text:
- Tim Colgan
- West Chester, PA
- United States
This conversation is closed.
Has religion outlived it's usefulness?
I'd like to start this conversation with a quote from Richard Dawkins:
"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"
The Guardian, October 11, 2001
So my question is - assuming religion ever did serve a useful function for humanity, is it perhaps time that we get beyond religion and develop other tools to provide for human needs?
NOTE: To people making comments - I encourage you to not only give a brief response to the main question but also try to respond to one or more of the other comments. Keeping it brief, respectful and perhaps phrased as a question will help generate a true conversation. Thanks. And come back and visit when you can.
Closing Statement from Tim Colgan
Many thanks to all those who contributed to this discussion. Upon starting this conversation I was concerned that ted wasn't the right place, fearing it would be dominated by a single mind-set. But the diversity of opinions expressed here is amazing. These threads represent a true mosaic of human opinion. Perhaps not a perfect sampling, but a fascinating cross-sample of personal beliefs. The conversations themselves reveal a bit about humanity - filled with sibling rivalries, with moments of compassion. Highly recommended to anyone to take the time to read.
Although it's probably obvious from the conversation's introduction that my intentions included an agenda, that agenda was soon blown out of the water. We had trouble coming to agreement on the definition of religion. Whether it's called religion or not, humans need institutions to provide it's function. To me religion is most symbolized by it's place - temple, mosque, synagogue, church... A place where people gather to share their humanity and ponder the infinite, and their place in it. Perhaps ted is one of those places.
Thanks again to all who contributed. It has been truly enlightening. That's to say, each of you has shone light into some aspect of our topic.
Comment deleted
Tim Colgan
Feb 21 2011: Agreed Birdia. Do you have any inputs on how to convince others to rely on rational thought vs dogma?
- +3
Comment deleted
nick james
Feb 28 2011: Hi Birdia, Im Nick from the UK, ive only just joined this site, and i certainly have not read all the letters on this subject, so please excuse if im repeating what some else has said. Im with Kathy K on this subject, but the point i wish to make is that to believe in God is not necessarily 'blind faith'. The universe was either created by chance [big bang] or it was'nt. To believe as i guess most atheists do that there was an explosion out of absolutely nothing, 'by chance' seems to me less logical than to believe in a creator. Perhaps us trying to understand God is like gold fish trying to understand how the fridge works [smile]
- +1
I think a lot of people treat God like a 'magician' who will put all their errors right, But i find if for example one prays for patience, 'life' will throw at you many chances to have exactly that.
Ultimately 'nothing' can be proved 100% , one cant even PROVE we exist !! [i believe we do] so i guess we all need to have a certain amount of faith.Feb 26 2011: @Tim: the trick about your question is the word "rely."
To rely on dogma when evaluating facts is a recipe for disaster. But relying on rationalism when trying to create meaning in one's life is fruitless.
I'd suggest rewording it:
"How do we convince others to rely on rational thought for discovering reliable facts?"
"How do we convince others to use the power of myth and storytelling to give their lives meaning without disregarding these tools just because they are not rational?"
daniel hehir
Feb 27 2011: Hi Jack. Tell me one thing Jack. I experienced once a person that was what I called "clairvoyant" and that person told me things about my past and my future that they had absolutely no possibility of knowing. I repeat... absolutely no "physical" possibility of knowing certain things about me and my life. I had never met this person before... never seen this person before... and none of my friends had "ever seen or met this person before" Tell me now... what is your theory for the fact that that person "knew" so much about me and my personal life.... I am really a quite sober person. Very stable... wife and children... hardly ever sick.... I'm actually about as solid as a person can be. Down to earth. Both feet on the ground....never hallucinated... May I ask again....How did this stranger know so much about me and my life? If you have never had such a meeting with a "seer" than I suggest you look one up. You may find one in your local newspaper adds... but watch out... there are many out there who are just after you money... Hadn't these things actually come true in my life (or already were true) than I too could write off the whole phenomenon as BS... but the fact is they were true. And furthermore there were lots of other people in the room that can verify this..... so what is your explanation Jack??Feb 27 2011: hey man I'm a christian and I'm relaying just on rational thoughts (I ignore some of 'irationa thought' until I work them out ) but a lot of things (the most in my opinion) are very rational.
- +1
of course are a lot of methaphysical things in a christian doctrine but they can be comprehend also , at least some of them......and methaphysics is an science as I know (ironie)Feb 28 2011: If the reality is quantum, there is no conflict between "rational thought" and "spirituality". Rational thought and spiritual thought are absolutly nessesary as a complex quantum particle called a human being. The quantum world reserves at least half of the experience at any given time to be unknown, and the other half known. You need both views to see the wonder of it all but you can only use one to the exclusion of the other!
I Love quantum reality, half of it is wonderful, and I don't know much about the other half. Sounds a lot like a lot of religions to me, just not as beautiful.Feb 28 2011: @daniel -- cold reading?Feb 28 2011: Jack: Have really enjoyed all your posts (very thought provoking).
Agreed - both rational thought and learning from myths have value.
Why do you think that people are so drawn into taking myth as fact?
Comment deletedFeb 28 2011: This is in reply to "daniel hehir" above (the reply system is broken, no?):
Daniel: thank you for sharing that experience. Please know that I have no desire to minimize the power that that had in your life. I believe you had that experience and I'm glad for it.
But when people who claim to be clairvoyant are tested they are, as a rule, found to be frauds. Otherwise the Pentagon would have found a way to weaponize such talents (the economic argument: http://xkcd.com/808/)
"I had a profound mystical experience that affected me" isn't a problem. But systematizing it is. The benefit of religion is limited to personal growth, only science can provide us with facts that are equally true for each of us.
What would you think of a large social movement that tried to rely on clairvoyance for determining important matters like who should be elected to Congress and how income should be distributed?
Feb 28 2011: "What would you think of a large social movement that tried to rely on clairvoyance for determining important matters like who should be elected to Congress and how income should be distributed?"
That would not be wise. Reason and knowledge must be employed even if you are clairvoyant. If you accept the idea as a rational person that quantum mechanics and quantum anomalies exist, then you must also accept that the entire universe is a quantum system of reality. The anomalies we observe in the lab are a direct observation of the fundamental rules of this reality.
These rules allow for such phenomenon as is typically assigned by rational minds to mysticism or psi. These things are not necessarily bogus if the rules of quantum mechanics and quantum physics are applicable everywhere and at any time.
By this logic then, we are free to rationally explore the stranger forms and events of our experience that do not necessarily fit into what is known of the physical world. Faith and clairvoyance are possible. But you must test your information against your knowledge or you are just guessing and believing rather than understanding.
So electing a government by Psi is probably not a good idea for most of us, even though it worked for the Dali Lama. The Dali Lama was chosen by experienced psi experts. I think they did a good job, I just don't know how they managed it.Feb 28 2011: Hey Jack. These threads are hard to follow. I don't like this new system at all.
I'm not putting down the scientific method. I'm saying if you are operating under the theory that all crows are black.... and suddenly a white crow shows up... than your whole theory is blown out of the water.... You see... just one example is enough to force you to reshape your theory... "change your way of thinkin"
Thats all I'm saying. Have you ever heard of a french guy called Jacques Lusseyran? He lost his sight as a child, but could still "see" with the type of vision that I'm referring to above. He was used by the French secret service in the second world war to locate where the Germans were hiding. This is fact and can be documented. I have the book beside me now. Its called "And there was Light" IBSN82-09-01429-3 Take a look in your local library and order it if they don't have it. It will give you a new perspective on life.... I'll tell you that !!Feb 28 2011: Another thing Jack.. Ancient societies were very much based on exactly that. Their leaders were often "seers" and what we see today in tribal societies in Africa that still have medicine men are remnents of this. Where the scientific mind is not developed, they turn to frogs eyes and ears of nutes. The clairvoyants are still out there in our time but generally speaking are also remnents of the past. I wrote another message to you further down the page, but I think we have to complain about this new system of "reply" to TED .. it doesn't work worth a damn...Mar 1 2011: Jack D. Canty ;
r/t 'only science can provide us with facts that are equally true for each of us.'
Just curious how might you describe the science (or lack thereof) behind, for instance, the Ten Commandments and the consequences that more than typically come with going against them?Mar 1 2011: Wayne:
Interesting that you should bring up the Ten Commandments. Here in West Chester we have them plastered on the courthouse wall. Here's the plaque:
I've always been struck by number 10:
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
and wondered how much that language has been used to justify slavery and the treatment of woman as property. Which gets to the crux of the problem - the interpretation of myth as literal fact.
Why can't we read these things as metaphorical lessons and not take them as fact?Mar 1 2011: Slavery is an emotive word due to the excesses of evil men against the Africans. As in many things, mans weakness is somehow taken as God's fault. There were no slaves in Eden. The following is more typical of God's instruction on the subject. It reads like it can be taken literally.
Deu 15:11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.
Deu 15:12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.
Deu 15:13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed.
Deu 15:14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you.
Deu 15:15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.
Deu 15:16 But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you,
Deu 15:17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant.
Deu 15:18 Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do.
Tim Colgan
Mar 1 2011: Peter:
- +2
Always was a bit concerned about Deu 15:12. Only a fellow Hebrew counts?Mar 1 2011: Peter: I'm curious about your interpretation of Leviticus 25:44-46, especially how it contrasts Hebrew versus non-Hebrew slaves. I would also be very interested to read your take on Exodus 21:20-11. Bear in mind that both of these passages appear as commands from God, not the excesses of men.Mar 2 2011: Tim/Tony
It seems to me that God does treat his own differently. His own children, compared to those who live down the street. These were different times, when mayhem & murder was even more prevalent than now. Certainly Ex.21v21 has me puzzled, but I'm not that smart.
With the bible it is usually the case that the more is read, the better the understanding. Try these :-
Lev 24:17 "Anyone who takes another person's life must be put to death.
Lev 24:19 "Anyone who injures another person must be dealt with according to the injury inflicted--
