Mike Tyson Tattoos

You, being an Indian by nationality, hate India so much and I can only imagine what a Pakistani terrorist would think! You were born in India, got your education from there, have friends and family there, but still, in a heart beat, side with the terrorists that kill innocent Indians.

I've heard this numerous times and I now know it for a fact - Muslims love their religion more than the country. It is, now even more clear, who MOST Indian muslims will side with in case of a dispute between India and Pakistan.

How old is the technique of discrediting my links to win the argument. Of course, if I tell you of all the atrocities of Indian army in Kashmir, or punjab, or assam, to you I am a muslim, and my default I hate India. Of course, it wouldn't matter if good old amnesty internationl would raise a red flag against india...
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves

wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...

... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm

... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!

You MUST read them out loud

1) That's not right ................................... Sum Ting Wong
2) Are you harboring a fugitive?................. Hu Yu Hai Ding
3) See me ASAP....................................... Kum Hia Nao
4) Small Horse ........................................ Tai Ni Po Ni
5) Did you go to the beach? ...................... Wai Yu So Tan
6) I think you need a face lift .................... Chin Tu Fat
7) It's very dark in here ............................Wai So Dim
8) I thought you were on a diet ..................Wai Yu Mun Ching?
9) This is a tow away zone .........................No Pah King
10) Our meeting is scheduled for next week ..Wai Yu Kum Nao?
11) Staying out of sight ..............................Lei Ying Lo
12) He's cleaning his automobile ..................Wa Shing Ka
13) Your body odor is offensive ....................Yu Stin Ki Pu

:D

In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times

Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?

And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?

Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.

But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.

�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.

That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�

Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�

Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.

�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�

Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�

There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.

�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.

Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.

Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.

Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.

The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.

�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.

Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.

�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.

Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.

�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�

Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.

In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.

But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.

After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.

Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.

For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.

But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.

And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.

�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�

lol...you are right..

but dont know... I am going by hunch..I hope not to regret..:)

Sometimes you listen to your heart and take a decision
Sometimes you listen to your brain and take a decision.

I believe this situation should warrant you to listen to your brain and hire a good attorney.
Dont go by your hunch (or heart). Again a friendly advice because there is just too much at stake.

Good luck no matter what you decide.

Sorry but no matter how you spin it, owning a home is better than renting. Renting is not smart. period. your money is gone every month. You are not getting that money back.

When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.

30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.

It's not rocket science, just common sense. In case you are aware, lot of people on this forum don't have gc in hand. What will they do if they decide to leave due to gc taking too long to come through. Ask they bank to give back the money they spend on stupid interest for 10 years for a house upside down ?

Common sense is to rent until you are sure you're staying for good.

Listen to this, The US attacked Iraq and that accomplished exactly what the terrorists want. Terrorists want to see chaos and disruption. I believe the US is losing the war on terror and the results from the failed Iraq invasion can get worse, since that may have generated one dozen Jihad style attackers to be unveiled in 5-20 years from now.

India should not attack Pak and spend tons of money like the US did. Instead, invest all that money in secret services and let them penetrate the enemy line. Let the secret service perform a detailed investigation of sources, then apply snipers or other ways to take perpetrators down.

The last thing we need now with this dreadful economy is another war. Palestinians are already starting the whole fire again. We do not need one more war.

Wrong. First iraq war is not war against terrorist.
Second, pakistan already is doing Jihad against India. They don't need a reason to start a Jihad. Their obsession to destroy India is so much poisoned in their blood and they really don't need a reason for the Jihad.
Third- It is easy only in movies to use snipers to take down these men. Plus there are thousands and it is virtually impossible.
I agree that war is a tough choice and probably our politicians use the drum beat to get votes. And probably there won't be a war. But some of the rationalizations give here in this forum is funny.

Please find out the visa numbers allotment for EB1, EB2 and EB3 till now. Till now there is about 100k visa numbers allotment for EB3 alomost every year due to the vertical fallout. From now on there would be around 100K allotment in EB2 due to the change to Horizontal Fall out of visa numbers. Out of these 100k EB2 visa numbers, India will get greatest share of around 50k + visas. Please see the below.


Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007


Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176

First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697

Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162

Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030

Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481

Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806

See the link below for reference:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...7/table06d.xls

Ah!! I see.....I do have the same i94 number on both the I-94s


desi is correct...



Everytime you extend non immigrant status; you are extending the white I-94 card on your last entry.

However; if you leave after the last extension and you re-enter then the white I-94 card you receive at the border overrides all previous white I-94 cards; extension of stays.

This is where the problem occurs:

H-1b for company A visa is valid until July 2009 and the h-1b approval for a is also valid until july 2009. You come into USA on white I-94 card and they gave validity until July 2009.

Now; you file for change of employer and extend status until July 2010. The notice of action will have the same I-94 number as the date of your last entry.

Now; you go outside USA; on your way back in the port of entry officer mistakenly gives you a white I-94 card only valid until your visa expires (july 2009). Now; if you overstay July 2009 then you would have been considered to be unlawfully present from July 2009.

Bottom line: your last action generally overrules your stay.

Again - want to continue a healthy debate, but as per the law, EB2 is more skilled than an EB3 and therefore gets precedence regardless of the date. If we split up the spill over 75/25 between EB2 and EB3 then what answer do we have to the more skilled EB2 candidate who did not get a visa number because a less skilled EB3 took the number based on an arbitrary split up (75/25) and because the EB3 has an earlier PD. Does it meet the meritocracy test which is the intent of the law.

I may sound plain and harsh but thats the categorization as per existing law not my personal opinion.

Split up of 75-25 definitely covers interest of both parties. I don't think an EB2 with PD 2007 will have grudge over an EB3 PD 2002 getting his/her GC before. As a matter of fact, as you said, looking through the eyes of governance, I don't think it is illogical. EB3 has lower preference as compared to EB2 but not zero preference! So, an EB3 2002 getting his GC before EB2 2007 is not insane, again, per my belief. You cannot say 100-0 is justice - come on!

Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.

I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...

1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.

Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.

2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.

If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.


Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.


No, I will not waste time on giving you a red, looks like you are someone who wants to stoke more fire. Your new PD with only this post shows your true colors (red or green or whatever you call it)

Why does China block foreign websites? (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/malcolmmoore/100070017/why-does-china-block-foreign-websites/) By Malcolm Moore | Daily Telegraph

Skype has joined the ever-growing list of internet companies that are now unwelcome in China.

Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Foursquare, Vimeo, Blogger, Blogspot, Wikileaks and Hulu are some of the others.

In the West, the automatic assumption is that China is scared of greater internet freedom. If it relaxes its grip on YouTube, for example, Chinese internet users might suddenly all start looking at videos of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Actually, while China does ban some of the websites because of the information they contain (Amnesty, Wikileaks), the ban on the others is nothing more than plain old protectionism.

China is keeping YouTube out because it has its own domestic video sites � Tudou and Youku � and it wants them to grow and prosper. Youku just made its debut on the New York Stock Exchange and is now worth around $5 billion.

Google�s departure has hugely benefited Baidu and now Alibaba, which has pushed the US giant into third place in the Chinese market.

Likewise for Facebook. China doesn�t mind social networking. Its domestic Facebook clones, Renren and Kaixin001, boast 100 million users between them.

Sina Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, is seeing its user numbers rise by 50 per cent every week. From last year to this year the number of Chinese microbloggers rose from 8 million to 125 million.

Chinese microbloggers have scored some notable successes against the government this year, helping to highlight and, in some cases correct, a series of injustices.

Of course, the Communist party also finds it easier to control (and censor) domestic web companies than foreign firms, so keeping out the likes of Twitter makes the strategy a double-win.

Today�s revelation that Skype is now illegal is a continuation of the trend. In this case, the government is clearly supporting the home-grown services offered by its state-owned companies, China Telecom and China Unicom.

These are more expensive than Skype, require both a hefty monthly fee and then higher call charges, and would probably flounder (as they have to date) without the government�s help.

Stamping out foreign competition is nothing new. All countries do it. But China is quickly becoming the most aggressive and protectionist country out there.

