factoryman
03-15 11:30 AM
through whom I filed my first year taxes in US, that you don't need to declare if your mail-in rebates, apartment referals don't cross USD 1600. I haven't read anything that this has changed.
Note: Once I got USD 400 for an apartment referal and I split it 50/50 with the friend.
I hope someone out there in a similar situation can help me out.
I have given my real estate agent several referrals and for each I receive a cash amount. I'm on an H1B visa, am I able to receive income from someone other than my employer?
I've searched the web and have been able to find out that this should be reported as taxable income, I'm just not sure if I can receive it due to my immigration status.
Any comments or tips are welcome.
Note: Once I got USD 400 for an apartment referal and I split it 50/50 with the friend.
I hope someone out there in a similar situation can help me out.
I have given my real estate agent several referrals and for each I receive a cash amount. I'm on an H1B visa, am I able to receive income from someone other than my employer?
I've searched the web and have been able to find out that this should be reported as taxable income, I'm just not sure if I can receive it due to my immigration status.
Any comments or tips are welcome.
wallpaper tiger woods new girlfriend
ruchigup
08-06 12:38 PM
Many Congratulations !!!
txh1b
08-20 04:35 PM
The whole concept of democracy is taxation with representation.
Democracy gives votes for the citizens. You aren't even close to being one to even speak up. You are still an Alien. If you don't like it, feel free to be a citizen of the country that you are from.
Just because you pay tax, no one is answerable from the government to you, forget an apology. Taxation has got nothing to do with your right to vote. Right to vote is what is important in a democracy so that if the majority of the people don't like what is happening, they can make the change happen by their vote when the time comes.
Apology from USCIS???? For what? USCIS is just an agency. They do not even make the laws. They just process the applications as per the law.
Democracy gives votes for the citizens. You aren't even close to being one to even speak up. You are still an Alien. If you don't like it, feel free to be a citizen of the country that you are from.
Just because you pay tax, no one is answerable from the government to you, forget an apology. Taxation has got nothing to do with your right to vote. Right to vote is what is important in a democracy so that if the majority of the people don't like what is happening, they can make the change happen by their vote when the time comes.
Apology from USCIS???? For what? USCIS is just an agency. They do not even make the laws. They just process the applications as per the law.
2011 Tiger Woods new girlfriend has
kak1978
06-05 10:50 PM
I saw the same status message yesterday. But it was delivered today morning at 5:40 am!, Weird!!
I dont know if other Folks have seen the same thing. My renewal EAD application has reached Texas (TSC) today June 5th around noon by USPS Express Mail but the status says
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item at 11:16 AM on June 5, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. A second delivery attempt will be made. If unsuccessful, we will hold it for five business days and then it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later.
The address where i sent is
USCIS
Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
Any clue what may be going on - this is another round of fun :confused:
I dont know if other Folks have seen the same thing. My renewal EAD application has reached Texas (TSC) today June 5th around noon by USPS Express Mail but the status says
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item at 11:16 AM on June 5, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. A second delivery attempt will be made. If unsuccessful, we will hold it for five business days and then it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later.
The address where i sent is
USCIS
Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
Any clue what may be going on - this is another round of fun :confused:
more...
gc_kaavaali
05-21 02:22 PM
Below are the contents from that pdf document....does it means they will issue interim EAD after 90days??????.
Interim Employment Authorization Document
USCIS is required to adjudicate a pending Form I-765 within 90 days from the date of receipt. 8 CFR 274a.13(d). Failure to complete the adjudication within this time frame requires the Service to grant an employment authorization document for a period not to exceed 240 days. The following steps are being initiated to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the need for USCIS to issue an interim EAD.
Field Offices
Local Offices will no longer accept and adjudicate Form I-765 for an Interim EAD. The Service Centers or NBC will be responsible for adjudicating the pending I-765 and issuing interim or non-interim documentation. Upon receipt of Form I-765 requesting an interim EAD, local field offices are required to perform the following tasks.
� CLAIMS Verification
o Underlying application remains pending
o Determine if RFE has been issued, thus tolling
the 90-day adjudicative requirement o Form I-765 remains
unadjudicated
o Biometrics have been captured�if not, refer to ASC
� Contact NBC or Service Center to initiate EAD production�either Interim
or Non-Interim
� Provide Notice to applicant acknowledging status inquiry.