Lev 24:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Whatever anyone does to hurt another person must be paid back in kind.
Lev 24:22 "These same regulations apply to Israelites by birth and foreigners who live among you. I, the LORD, am your God."
No doubt many Atheists would cite this sort of thing as contradictions, but to me it's just another step to understanding. This was the reason that Jesus came, because we cannot fully understand all the rules. He said :-
Mat 22:37 Jesus replied, " `You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.' [fn]
Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
Mat 22:39 A second is equally important: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' [fn]
"""Mat 22:40 All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."""
So, yes, you can trip me up quite effectively; as I said, I'm not that smart. Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you hunt for a reason to dismiss the bible, that's exactly what you'll get, if you search for truth, you will be pleasantly surprised.
:-)Mar 2 2011: Peter: please understand that our disagreement is not personal. I've heard the argument all too often that God's idea of slavery was a sort of gentle servitude and that the real injustice came from man, when in fact biblically-endorsed slavery indeed could be quite brutal. You simply seemed to be presenting a one-sided view, and this is not the forum for one-sided views.
My own journey through the Bible was indeed one of a seach for truth. I became a non-believer because of passages like this, after doing my level best to reconcile them. One approach to the apparent contradictions is to chalk it up to the limits of human understanding. In fact, this approach makes a lot of sense: if God is infinitely more complex than we are, who are we to judge the merits and validity of His commands? The problem here is that the logic doesn't go far enough: if indeed God writes this opaquely, what makes us so sure it's from God at all? In other words, I found I could not have it both ways: claim ignorance when faced with biblical absurdities, yet at the same time claim certainty with regard to its divine origin and consequent infallibility.
For the sake of argument, the Bible could very well be the infallible Word of God, and our brains just too small for the task of grasping it. But if that is really the case, our brains are also too small to make sweeping conclusions such as "it's the infallible Word of God". Thus, my argument is not against the Bible per se, but against the kind of certitude promoted by religion. The driving motive behind this certitude is a desire for security -- as the writer of Hebrews so eloquently puts it, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see" (Heb 11:1, NIV).
Wayne Busby
Feb 28 2011: This scientific method that we have developed to understand the known universe, reaches the limits of its effectiveness where it as a process, at best measures reality as our senses and current use of our mental faculties are able to process physical existence.
- +1
Make no mistake. the sciences of the mind are in their infancy.
Further, unaided, our senses (and by extension most tools we use in producing empirical data about our environment) are feeble compared to those enjoyed by the vast majority of other species on earth and our attempts to match or rival the abilities of said species are based on what 'we think' our senses say about how they perceive our world. Subjective theory at best in my opinion.
Comment deleted
Mar 1 2011: Hi Birdia
"it has already been proven that our universe is expanding – has the bible mentioned anything about that?"
Isa 42:5 This is what God the LORD says— he who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Isa 45:12 It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.
Jer 10:12 But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.
etc etc
:-)Mar 4 2011: Peter:
"My own hands stretched out the heavens"
Were these real hands or metaphorical hands that stretched out the heavens?
I really don't see why it's so important to insist on literal interpretations of anything in Holy Scripture. Do you really think that the message "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would get lost if it turned out that there was really no guy named Jonah who got swallowed by a whale?Mar 4 2011: Hi Tim
Jesus is the one who stretched out the heavens, however I would say that he had no literal hands before he was born of Mary. So in my opinion the hands in this case are metaphoric; that's my opinion.
Jonah & the Big Fish (maybe not whale) is written as a literal account, so I treat it as such. Maybe some hebrew scholar would make an alternative case, which I would have to consider.
To me it's about credibility. If the bible is what it claims to be then it must be perfect. Any fault must be in translation, or in my understanding; if not then it's not the word of god. So far I am satisfied with it, & learning more week by week.
The Golden Rule is great to live by, & believing that it also pleases God gives a bit of extra incentive.
:-)Mar 10 2011: Hi Birdia,
Yes, odd system here, only just found your reply. Yes the universe is expanding according to scientists, but it is more than probable that new information will be found, and what was once 'proven' is shown to be wrong, remember it was only a few hundred years ago they could prove the earth was flat, logical right? otherwise you would fall off!! well im sure the same sort of thing will keep on happening, im sure you get my drift.
The bible of course mentions creation, but as i said, to have a universe to explode out of nothing , 'by chance' to me seems illogical. which reminds me of a little story, it goes like this... A scientist in the future had created life, and he challenged God , saying that he was like God because he had created life, God said to him, ok prove it to me, ok says the scientist, and bends down to scoop up some soil, and God then says to him 'get your own soil' so you see my point.
It is fascinating to me that the universe floats in nothing, and is expanding into nothing, and perhaps the universe is in God and not the other way round, I propose that God is absolute simplicity and absolute mystery at the same time, and the bible quotes God describing himself by the words .. I AM, not i am big, or i am intelligent or i am wonderful, but I just AM !!!
Comment deleted
Mar 2 2011: Hi Birdia
Oh I think God has made it out of his book. I speak to him daily & often get feedback. The book helps me to know when it is him & when it is just me. He never contradicts the book.
Hbr 11:6 So, you see, it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that there is a God and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.
Rev 3:20 "Look! Here I stand at the door and knock. If you hear me calling and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal as friends.
So we have to give him the 'benefit of the doubt'. We have to take a step of faith, based on our understanding of the bible. (Best to start with New Testament).
If we can do that & invite him in then your questions will be answered in due course. I have no doubt in his existance now, but I had to take a step of faith initially.
Speak to him.
Comment deleted
Mar 2 2011: Hi Biridia ..........regarding your first paragraph I think the main idea from it is that: "man glorifies and attaches himself to this fictional 'God' to feel secure and safe" , but Birdia if we have done it............why we have done it? why almost all people from the earth feel that (are all in danger and they all have need of protection , I don't think)?.......you can't say that we have invented the idea of God , because if you say that you should answer to the next questions : Why we have created the idea of God (who had have this so great imagination to invent something like that?) because God is outside of our world , how could we know about Him? and why exatcly this idea is so well-known , why people are saying that they have a need to worship something? (all the people have done it throughout the history to a lot of "gods")
What determined people to talk for God or against Him(all people do one of it)?
Why all people from the surface of the earth are so influenced of this idea ,( some talk against it or some talk for it)?Why all people are thinking at least once in their life at this idea?...............What determined us to do all these things?........we was educated differnetly but all, absolute all people know about something supernatural even though they accept it or not?
" the character we call 'God' has been used to cloak man's fear and despair through the centuries" you said in the first paragraph that "God" is a fictional chaacter but if He is, how could that ficton make us feel safer , happier .....if is just a fiction?
How could a fiction impose a psychological presence?(and think at all the history)..........
..............is imposible that the idea of God to be a fiction......God is very very real................Mar 2 2011: Hi Birdia
I agree with Eduard. To an extent we see what we want to see. Dozens of peoples all over the world have a flood story in which some were saved by getting on a big boat. Athiests will say that the biblical narrative is a copy of these stories, I would say the opposite. The fact that the story is so well known to me verifies that it probably happened.
There is tons of real life evidence that the bible is accurate in many fields. If you have time, here is some archeological evidence to consider.
Comment deleted
Mar 2 2011: yeah ..........the chinese culture is one of the greatest
Comment deleted
Mar 3 2011: The single chinese book that I've read is "The art of war " by Sun Tzu........I was especially facinated by the stuffs which I've heard and saw about chinese culture .......and I'm still learning.
Comment deleted
Feb 27 2011: Kathy, I appreciate how, in your last line, you discuss the reverence people have for their holy text. I think that's something that the modern atheist movement should take more note of: people actually care about the text and feel connected to it.
Your claim that the bible withstands scrutiny is in need of massive clarification. It continues to be a source of meaning and connection for billions of people, yes. But there are large religious movements that treat the bible as some kind of encyclopedia in which one can look up facts about God. And that's a problem.
I think what Tim Colgan and Richard Dawkins are trying to point out is the great horror that comes when we take a text that has a rich narrative tradition but is not factually reliable and use it as a replacement for the rigorous application of science.
I'm sure you can understand the fear some people have if a president of the United States believed that dinosaurs walked the earth seven thousand years ago and that Jesus was coming back "any minute now." Somebody who has the launch codes to our nuclear arsenal cannot be permitted to believe that those are facts. It could mean the death of us all.Feb 27 2011: You said that Holy Scripture is a connection to truth that we can rely on and, as a testament, it's stood the test of time
But I wonder, which Scripture? Or more generally, which text even? We could take the most prominent ones: The Bible, The Koran, The Torah and discover that each asserts itself as, unequivocally, 'the' holy book.
This, in itself, is aside from numerous internal contraindications and considers only three of thousands of equally confident scriptures each of which, in themselves, fail to reveal accurately even the most basic facts about our world.
Too, withstanding ages does not necessarily imply truth. Consider the long held geocentricism that was, mind you, aggressively, and falsely, supported by the church.
Moreover, I believe your assessment of science is flippant. While it is true that science is always updating, this is its greatest strength and does not counter its truth or relevance but, rather, reinforces it. Science does not continuously reinvent itself, it refines itself in light of new facts but, always, it is moving closer to the truth; a singular, not erratic, trajectory. For example, the discovery of heliocentrism, a product of evidence overturning apocryphal beliefs, or of a new lifesaving treatment, deduced by science, overturning a false and ineffective 'traditional' method.
Finally, I think that it is a bit rash to claim that referencing a holy book as irrational is blatantly ignorant. While there is something to be said for the numinous aspects (this bit I suspect you mean when you say "[not] via the intellect alone") of religion, these experiences are not singular ones and occur across all religions, and even for non-religious individuals. Nor is there any reason to suspect that these experiences are outside the realm of science.
