don't need that here. It feels like housewives gossiping about useless topics.
You do not like housewives?
I dislike irrelevant discussions that are motivated by race, region, or people of a certain kind. We don't need that here. It feels like housewives gossiping about useless topics.
You do not like housewives?
No comments:
Post a Comment