Check this memo: Elimination of Form I-688B (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ElimI688B_081806R.pdf)
Interim Employment Authorization Document
USCIS is required to adjudicate a pending Form I-765 within 90 days from the date of receipt. 8 CFR 274a.13(d). Failure to complete the adjudication within this time frame requires the Service to grant an employment authorization document for a period not to exceed 240 days. The following steps are being initiated to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the need for USCIS to issue an interim EAD.
Field Offices
Local Offices will no longer accept and adjudicate Form I-765 for an Interim EAD. The Service Centers or NBC will be responsible for adjudicating the pending I-765 and issuing interim or non-interim documentation. Upon receipt of Form I-765 requesting an interim EAD, local field offices are required to perform the following tasks.
� CLAIMS Verification
o Underlying application remains pending
o Determine if RFE has been issued, thus tolling
the 90-day adjudicative requirement o Form I-765 remains
unadjudicated
o Biometrics have been captured�if not, refer to ASC
� Contact NBC or Service Center to initiate EAD production�either Interim
or Non-Interim
� Provide Notice to applicant acknowledging status inquiry.
Check this memo: Elimination of Form I-688B (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ElimI688B_081806R.pdf)
vin13
04-09 02:48 PM
The employer has to make sure all their employees are legal. For that they may ask the employee to use EAD. they are not obligated to sponsor H1-B.
more...
felix31
02-12 05:41 PM
both H1 and H4 extension are filed together regularly.
However, the need now arises to upgrade both to premium processing.
Attorney claims I can only get H1 under premium and if processing center wants they will process H4 under premium as well.
But I cannot find this memo that speaks of premium processing being available for I-539 applications as well. It happened sometime last year.
Anyway, thanks for all replies. I'll keep digging....
However, the need now arises to upgrade both to premium processing.
Attorney claims I can only get H1 under premium and if processing center wants they will process H4 under premium as well.
But I cannot find this memo that speaks of premium processing being available for I-539 applications as well. It happened sometime last year.
Anyway, thanks for all replies. I'll keep digging....
2010 tiger woods new girlfriend
eb3retro
04-01 09:12 AM
Thanks all for your help and great inputs. IV has helped me a lot.
I wish you all the best ...
TKs, GG
Congrats greenguru. enjoy. i am still waiting to see one eb3 485 approval atleast and am yet to see one atleast for the past 2-3 years..even PD back to 2001. i didnt see a single approval in eb3 category for india.
I wish you all the best ...
TKs, GG
Congrats greenguru. enjoy. i am still waiting to see one eb3 485 approval atleast and am yet to see one atleast for the past 2-3 years..even PD back to 2001. i didnt see a single approval in eb3 category for india.
more...
gc_mania_03
10-01 11:14 AM
Add me in..
hair /images/2011/3/tiger-woods
jayz
07-02 11:59 PM
This is the only mode of silent protest. We need to act on it and everyone needs to send the same message...
"ALLTHE BEST FOR FUTURE EB VISA ESTIMATES"
Truly,
A victim of revised July 07 visa bulletin
"ALLTHE BEST FOR FUTURE EB VISA ESTIMATES"
Truly,
A victim of revised July 07 visa bulletin
more...
vin13
01-16 12:17 PM
The pay need not be exactly same. You can make more. There is no guide line. For example if you made 60K and now you have a job where you make 300K, then it would be hard to say it is the same kind of job.
Employees get yearly pay increase, or when they move they may make more. You need not have to say no if you get a pay increase. :)
Do not get me wrong, but you seem to have very basic questions. Send me your phone number on a private message and maybe i can clear some of your doubts.
Employees get yearly pay increase, or when they move they may make more. You need not have to say no if you get a pay increase. :)
Do not get me wrong, but you seem to have very basic questions. Send me your phone number on a private message and maybe i can clear some of your doubts.
hot U.S. golfer Tiger Woods reacts
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
house Mug Shot of Tiger Woods#39; New
rolrblade
07-26 09:37 AM
The Link is not working.