Also, Atheism is not the simple consequence of not understanding and 'giving up'. Rather, it and, in general, non-religious views take relgion as a hypothesis, consider the evidence, and adjudicate.
Feb 27 2011: "fail to reveal accurately even the most basic facts about our world"................I totaly disagree, the religion(christianity) reveals a lot of facts (not just the basic facts) but a lot of facts , which(the most of them) was proved just in the last centuries by science(and surely science and religion aren't in relation of enmity).
"Consider the long held geocentricism that was, mind you, aggressively, and falsely, supported by the church." the Bible from the begining have ever said that the earth is "circular" , the wrong was just the interpetation of the Bible(have you ever read the bible?).
I don't know why so many are putting science and religion in relation of enmity(perhaps they don't know too well neither what is saying religion nor what is saying science) , they aren't enemy ....they are just to complementary things.
Comment deleted
Feb 28 2011: Birdia, I appreciate your contrast of philosophy and science, I see them fulfilling complementary roles as well.
I'm curious how you'd describe the difference between religion and philosophy. Particularly when they creep close together like with Pythagorus or Plato. Is it just belief in a theistic being that separates them, or is it something more?Mar 4 2011: Absolute knowledge Kathy, absolute moralism, and absolute certainty, all of these seem to me incredibly dangerous. As for religious texts themselves I have read many and enjoyed some immensely the prose edda in particular is fascinating and beautiful but they contain no absolutes, only insights into human beings and the different models they make of the world. The march of science is one of model refinement, as time passes our models become more accurate, but they are never absolutely true, they are only true, until they are not. This seems to me to be a much more preferable system.Feb 27 2011: I really like your response Birdia. And I think the task at hand, in replacing religion with other tools to provide for human needs, is to find an overarching humanitarian concept that has multiple paths to accomplish it.
Comment deleted
Mar 1 2011: The scariest thing is the defense for religion by saying science is against it, a religion in itself, etc.
No...it's merely a method of figuring out how something works. You start off with a hypothesis "IF this THEN that" and create controlled tests to prove it true or false. THATS IT. So really it clashes only when the information obtained begins to potentially disprove a long held belief a group of people have.
Personally I'm tired of the labels. Yes of course I have certain feelings and ideas of how things should work but I am willing to accept that they have no place in reality if the accumulated information says otherwise. We tend to not want to be wrong or let go.(Comes down to Fear of the Unknown)
Obviously im on the side thats says it's outdated. But I'm willing to say that many of my statements are merely strong opinion without the personal research to back it up.
***Do you think there is a way to quantify all the information and dialogue that many people have put into this debate and elsewhere?
To condense and calculate the accuracy or inaccuracy of our 'views' with INFORMATION compiled(feelings, proven/unproven facts, percentage of people, etc)...to perhaps get something closer to a definitive answer out of the chaos many people talking.
Comment deleted
Mar 1 2011: Hi Birdia
"Science is based on facts with no mysticism or a fixed set of 'beliefs', so how can it be classified as a 'religion'?
Besides, science is not 'against' anything; basically, it is 'for' anything that can be proven. Science can even prove 'beauty' with geometry"
For me science oversteps itself into belief with assertions about the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Dinosaur extinction date, Macro evolution etc. These things cannot be proven, but to cast doubt on the truth of them will bring a major backlash, as many scientists have found to their cost. It's good to have theories, but unless they can be tested they are faith based, & not strictly scientific. Don't you think?
:-)Mar 2 2011: Exactly science is neutral. As strong information processing creatures I think we always want know. If we don't know or cant figure it out we create our own answers to feel content. We usually need a reason to do something right?(My guess is we always do)
And as 'thought provoking' as some peoples responses are how can we make such an in depth analysis of things that have very little/no proof? OR when we have such contrasting information that says otherwise...doesn't that create a high probability the belief as it is false by default.
How about the statement that science cannot explain 'this' or 'that' therefore it's wrong. I mean isn't that a cop out for the fact that science has not explained it YET? I can't say it will but we are gaining so much new knowledge every single day(and exponentially).
@Peter. We've created many methods to test the things you've stated. Like the Hadron Particle accelerator in relation to the Big Bang. We have math equations that explain gravity, electricity, and other forces. Yet we don't have one for the 'invisible man'. Again I'm not against God but if there's people so strongly defending it step up to the plate to create some controlled tests and numbers for comparison.Mar 2 2011: P.s. Your right.
We need to start an idea thread on how the make commenting much more effecient. It makes me not even want to have multiple conversations. Perhaps we should start a thread on this alone. Ha
TED should focus on making these interactions as powerful as possible. Which is why I think crowd sourcing the information has amazing potential for something greater here.
Mar 5 2011: What I'm going to say is for the sincere and honest persons who are atheists:
- +4
This are tow points about where we shouldn't look after God(the God from christianity):
1. if God exist we can't find out too much about Him from science because science is dealing with what God have created (the science is COMING from He's creation).... How could someone say that I don't belive in the existence of God , because I didn't find anything in science about Him?(of course you didn't)...it isn't the science business to say if God exist or not because science is about He's creation not about Him ...........so all the scientists are talking rubbish about it if they say us that God doesn't exist.
2. Let's turn now to philosophy........ the philosophy is created by the human mind(by our thinking) ok? but the human mind is very limited (I think it's obvious that) while God(if there is one) is perfect , is unlimited and from it results that we can't rely on philosophy to say us if God exist or not........our mind is very limited while God is perfect......how could we understand Him?how could we find out about Him there? .......so from that results that we can't conceive God and all philosophers are talking rubbish if they say us something about the existence of God relying on philosophy then.
And not forget the science isn't against the Bible.
To say something like: "I'm relying on science and on philosophy when I'm saying that God doesn't exist" ........that's the most unscientific thing that you ever could say, because I repeat again isn't the science business to say something about the existence of God .
Mar 5 2011: So you're saying that there's no evidence either way and so the existence of God is just an idea over millions of ideas that somehow has a lot of backing? For if philosophers and scientists are talking rubbish about God, who is left to make a case for God? (I personally do think scientists and philosophers have a case to make but let's ignore that for the sake of addressing your argument)
I mean everyone can have an idea that isn't backed by anything and that's fine, until you let it actively guide your life in a way that affects others. Evangelicals trying to convert, Creationists using religion to deny science, people denied the simple right of freedom of expression because of so-called blasphemy, homosexuals being condemned (not to mention any of the horrible deeds of the past)...if you have an idea, for which the evidence is void, you should not expect more respect from others than people who believe in ghosts or psychics.
Mar 6 2011: "For if philosophers and scientists are talking rubbish about God" maybe what I gonna say will seem (bu just will seem because it isn't) very hypocrite : scientists and philosophers are talking rubbish just when they are saying us that God doesn't exist( the reasons for that statement are said above)
Mar 6 2011: who is left to make a case for God then?Mar 6 2011: noone ............ God make for Himself.
Mar 6 2011: he's not making any case for himself seeing as the Universe can be seen to run without him. I rest my case, if the idea of God is but an idea, there's no reason why this idea of the Universe should trump all others. You're basing your life on a single unprovable idea. Oh dear.Mar 7 2011: this "unprovable"(I repeat by science methods) gives the most obvious proof about God, and there are yet some scientific proofs ........but many of them depend from what perspective you look at them.
Mar 8 2011: Nonsense, unprovability is not proof at all. In computer science and maths there are many problems that are qualified as undecideable because one outcome is unprovable. Does a program P terminate? It's possible to prove it terminates, because when the program terminates it can output yes. It's impossible to prove it doesn't terminate, because it can never output 'no' because it runs indefinitely in that case (you'd have to wait forever just in case it prints 'yes'). Does that mean we somehow assume by its unprovability of termination that it terminates? Of course not, makes no sense.
Equality, God's unprovability is proof of nothing at all. It's completely illogical. Scientific evidence doesn't vary depending on perspective, that's the point of scientific evidence. If you've got some scientific evidence, bring it forward.
Also you never answered my post where I ask you what you mean about the universe being as quantum as it can be...which again...doesn't...make...sense...
Also I've provided backing to my "this is false" statements about the old testament. Please reply to that too. I'm genuinly curious how you fit your old testament literalism with modern science.
Mar 8 2011: Unprovability now is a very big proof because as I said we are talking now about supernatural.......it's a wrong to compare that with any normal things (like computer science or maths).Sorry I didn't see your post but
- +3
ok I'll answer you now, I've said there about the creation of the univers being like the most quantum that could ever be : " And God said, Let there be..........." "And God said, Let there be.." that's the most quatum that could ever be : to say and to appear.(and I know enough about quantum mechanics).
"It says the Moon is a source of light" it don't say that (have you ever read the Bible ar the Genesis at least).
"the Earth being a circle is another simple one" again the Bible have never said that the earth is a circle (this was said by the some churches).
and now man, we have to clarify something, you all the time use evolution as explication (and seems to me that you confuse the evolution with the science , sorry if I'm wrong) for me evolution is another wrong worldview so I please you to explain what you wanna say from a more neutral perspective as I'm doing..........you can praise the evolution theory but from a more neutral state, ok?(thank you).
AS I said the creation was just a matter of days( I'm speaking now from a creationist perspective) and thus don't matter too much who was created first.
"The theory of evolution is also the reason why you cannot have two people, Adam and Eve as progenitors of a whole species." the evolution theory isn't a reasoon for me ,( I thought you noticed that) so please give me another reason for which the Adam an Eve couldn't be our ancestors.(about incest ....was a different situation then and thus it can't be called incest, think at that situation ).
Mar 8 2011: If unprovability is proof, invisible unicorns are in fact real. Would you agree?
Saying some gibberish and then saying you understand quantum mechanics doesn't mean you understand quantum mechanics. The world cannot be "quantum" as "quantum" refers to an amount not a state. that's like saying the world is as light-year as it could be. I don't believe one second you understand anything about quantum mechanics.