Perhaps after a few years the government will be pressured to let these foreign internet companies back in � Facebook already seems to be negotiating a return � but by then, they will have been firmly left in the dust by their Chinese rivals.

Day after day it seems light for faith in the system seems to be fading away.
Its frustrating to see a statement from DOS that USCIS projections were not accurate. Are you kidding?. What they have been doing for so long?. I was also disheartened by Murthy's (murthy.com) update sympathising with USCIS. Thats non-sense.

USCIS/DOS its time for change. How many visa numbers wasted this year?. Is the information open, why is it not transperent?. FBI name check is no longer mandatory for GC approval?. then whats happening?. Is it worth the wait for a PhD to wait for 10 years in limbo?. There are several questions that are going unanswered.

When will DOS/USCIS get the CHANGE slogan from OBAMA?. Is Durbin going to be eclipsing this?. He may have lot of push, but I hope OBAMA will not heed to it. Afterall, everyone is free to express their opinions.

the mumbai incident was a terrible one. the guilty must be punished to the fullest extent, be it people from any background doing it in the name of religion.

In the same way the people in this forum should have been angry/troubled over the killings in orissa where innocent christians were beaten, raped, killed, burned alive, home destroyed and chased from the homes to the jungles just because of their faith. this sort of crimes against christians is taking place throughout many parts of India. I am sure this will not go unpunished on the people who did/do these terrible things. the punishment may be delayed, but I am 100% sure it's going to be devastating on the people. mark my words. 'Coz I believe there is a God above, who watches and at the appointed time the punishment will come.

But the bible also says that God is forgiving. The Bible says the following:
"If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John; chap 1 verse 9)

Also it says in the book of John (chapter 3 verse 16):
"For God so loved the world (mankind) that he gave his son Jesus Christ to die as a sacrifice (for the sins of mankind), that whoever believes in Him (and repent), shall not perish but have eternal life".

I agree with you in principle..
but then again several thread of same sort have been running for weeks with mostly flaming content while being blessed by admins and senior members.. what makes one conflict employment related and another not much so?

If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.

But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?

Good post,
You post is a testimony that not all hope is lost with Islam. There are still people like yourselves who can think objectively or at least open to one.
And this is the reason why I am not against Islam as this would also mean that I am raising my fingers on the guys like urself.


Dude, if ss1026 is not on this forum, then is the absence of ss1026 a testimony to the fact that all hopes are lost with islam? I dont buy this line of thinking. we are better than that!

Wish I could think so quickly.

A man boarded a plane with 6 kids. After they got settled in their seats a woman sitting across the aisle from him leaned over to him and asked,

'Are all of those kids yours?'

He replied, 'No. I work for a condom company. These are customer complaints.'

I was schocked to find out on Sep 22 that my I-485 has been denied. My wife is on AP and can't enter U.S now withot her H4.

Sorry to know your troubles. I am curious about the reason for 485 rejection and how you are going about it (is it because of using AC21 and I140 revocation by previous employer?) - there is an effort to deal with I-485 rejections without NOID - there is a separate thread on that with conf call today. Please join the call and give your details. Thanks.

With Israel on the offensive and so many jihadis getting whacked - don't you think that there'll be a serious shortage of virgins in jihadi heaven :D

they dont need virgins man....:p

for those who were eligible to file in EB2, its even more painful...

There are just too many cases in the Eb3 pipeline, unless USCIS/govt. does something about it..

be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.


It is very true..and it is fact...why is that all terrorists are muslims...something is wrong ...muslims need to come forward....

I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.

That case had a lot more things in it.

1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location


Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.

Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.

So when they started picking on these other things, do you know what eventually ended up happening - denial/approval?

I tried looking on immigration.com, a lot of hits came up when i searched for "baltimore AC21" but none of them were this particular case.

Aren't there many consulting scenarios where the labor is filed in a certain state but the employee (although worked for the same employer) worked in another location on H-1B (with due LCA amendments of course). Is that not acceptable from a GC perspective?

sorry, I don't mean to drag this topic on forever.

thanks,