Actually I am going to apply EAD for future purpose. In near future i am not going to change my current employer. If i continue to work with same employer after getting EAD, Will i be on H1B or EAD status?
Sir;
What you have asked is for someone to explain the Bible to you since you only know who Jesus is :D
Anyways, I will be happy to educate you. Send me your phone no. (if you want) to rolrblade@hotmail.com and I will call you and answer your questions.
Actually I am going to apply EAD for future purpose. In near future i am not going to change my current employer. If i continue to work with same employer after getting EAD, Will i be on H1B or EAD status?
Sir;
What you have asked is for someone to explain the Bible to you since you only know who Jesus is :D
Anyways, I will be happy to educate you. Send me your phone no. (if you want) to rolrblade@hotmail.com and I will call you and answer your questions.
tattoo Tiger Woods may have just
coolvigo
07-02 11:08 PM
I am ready to that......
How can we do that...and when should we start it.....
Can someone lead it ?
How can we do that...and when should we start it.....
Can someone lead it ?
more...
pictures tiger woods new girlfriend
cris
08-30 10:00 AM
for gg_ny
this is extension of H1B based of aproved I140 .
if i understood correctly the application for H1 extension will became null and void if i travel outside of US .
this is very interesting. I was not aware about this .
Anyway, thank you for your valuable input
this is extension of H1B based of aproved I140 .
if i understood correctly the application for H1 extension will became null and void if i travel outside of US .
this is very interesting. I was not aware about this .
Anyway, thank you for your valuable input
dresses photo of tiger woods
moonrah
05-16 05:34 PM
called ...
more...
makeup woods+new+girlfriend+2011
vin13
01-06 03:19 PM
The officer retains one of the original AP the first time. The other one that is handed over to you is stamped. So next time, you show the one that is stamped to enter and you will not have to give them any more copies.
girlfriend tiger woods new girlfriend
partha_vus
06-15 10:31 PM
Hi Gurus,
I am filing 485 soon. But l have ported my priority date to latest I140. I am filing 485 based on the latest 140. My priority date is Jan 2001. I am filing my 485 will now, will uscis consider my priority date and process my case OR filing date which is june 20, 2007 and process accordingly. i.e some body filed on May 30, 2007 with PD Jun 2003 will consider for processing first? rather than my case?
thanks,
:confused:
I am filing 485 soon. But l have ported my priority date to latest I140. I am filing 485 based on the latest 140. My priority date is Jan 2001. I am filing my 485 will now, will uscis consider my priority date and process my case OR filing date which is june 20, 2007 and process accordingly. i.e some body filed on May 30, 2007 with PD Jun 2003 will consider for processing first? rather than my case?
thanks,
:confused:
hairstyles tiger woods new girlfriend
Prashanthi
12-03 03:40 PM
If you are 21, then you have aged out with reference to both your H-4 and I-485 petition. Unless you are protected by the child status protection act, which is unlikely if your parents visa number is not available.
Now the question is, what is you status in the United States, are you on an F-1?. If you are then you could perhaps come back on a fresh I-20 to rejoin your course. However, if you have been out of status for 6 months or more as per IRAIRA you will not be allowed back into the country for 10 years. You have to consider all these factors very carefully before you leave.
Now the question is, what is you status in the United States, are you on an F-1?. If you are then you could perhaps come back on a fresh I-20 to rejoin your course. However, if you have been out of status for 6 months or more as per IRAIRA you will not be allowed back into the country for 10 years. You have to consider all these factors very carefully before you leave.
xu1
08-08 09:58 PM
I guess he is trying to lift the sunken spirits of the IV members. But I feel that if SKIL goes through, we will be fine. It all depends on SKIL
Yep.. Cheer up however we can.
note to myself: obessesion with anything is no good. Don't check back at this site ten times every hour.
Yep.. Cheer up however we can.
note to myself: obessesion with anything is no good. Don't check back at this site ten times every hour.
meragcdedobhai
10-27 12:39 PM
to Motivated...
It seems like sheep when we are in touble to we are running helter skelter.
It seems like sheep when we are in touble to we are running helter skelter.
0 comments:
Post a Comment