The passages I refer to are actually in the Bible:
Genesis 1:16-17 "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."
Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers."
The argument about Adam and Eve remains the same. Incest leads to an increase in lethal pairs of genes. It's a known fact. Unless you also want to deny the field of genetics as you do with evolution.
Now that I know you are a Creationist, I know I've wasted my time. You claim that your God does not deny science and yet you embrace the views of Creationism which go against the well-established theory of evolution (which is not a worldview, it's science). If you're a young Earth Creationist, I'd like to point out that the theory of relativity proposed by Einstein does conflict with your views as this theory sets a limit at which matter can travel (the speed of light). Given that we receive light from stars that are millions of light-years old, how can you fit that with your view that the Universe is a mere 6,000 years old? If that were the case, many star's light would not have reached us yet. how has it reached us already given Einstein's strict laws of relativity? Geology also does not fit into your view. Radioactive decay is also in conflict with your views (I bet you're not a fan of carbon dating and the like).Mar 8 2011: Matthie to give you scientifics proofs right now is imposible here , if you really want more details visit :
Mar 8 2011: Eduard: I watched some of the videos on that page and they seem to argue in favor of the Big Bang theory and creation over more then a few days.Mar 8 2011: Or you could debate instead, which is the reason why we're here in the first place. Why don't you do what I do and read your own material so that you can use it in argument? Sending me links just looks like the ultimate cop-out.
Tim Colgan
Mar 9 2011: Thanks for the posting though. I like seeing the various viewpoints.Mar 9 2011: Unicorns........I don't know , but they have nothing to do with what I said.
- +1
And I wasn't talking about a state , I'm really interesting how you understood that.(I was talking about that very less intuitive particles way of taking values , I tried to bring the Bohr principles to extreme.......anyway.. .... ).
Genesis 1:16-17 "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.".....but here isn't say anything about the fact that moon is a source of light , it say just that the moon lights govern the night.
Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers." how I understand, here it is said about the circular surface of the earth, not about the fact that earth is a circle.(i
Adam and Eve have had a lot of children including daugthers and in Mesopotamia at that time wasn't something unusual to get married with your sister.(look at the archaeological evidence from Ur ,Uruk and others localities) and in the Bible are mentioned and others posibilities.
I never said that I'm a creationist , I've just said that creation is in my opinion more plausible than evolution(with other words of course)...... evolution is a worldview rooted in science , more exatcly it rest upon the scientific facts interpetations.
From creationist perspective it's easy to give an answer to this so called problem with this huge distances between earth and other stars. Look an explication: at the beginning God have created as it is said in the Bible all celestial corps , and it's posible that the light to reach then suddently on the earth withuot traveling all the distance , it's what I call the God-hand ,and from then the light is traveling ( then was the beginning and then when the things was created was set and the natural laws including what say us relativity) ..........this could be an explication .
I accept the carbon dating , what I don't accept is the interpetation of this scientific facts
Mar 9 2011: I'm trying to illustrate a point with the invisible unicorns. If the unprovability of a concept is the ultimate proof of something, the existence of invisible unicorns is ultimately proven by its unprovability using your argument.
Genesis 1:16-17 the light of the Sun (which in both case is what illuminates Earth) is treated as two different lights. The Moon is treated as its own light which it isn't.
Isaiah 40:22, in what way is the surface of the Earth circular? There is nothing circular about the surface of the Earth. The Earth is a spheroid. That much is true. But given that the surface of the Earth wraps around in all directions, there really is nothing circular.
In the case of Adam and Eve, the fact that Adam and Eve had a lot of children or that incest was somehow alright back then (so you accept moral relativism?) doesn't change the fact that genetically, they probably could not make it past 2-3 generations because of genetic similarity and lethal pairs of genes (if we have two copies). Everyone has copies of recessive genes which are lethal. If you aquire a pair of these genes you die. Obviously, if you reproduce with someone who shares the same parents, you will have a very high chance of aquiring lethal pairs and this will increase with following generations. All of Adam and Eve's grandchildren would be either extremely sickly or dead.
Evolution is not a worldview. Opinions don't count with science, only evidence. The theory of evolution follows the rigorous scientific methodology and to go against it is to deny so many known facts in biology.
Your explanation of how light trumped the speed of light at some time before the laws of nature were instaured contradicts so many known facts about the Universe such as the fact that many of the stars that we see in our sky that are millions of years old are 2nd generation stars, that is, stars that were formed from the explosion of the first stars. They were bound by the speed of light and yet we see them.Mar 9 2011: Besides, if that were even the case, the light from all these distant stars would immediately dissapear the moment the speed of light was put into action. Your scenario, apart from being high fantasy solves absolutely no problems. I bet you don't accept the Big Bang theory either for convenience.
Carbon dating has been cross-correlated with other methods of dating closed-systems, you cannot just pretend that somehow nature gets its quantities wrong just to fit your idea of a young Earth.
Your understanding of science is extremely poor, but I suspected that already, especially when you said the world is as quantum as can be (which doesn't mean anything in the English language). You cannot go from a fixed conclusion and search out some convenient premise, you start with premises that lead to a conclusion.Mar 9 2011: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in." I think it's enough clear that here it isn't said anything about the earth having a circular form. ....(and the same for the case with the moon)
"Your understanding of science is extremely poor, but I suspected that already, especially when you said the world is as quantum as can be (which doesn't mean anything in the English language)".....I said the creation is the most quantum that could ever be and who knows something about quantum mechanics will understand what I wanted to say. "You cannot go from a fixed conclusion and search out some convenient premise, you start with premises that lead to a conclusion." .............(lol) ..........according to the God very essence the science begin from Him , He's the source of the science.( it was in my mind all the time and all my arguments rest upon it )...........I won't say anything more because I think that at least this statement provide enough light for understanding what I said.Mar 5 2011: Eduard - Your god sounds like a pantheistic god. Is god simply everything?
Mar 6 2011: no Tim , I don't know why do you have the impresion of a pantheistic god because I didn't meant that.
All what I said is that science can't tell us if God exist or not , because its object of research is the creation of God not God Himself (the pantheists say us exact what's opposite)
Mar 6 2011: If god is not everything, is he finite?Mar 6 2011: Eduard: I'm trying to understand your conception of GOD.
Tell me if this agrees with your understanding:
GOD is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. GOD is everywhere and came before all things. GOD is incomprehensible in his entirety by humans since the mind of a human is finite and GOD is infinite. However GOD is manifest in all we see and think. He is the creator of all things.Mar 6 2011: "However GOD is manifest in all we see and think." that's the pantheistic part and it's false (God in his essence is good , all we see and think isn't all the time good=a childish argument but it reflect what I wanna say).
"GOD is everywhere" he's omnipresent......He's like a spirit............yeah that is what I wanted to say but not that was the central point there.
Mar 6 2011: How about this:
GOD is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. GOD is everywhere and came before all things. GOD is incomprehensible in his entirety by humans since the mind of a human is finite and GOD is infinite. He is the creator of all things.Mar 6 2011: Correct Tim; you got it.
He also came to earth & introduced himself to us, died to pay for our sins, & resurrected to prove his power over death. He is a real historical character. The only candidate as far as I know. It is true that we cannot be certain he was here scientifically, but that would make Julius Caesar a bit iffy as well. At least we can check the evidence & decide for ourselves.
Tim Colgan
Mar 6 2011: The word G-O-D is a word consisting of three letters G, O, D. Words in a way are metaphors. They don't have meaning in themselves but serve as placeholders for something beyond themselves. Try my last post with "GOD" replaced with "the universe" and "he" replaced with "it" (plus my final addition).
- +4
The universe is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. The universe is everywhere and came before all things. The universe is incomprehensible in its entirety by humans since the mind of a human is finite and the universe is infinite. It is the creator of all things through the process of evolution (eternal change).
Now I agree that a personification of the universe is a bit easier to think of. But in any case GOD is not a person. And people seem to be drifting away from the conviction that GOD is a "he".
I totally agree with you that it "isn't the science business to say something about the existence of God".
When the word GOD is defined properly (and we must have some definition if we are going to discuss the concept), then "his" existence is a tautology. If GOD is what you define him as then if anything exists then GOD exists. The debate over GOD's existence is immaterial.
What we do need to debate though, is how literally we should be interpreting the bible. Especially since those who claim to know the true meaning seem to exploit that conviction to control others.Mar 6 2011: Is God so omnipotent he can change his omniscient mind?Mar 7 2011: Hi Tim
"The universe is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. The universe is everywhere and came before all things.:
The universe cannot be omniscient as it has no brain.
The universe cannot be omnipotent as it's power is finite.
The universe is only omnipresent within itself. Even I can claim that.
Current science assumes the universe is finite, not infinite.
If the universe arose by itself, then it would be an effect without a cause; not scientific.
"GOD is not a person" If we are talking about the Christian God; yes He is.
This way of looking at things does get a mention as the attitude towards the end of the world.--
Romans 1v5 "Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself,"
I would question that bible believers are more prone to control than the rest of humanity. I don't think Gadaffi, or Mugabe are big bible fans. Surely if the bible is taken literally then the 'true meaning" is plain to all. Isn't exploitation more likely when a Guru is necessary to explain it to you. Aka the Roman Catholic church holding services in latin, & the priests becoming the Gurus ?Mar 7 2011: Man Peter. Just when I think I've got you cornered, you come back for more. Don't agree with your reasoning, but sure do admire your fortitude.
My use of the word "universe" was unfortunate. What if we use the word "totality" to mean all things, all ideas, all thoughts, all universes and all creators. That would include all knowledge, all power and be everywhere. How does that differ from your conception of god?


text:
Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack
Bouncy Castle wrote:There ya go!
Penfold wrote:They just don't dunk as well as a chocolate digestive do they.
chris wrote:but at least they dont fall apart just as you are going to take a bite out of them
chris.ph wrote:they only came out for a sun bathe then all these people jumped on them and chucked them back in
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests

subset: commoncrawl


text:
California Lutheran University's MBA in Financial Planning degree (MBA-FP) is considered to be among the country's most intensive and comprehensive master-level programs for financial planning.
Our curriculum, which is offered both fully online and on campus, offers an intellectually rigorous academic program in an environment that stimulates personal growth and higher standards of professionalism. This program empowers professionals from a wide variety of fields to advance their careers and gain expertise.
Learn More
- Program Tracks
- Course Terms & Locations
- Courses
- Faculty
- Admission Requirements
- Veteran Support
- Transfer of Credit
- Student Work Samples
Attend an Info Session
Meet with faculty and admission counselors to learn about degree options, admission requirements, and financial aid.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
4:00pm - 5:00pm
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
5:30pm - 6:30pm
Woodland Hills Center
Thursday, September 10, 2015
5:30pm - 6:30pm
Oxnard Center
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
6:00pm - 7:00pm
Thousand Oaks
Program Highlights
Accreditation and Reputation
- Accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
- Our courses satisfy the initial education requirements necessary to sit for the CFP® Certification Examination.
- Ranked by US News and World Report among the top 20 schools in the Western United States.
- USDLA-award-winning online classes
- Access to nationally-recognized faculty with degrees and industry certifications
Convenience and Flexibility
- Multiple program entry points within the academic year
- The ability to take a combination of online and on-campus classes
- Flexibility that accommodates the needs of the full-time working adult
Career Leverage
- Networked to leading financial service firms
- Alumni network that continues beyond graduation
- Lifelong access to career services
Apply Online Info Sessions Request Info
Cal Lutheran is listed as one of 35 Great Schools for Financial Planning by the Financial Planning Magazine, November 2014.
The CFP® Board is a nonprofit professional regulatory organization that requires education, ethics requirements, examination, and experience for CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER® certificants. Along with completing the financial planning coursework and passing the CFP® Certification Examination, the CFP® Board also requires successful CFP® certificants to have financial planning-related work experience and adhere to their Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility.
The MBA and Certificate program in Financial Planning is registered by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. (CFP Board) in Washington DC. Candidates who plan to sit for the CFP Certification Examination must successfully complete a CFP Board-Registered Program.


text:
The last time you saw our Dart-based 454ci big-block, we generated 965 hp and 877 lb-ft ("Off-The-Shelf Steam" Apr. '11 issue). For induction duties we used a pair of Brodix CNC oval-port BB-3 332 Xtras and a Brodix HV 2000 manifold, while a Vortech YSi supercharger added the artificial atmosphere. Fueling the copious amount of air was a Carb Shop–modified Holley 750 carburetor.
For round two of our build, Vortech Engineering offered to let us try out its latest line of superchargers, namely the all-new V-28 123. This wild piece of hardware is good for impeller speeds up to 70,000 rpm (rumors say significantly more), it features a 123mm billet impeller, and the peak power level is still yet to be determined. Knowing it would take a fairly stout bottom end, we decided to transform our 454ci into a 525ci stroker, using a complete Lunati bottom end consisting of a Pro Blower series crankshaft with their 4340 fully machined I-beam rods, and a set of JE pistons. For induction duties, we once again turned to Brodix and after a lengthy conversation, stepped up to the larger BB-3 380 Xtra cylinder heads. At the heart of the beast is a COMP Cams–built solid roller that we had spec'd out by Steve Morris Engines in Muskegon, Michigan. At The Carb Shop's advice, we also stepped up to its 950-cfm carburetor with the dual needle and seat assembly.
The amount of power this gem was going to produce was seriously anyone's guess. In our minds, we were shooting for anything over 1,500 hp and even scoured the 'Net looking for similar combinations. The truth is, at the time there were very few people with access to the V-28 123. If you recall, back in the July issue, we featured Chris Kephart and his '62 Outlaw-classed Impala. Kephart has been at the forefront of testing the V-28 123 and is the first person to eclipse the 200-mph zone. Following suit, Chris Alston Jr. recently installed one into his '64 Chevy II and shocked the doorslammer scene by becoming the first Vortech-powered car to dive into the 6s, running 6.71 at 213 mph right off the trailer!
It's pretty evident to us that Vortech is onto something here, and we wanted to produce our own real-world evaluation, continuing with the off-the-shelf premise: no one-off components, no proprietary cylinder head porting, and—to challenge ourselves a little more—we wanted to generate a lot of boost through a single 4150 carburetor. It may have sounded like we were asking for trouble, but in all reality, it turned out to be one of the easiest big-horsepower combinations we've ever put together. Ridiculous? Even a bit arrogant? But it really was that easy. That's not to say we didn't run into our own issues, but these were things that were easily overcome; all of which we'll go into greater details in the following pages.
Now, if there was one idealistic theme we wanted to stick with, it was to use the same manufacturers from the previous build with the addition of T&D shaft-mount rockers for valvetrain stability and Component Drive Systems' geardrive to eliminate any belt issues. You have to hand it to our aftermarket; they offer top-notch components to support everything from a mild street package to dedicated track-only applications.
At the end of the day, we surpassed our goals and have to wonder, is this not enough power? Doubtful. Is this more power than most will know what to do with? That's probably a bit more true. There's nothing wrong with either answer, but chances are, our 525ci isn't much different than what's powering your street/strip project. However, it's pretty amazing how easily a supercharger can conjure up a Jekyll and Hyde shift in demeanor on demand. Even better, everything shown here is currently available and only a phone call away.


text:
Will this actually protect my computer from more than minor scratches or am I better off going in another direction?
- Asked by Meaghan M from Mendham
kate spade Slip Sleeve
Product No Longer Available
1 Answer from the Community
Yes, but not if you're banging it around. I think this sleeve was designed to be low profile so it doesn't take up too much space in a purse, and you can carry it from point a to point b. If you want something more for protection, you won't want a sleeve, you're going to want more of a fully enclosed case like the ones marc jacobs makes (designed for macbook pro but fits the macbook air).
- Answered by Becky B from Radnor


text:
The '55-57 Chevys are among the most recognizable vehicles anyone has ever built. The cars came in three series: the base model 150, mid-level 210, and the top-of-the-line Bel Air. You could also get a wagon in the lower trim level or a Nomad in the higher trim level. One thing all these cars had in common was the suspension setup. Control arms and coil springs took care of the front, while a solid axle hung on leaf springs was fitted out back. This suspension set up carried on in the Chevrolet stable for years and has proved to be a great way to soak up bumps.
What is nice about having a suspension system carry on for so long is that the aftermarket has plenty of time to come up with improvements. Add those improvements to a body style aptly named the "Hot One" and you have the potential to build a killer shoebox. Since there are so many options when it comes to suspension for these cars we decided to compile this guide of the top players in the suspension market. There is everything from bolt-on sway bars, all the way up to fully finished chassis, all designed to make the car handle better. The information in this guide has been edited for space, so once you are done checking it all out, make sure to contact the companies for the full details.
Art Morrison Enterprises
Art Morrison Enterprises is offering the company's well-proven GT Sport Chassis for the '55-57 Chevrolet. The mandrel-bent, 2x4 chassis is fully jig welded and features all the appropriate body mounts, bumper mounts, core support, engine and transmission mounts. This bolt-on chassis dramatically improves the ride quality and handling performance of your classic Chevrolet. Designed as a 100 percent bolt-on item, the GT Sport Chassis can be installed at home by most confident do-it-yourself builders. Numerous options and upgrades are available to suit the style of your project. The chassis is available for all body styles of '55, '56, and '57 Chevy passenger cars.
Art Morrison Enterprises
Classic Performance Products
Classic Performance Products' Totally Tubular Control Arm set is designed to add 5 degrees of caster while providing full wheel travel and minimal friction possible. They are made from 1 1/4x0.120 wall D.O.M. tubing and the pivot barrels are thick 1 1/2x0.188 wall D.O.M. tubing to eliminate distortion from welding and hard use. The bushings are made from self-lubricating non-squeak patented plastic that works at temperatures in excess of 400 degrees F. The billet 4140-alloy steel cross-shafts and sleeves are zinc plated for lasting performance. The sleeves have an interlocking design that prevents the hardware from ever working loose. The pivots carry both forward and back loads (the original cross-shaft pivot was designed to only carry a forward or back load, but not both). Ball joints are included. The control arm assemblies are a simple bolt-in installation with no modification required. They work with all factory and replacement power steering systems, with or without OE bumpstops, and are available in either black or silver.
Classic Performance Products
Chris Alston's Chassisworks
Chris Alston's Chassisworks offers the gStreet coilover front suspension system for Tri-Fives. The gStreet kit includes precision formed, lightweight control arms fit with bonded rubber or poly bushings and billet cross-shafts. Unique to the gStreet setup is the integration of true coilover, eye-style lower shock mounts, which allow fitting of longer travel shocks. The system can be ordered with single- or double-adjustable VariShock coilover shock absorbers with your choice of spring rate. The control arms bolt directly to your OEM chassis mounts, are finished in gray hammer-tone powdercoat, accept stock-tapered ball joints, and will work with stock or dropped aftermarket spindles. Optional VariShock air suspension and specifically valved drag race variations are also available.
Chris Alston's Chassisworks
Energy Suspension
By installing a complete set of Energy Suspension's performance polyurethane bushings, you'll realize an improvement in control no matter what demand you put on your vehicle. All components are impervious to oils, gasses, road salts, and atmospheric conditions, and are up to 10 times stronger than their rubber counterparts. Plus, to make ordering easier Energy Suspension has combined all of the urethane bushings for your Tri-Five into one part number: 3.18121R.
Energy Suspension
Fatman Fabrications
Fatman has been building frames and chassis for the aftermarket for over 20 years. The Fatman '55-57 chassis features fully boxed steel construction with extra bracing and rigidity to handle a myriad of horsepower and performance levels. A four-link suspension design is used in the rear, while up front an improved Mustang II-style suspension with Fatman control arms is used. Customers can have the chassis built for their intended engine combo, and any Tri-Five body style, from station wagon up to convertible.
Fatman Fabrications
Heidts Hot Rod & Muscle Car Parts
Heidts has released its new '55-57 Chevy Triangulated four-link kit. This kit does not require a Panhard rod and comes with chassis and axle brackets, adjustable links, full upper coilover crossmember, adjustable Heidts black coilovers, and all necessary hardware. No cutting or floor modifications are needed and adjustable four-link mounts allow for suspension tuning. "Our Chevy Triangulated four-link is designed to handle lots of horsepower and make the Chevy Tri-Fives handle corners better than what the original designers could ever have dreamed of," says Frank Happ, owner of Heidts. The kit is available in plain steel or polished stainless steel tubes. Optional items are available, including 9-inch housing with third member, axles, and rear disc brakes.
Heidts Hot Rod & Muscle Car Parts
Global West Suspension
Global West manufactures and offers several components from front to rear for the '55-57s. The list starts out with tubular upper and lower control arms with billet shafts and Global West's Del-a-lum bushings. In addition, power steering components, coilover shocks and springs, sway bars, brake kits, leaf springs-stock, 2- and 3-inch drop are available-along with a new Del-a-lum leaf-spring bushing/shackle kit.
Del-a-lum bushings work similarly to a bearing and provide smooth movement with no bind or squeaks, plus they have a lifetime warranty to the original purchaser. The control arms are supplied with special billet shafts that extend the bushing surface area for greater control and provide upgraded geometry over stock. The control arms carry a limited lifetime warranty and are powdercoated black. Using the control arms will provide straight-line stability, improved corner entry for the more aggressive driver, and better tire life.
Global West Suspension


text:
Added to My List as a guest*.
*Your guest list will be temporarily saved until you end this browser session.
Seventh Generation Disinfecting Wipes Lemongrass Citrus -- 70 Wipes
Oops! Something went wrong and we were unable to process your request. Please try again.
Kills over 99.99% of household germs, specifically: Influenza A virus, H2N1, Rhinovirus type 37, Methicillin Resistant S, aureus (MRSA), Staphylococcus aureus, salmonella enterica, and pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Suitable For use on all hard, nonporous surfaces where bacteria or unpleasant odors are a concern including, but not limited to: countertops, food preparation surfaces, floors, appliances, garbage cans, changing tables, highchairs, cribs, children's toys, toilet seats and pet habitats.
To Clean: Wet the surface with the wipe & wipe clean. For stubborn stains, let stand for a few minutes.
To Disinfect: (1) Wet the surface with the wipe (spot test to check surface compatibility). (2) Leave visibly wet for 10 minutes. Allow to air-dry. No rinsing or wiping is required, except on direct food contact surfaces which require a potable water rinse after treatment.
Storage and Disposal
Dispose of wipe in trash after use. Do not flush. Tightly close lid between uses to retain moisture. Nonrefillable container. Do not reuse or refill this empty container. Offer empty container for recycling. If recycling is not available, discard container in trash.
Vitacost price: $3.64
Vitacost price: $3.66
Vitacost price: $3.03
Vitacost price: $3.46


text:
Bike Trumps is the perfect gift for the cyclist that thought they had everything. Great for a post ride relaxing game, Bike Trumps are a good gift for any cyclist. It'll make you laugh and bring back memories of bikes of old, bikes from obscure countries and various disciplines. You can make a cyclist very happy with this gift!
A lesson in cycling: you'll learn interesting facts and figures about a wide variety of bicycles through the years, and the fun part of 'Trumps' is you get to battle them against your friends and family, taking the Yellow Jersey in a game of cards!. Game rules included and suitable for ages 7+.
Please remember to add postal time (2-3 working days) to obtain a complete estimate of delivery to your door.
You will receive an email to confirm when your item has been sent.
You can also check the status of your order and individual items by accessing your account details and following the prompts.
Please allow 10 working days from dispatch of your order before notifying us of any late deliveries.
It may be advisable to check with your neighbours to see if a parcel has been left with them, check any outhouses you might have where it may be left if it cannot fit through your letterbox and contact your local sorting office to see if the item has been returned to the depot as undelivered and awaiting collection.
Please see our returns policy.
There are currently no reviews.


text:
The darmstadtium science and congress centre is a true highlight in the German conference landscape, offering everything you could ever need in terms of high-tech equipment and green meetings.
The darmstadtium provides a forum for people to share ideas and information. A meeting place for science, business and culture, where innovative ideas are born, new discoveries are made and creativity is given a platform. Only 20 minutes from Frankfurt's international airport, the darmstadtium lies in the heart of Darmstadt – the city of science, no more than a stone's throw from the pedestrian area with all the attractions of a big city, including Herrengarten park and Prince George's Garden. The science and congress centre is ideally suited for conferences, congresses and conventions. It also provides the perfect setting for corporate and product presentations, prestigious receptions, events, entertainment and concerts.
Hotspot for congresses
The darmstadtium boasts one of the most impressive IT infrastructures of any Germany congress destination. Its two-gigabit internet connection is provided both through the DE-CIX and through the AMS-IX exchange. When customers arrive they can rely on one of the fastest and most secure networks available today.
Green Meetings – the future of conferences is green!
The energy concept at the darmstadtium consists of a fascinating interplay between architecture and technology, and the use of renewable energy sources such as photovoltaics, geothermal energy and heat recovery. The darmstadtium is one of Germany's leading eco-friendly event venues with a high level of economic, environmental and social responsibility.
The darmstadtium congress centre at a glance:


text:
Welcome to the 4-star Mercure Hotel Leipzig am Johannisplatz: just a few minute's walk from the city center and the main train station. The airport and exhibition center are also within easy reach by car or public transport.
The historic center of the city - host to numerous trade fairs and steeped in tradition - is just a stone's throw from the 4-star Mercure Hotel Leipzig am Johannisplatz. All 174 rooms have WIFI. Our CCH-certified hotel has 9 meeting rooms which guarantee top quality business events and private functions for up to 220 people who can take advantage of the many transport links near the hotel: it is 0.7 miles to the main train station and 11.2 miles to Leipzig airport. Reach us by car via the A9, A14 or A38.


text:
1-year limited warranty
Average Customer Review5.0 (8 reviews)
Create an online reviewand share your thoughts with other customers
Things I liked:In Cal .357 this is POWERFULL hunting rifle... Because of the air tank capacity I choose the Windy city over the other Evanix .357 rifles... This air tank should give more consistent shoots.
Things I would have changed:Nothing.
What others should know:This rifle is longer (about 4 inch) that my Windy City Cal. .25..... With this caliber .357 you should REALLY BE CAREFULL of how you use it... I know both rifles Windy City Cal. 25 and Windy City .357 are very powerfull rifles and not to compare with a bb rifle, but just for knowing what we are talking about, in terms of power, when you ar using a Daisy Red Ryder bb rifle, you are closer to the power of Windy City Cal. 25 (61 ft-lbs) than when you are using a Windy City Cal. 25 (61 ft-lbs)to the power of a Windy City Cal .357 (121.6 ft-lb).... Defently this is a very powerful hunting rifle
I finally received the JSB 77.62 gr. pellets...... the accuracy is perfect!!!! Once again happy with another Windy City. Excellent rifles!
Things I liked:I purchased my WC 9mm back in September of 2013. I tested the WC as it came delivered, no adjustments. I did try the 115gn and 105gn, but I could not get those dialed in on short order. My WC 9mm really liked the JSB 76gn and the 67gn round balls pretty much right out of the box, so that is what I used for testing. Here's a 14 shot string using JSB (end at 140bar): 1) 824 8) 781 2) 819 9) 770 3) 821 10) 755 4) 816 11) 744 5) 810 12) 738 6) 795 13) 730 7) 792 14) 731 Velocity: HI: 824, LO: 731, AVG: 780.4 fpe: HI: 117, LO: 92, AVG: 105 ES: 94 Here's a 7 shot string using 67gn rnd: 1) 876 2) 866 3) 858 4) 846 5) 839 6) 832 7) 828 Velocity: HI: 879, LO: 828, AVG: 849 fpe: HI: 114, LO: 102, AVG: 107 ES: 48 My targets were set at 50 meters. I was sitting off the balcony behind my house resting the front of the gun on a sand filled stabilizer. It's not a full "bench rest" test (there is room for error). The first 7 shots of the JSB grouped very well at 50 meters (about 1.5"). Shots 8-14 started to drop, with an overall spread of about 3.5". But at least the drop between each shot was 0.5" or less. No flyers. The round balls had a very similar grouping. However, notice the rapid change in velocity on the round balls Vs the JSB. I attribute that to the flat spot that all of my 67gn rounds have which creates a small area for the high pressure air to get around (i.e., when the valve is open, more air escapes each time, thus creating a faster roll off in velocity).
Things I would have changed:Sound: I use recording equipment in a controlled environment to capture the sound of all of my airguns. I once owned a Sam Yang Recluse and still own an FX Royale 500 (among many others). The recordings capture the quality of the sound of each airgun relative to the others (and is very close to how I hear it; it also provides a visual depiction of the sound. Although the WC 9mm is loud, it is significantly less than the report of the Recluse. The report of the Recluse is higher in amplitude and the period of the amplitude is longer than the WC. The WC's report is sharp and quick, with more of a "ping". For comparison, my FX Royale 500 is the quietest airgun I own. Build Quality: Overall, I was satisfied with the build quality. The tank is carbon fiber wrapped. The wood stock is solid. A minor nit, some of the cutouts (where the safety is located and fill port area) could have been sanded better. Another minor nit is that since the stock is ambidextrous there are finger guides on both sides of the handle. I would have preferred the side which my palm grasps to be smooth. The receiver, cocking lever, bolt and barrel assembly is very well built, machined and polished. I like the matte black finish. The trigger guard is kind of plain and has the appearance of cheapness relative to the rest of the airgun. My opinion of the overall build places it a bit above the Recluse, but slightly below my FX 500. But that is also reflected in the price point of the WC (right in the middle).
What others should know:Overall I am very pleased with the Windy City. It looks good, shoots straight, is priced right; but most of all is super fun to shoot. I love demolishing old cell phones and other junk from 50 to 70 meters. Compared to the Recluse, the WC does have a lower ft-lbs rating; yet (as noted above) still has plenty of power. The WC also has a higher shot count, tighter accuracy, and definitely not as loud. When I first shot the Recluse, I was surprised by the amplitude of the report and considered I might actually disturb my neighbors (even though I live in the country). However, the WC report is much less intrusive (not concerned at all about disturbing my neighbors), but probably not recommend for more urban areas. Due to the fact that my FX 500 is only 0.25 cal (among other differences), I will forgo a direct performance comparison between the two. I can say that the pull of the trigger on the WC is fairly heavy compared to my FX; however, the trigger of the WC does pull evenly allowing me to squeeze off consistent shots which aids in shot to shot accuracy. In the end, I bought the Windy City because I wanted something with enough power for the "fun" factor, but not necessarily to be used strictly for hunting. I enjoy using it in my backyard for plinking (my backyard has the room). At the same time it has sufficient power to humanely dispatch a varmint that invades my chicken coup without being concerned I will damage the coup (or kill my chickens). I would buy Evanix again.
Things I liked:The gun is of high quality. I love everything about it - the wood and finish, the smoothness of the side lever, the magazines are easy to load, the trigger is great and the gun is accurate.
Things I would have changed:Nothing.
What others should know:My .25 caliber gun likes the JSB Exact Kings in 25.39 grains. It shoots the same hole at 20 yards and 1" groups at 50 yards. When sighted in to zero at 20 yards the gun will shoot the same spot at 50 yards with no holdover using the 25.39 grain Exact Kings. At full power using these pellets, I was getting up to 959 fps which is 51.86 fpe. Using the Eun Jin 35.8 grain pellets, I got 861 fps which produces 58.94 fpe, but these pellets were not accurate. Shot five squirrels the first time out and have taken a total of seven with one shot. The reservoir gauge on the gun does not read the exact air pressure as shown on my Hill Pump - it reads slightly higher. I fill the gun to 200 bar as it reads on the Hill Pump, not on the gun's gauge.
Show Other ReviewsCreate an online review and share your thoughts with other customers
CheckoutSubtotal (USD):
does not include shipping and tax


text:
I hope to see this image again whenever the WWE decides to let The Shield chase titles. And hopefully with an IC Title or a US Title.
Join the Best e-fed, EWNCW!! Send a PM to Tommy Thunder, Kingstrem, TheJosephBanks, S.E.Zero, TTC or me filling the form you'll find in the Inferno Thread.
Find all the EWNCW links here.
The Jesting Madness: Last EWNCW Tag Team Champions (6/3/12-5-5-12), first ever EWNCW Blacklist Champions (5-5-12/11-12)
Also check TWE!!
I'd rather have nothing than have a lie.


text:
Get latest articles and videos with Jewish
inspiration and insights
Understanding the 5 Stages of marriage can increase your commitment when times are tough.
A rare Holocaust diary appears 70 years after being written by its doomed author.
The Iran deal is the worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history.
Iran repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel. Indifference is not an option.
The most daring hostage rescue in Israel's history told like never before.
An Israeli home device turns trash into biogas fuel.
An Israeli ex-envoy believes the Iran deal is bad for Israel, U.S. and the world.
5 reasons to spend more time alone.
My friend always talks about money. Should I keep her as a friend?
We bring it upon ourselves through hubris, self-centeredness and insensitivity to others.
Strategies for perfectionists to overcome procrastination and pull the trigger.
My list according to Jewish values.
Because every parent can use a quick reminder.
A user-friendly guide for men who sometimes have no idea what their wife is really saying.
How I wish everyone would learn to say this more often.
Be bold and give it a try.
If these warning signs sound familiar, distance yourself as much as possible.
Saying yes with clarity.
Understanding their relevance to the 21st century.
We often question God's ways. But given the chance, how would we do things differently?
In a seemingly suicidal move, the Jews take on the mighty Romans.
Practical and relevant insights on the weekly parsha.
Advanced-level midrashic and Kabbalistic illuminations on the weekly parsha.
Lessons, stories and discussion questions for parents and kids.
Exploring the contemporary meaning of the first tragedy that occurred on the 17th of Tammuz, the breaking of the tablets at Mt Sinai.
Then and now, I am a Jew and I mourn.
In Israel, my 4-year-old son was on a mission to see the Temple being rebuilt. We were all surprised when he found it.
That day's never been a good day for the Jews.
From an Orthodox all-girls high school to a secular British University. In two words: culture shock.
I've updated my author photo. Curls and all.
How does your name define you, if at all?
Tisha B'av and the secret of Jewish unity.
Building unity through kindness.
Amazing facts about Israel.
Facebook and the essence of Passover.


text:
The term "commander-in-chief" derives from the Latin imperator. Imperatores (commanders-in-chief) of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire possessed imperium (command) powers. In its modern usage, the term was first used by King Charles I of England in 1639. A nation's head of state usually holds the position of national commander-in-chief, even if effective executive power is held by a separate head of government. Colonial governors are also often appointed commander-in-chief of the military forces in their colonies. in-Chief Allied Forces North, Commander-in-Chief East Atlantic, etc.
Commanders-in-Chief is sometimes referred to as Supreme Commander, which is sometimes used as a specific term. The term is also used for military officers who hold such power and authority, not always through dictatorship, and as a subordinate (usually) to a head of state. The term is also used for officers that hold authority over individual branches or within a theatre of operations
Until the early 20th century, the person commanding the Australia Station component of the Royal Navy's British Eastern Fleet was known as Commander-in-Chief, Australia.
In the 1930s the Royal Navy had nine commanders-in-chief; today there are two - the Commander-in-Chief Fleet and the Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command.
The President commissions officers and decides on the mobilisation of the Defence Forces. If Parliament is not in session when a decision to mobilise is taken, it must be immediately convened. A declaration of war is made by a presidential decree, which must be afterwards accepted by the parliament.
Since the reign of Louis XIV France has been strongly centralized. After crushing local nobles engaged in warlordism, the Kings of France retained all authority with the help of able yet discreet Prime ministers (Mazarin, Richelieu).
The 1789 Revolution transferred the supreme authority to the King (in the context of the short-lived constitutional Monarchy), then to the multi-member Comité de Salut Public during the Convention, and later to the Directoire, before being regained in the hands of Consul Napoléon Bonaparte, later Emperor Napoléon I, alone.
The Restauration restored authority of the King, in an absolute, then constitutional way before being overthrown by the Second Empire. The following Third Republic was a parliamentary system, where the military authority was held by the President of the Council (Prime Minister).
During World War II, Maréchal Philippe Pétain assumed power and held the supreme authority in Vichy France, while Général Charles De Gaulle, acting on behalf of the previous regime, founded the Free French Forces, upon which he held supreme authority all through the war.
The following and short-lived Fourth Republic was a parliamentary system, which was replaced by the present Fifth Republic, a semi-presidential system.
When Adolf Hitler assumed power, he granted his war minister, Werner von Blomberg, the title of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. However, in 1938, Hitler took the title of Commander-in-Chief himself and assumed personal command of the Armed Forces.
On August 15, 1947, each Service was placed under its own Chief Commander. In 1955, the three Service Chiefs were redesignated as the Chief of the Army Staff (General), the Chief of the Naval Staff (Admiral) and the Chief of the Air Staff (Air Chief Marshall) with President of India as supreme commander.
Article 93 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China places the authority to direct the armed forces of the PRC in the Central Military Commission. However, Article 80 gives the President of the People's Republic of China the power to proclaim martial law, proclaim a state of war, and issue mobilization orders. Since the mid-1990's, it has been standard practice to have the President, the CMC Chairman, and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China be the same person although the differences in the start of terms means that there is some overlap between an occupant and his predecessor.
After the new constitution came into effect: the Cabinet, which in turn is led by the Prime Minister of Sweden, holds the highest Executive Authority and is thus the Swedish Commander-in-Chief. Some Government decisions regarding the Armed Forces may be delegated to the Minister for Defence, under the supervision of the Prime Minister and to the extent laid down in law.
However, the Monarch of Sweden (as of present King Carl XVI Gustaf), is still a four star General and Admiral à la suite in the Swedish Army, Navy and Air Force and is by convention the foremost representative of the Swedish Armed Forces. The King have, as part of his Royal Court, a Military Staff. The Staff is headed by a senior officer (usually a General or Admiral, retired from active service) and is manned by military officers serving as aides to the King and his family.
To add to some confusion, the title of the commanding officer of the Armed Forces is actually Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces (Överbefälhavaren).
Four generals were appointed in Swiss history, General Henri Dufour during the Swiss Civil War, General Hans Herzog during the Franco-Prussian War, General Ulrich Wille during the First World War, and General Henri Guisan during the Second World War ("la Mob", "the Mobilisation"). Although Switzerland remained neutral during the latter three conflicts, the threat of having its territory used as a battlefield by the much bigger war parties of Germany and France required mobilization of the army.
The governors of the states are also commanders-in-chief of their states' respective National Guard and other military forces, except when those forces are called into active federal service. This temporarily ended with the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, a federal law that established the governor of a state was no longer the sole commander in chief of the National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States would then be able to take control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent. In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard. These changes were repealed in 2008, restoring full command within a state to that state's governor. This restoration of gubernatorial authority occurred by repealing the 2006 amendments to the Insurrection Act.
Although the United States presidency was modeled upon the monarch of Great Britain, and the title of Commander-in-Chief was unlikely to have been understood to confer upon the President any powers additional to those inherently held by a Sovereign, the title has increasingly come to be perceived as being a peculiarly military position. This has led to a blurring of the distinction between the President's civil and military responsibilities. It was, for instance, the basis for the trial by military commission of Dr. Samuel Mudd. The American presidency thus departs from the civilian basis of virtually all other republics. In 1867 Congress attempted to limit the President's powers as Commander in Chief by passing the Army Appropriations Act. The Act included the "command of the army" provisions, which required that the president issue all commands to the army through the General of the Army. This act was condemned by President Andrew Johnson, but he nevertheless signed it into law.
In the United States, the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 added a new level of commanders-in-chief (CINCs). Under Goldwater-Nichols, regional CINCs were created to bring a local supreme commander to a conflict, the most well-known of which was CINC CENTCOM, who was Norman Schwarzkopf during Operation Desert Storm.
On October 24, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that the title of "Commander-in-Chief" would thereafter be reserved for the President, consistent with the terms of Article II of the United States Constitution. Armed forces CINCs in specified regions would thereafter be known as "combatant commanders," heading the Unified Combatant Commands.
In 2008, there are ten Unified Combatant Commands. Six have regional responsibilities, and four have functional responsibilities. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands from the President and Secretary of Defense, but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces.
During the War of 1812, President Madison was under enemy fire on August 24, 1814, when American forces were routed by British troops in Bladensburg, Maryland. Madison, incensed by the American commanding general's incompetence, was on the scene and personally assumed command of the only remaining American force, a naval battery commanded by Commodore Joshua Barney. He did so to stall the British invasion of the American capital, but his efforts were unsuccessful, and the British burned Washington over the next two days.
During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln considered personally assuming battlefield command of the Union Army, and studied military texts when he became frustrated by the incompetence and lethargy of his generals. He actually came under enemy fire in 1864 during the Confederate attack on Fort Stevens in the District of Columbia, but did not exercise battlefield authority as commander-in-chief at any time.
In the War on Terrorism President George W. Bush has used these war powers to justify several actions, such as the NSA electronic surveillance program and enhanced interrogation techniques. The administration, on several occasions, has promoted a legal theory known as the unitary executive theory, to argue that in his duty as Commander-in-Chief the President, with his inherent powers, cannot be bound by any law or Congress. Advocates of this theory opine that since the primary task of the President, during a time of war, is protecting US citizens, anything hindering him in that capacity can be considered unconstitutional. In the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy this was used to suggest he was not required to abide by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The same rationale was used to deny detainees in the War on Terror protection by the Geneva Conventions resulting in a global controversy surrounding apparent mistreatment. Also it is thought that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which was adopted to address prisoner abuse, might be ignored after President Bush added a signing statement, invoking his rights as Commander-in-Chief, to that bill.


text:
Sale > Palm Springs Small Flap
Sale: $19.50
Reg: $39.00
Palm Springs Small Flap
model #: 106047
Our new classic crochet collection features a hand-crocheted strap and flap with enamel and silver toned hardware. Wear it as a crossbody or over the shoulder!
- special web price $39, regular price $59
- Exterior: Polypropylene
- Interior: Nylon
- Antiqued silver tone hardware
- 7.5L x 2W x 6H, Drop: 20.75
- Zipper closure under flap
- Lining features an open multi function pocket, four credit card slots and a zippered back wall pocket
- spot clean with barely damp rag and mild detergent such as woolite
Displaying 1–1 of 1 product reviews
You must be logged in to write a review.
Tuesday December 31 2013
Loved this style and super comfortable to carry, but within months of purchasing I noticed the lining around the zipper was coming undone, then the zipper broke then the whole bag began to unravel. It made me very sad! Cust Service is helping me to get a new bag, although I would have loved if this one lasted longer.


text:
Forrest Griffin: Too many regrets to put into words
Rebecca Clifford-Cruz: What person, living or dead, do you admire most?
Forrest Griffin: Ghandi, or Inigo Montoya.
RCC: What is the quality you like best about a person?
FG: Come on, Ghandi, do you really need a reason?
RCC: What is your most recognizable characteristic?
FG: My satellite dish-like ears.
RCC: What makes you happy?
FG: Coffee and sex but never at the same time.
RCC: What is your most embarrassing moment as a prominent figure?
FG: During a fight with Anderson Silva, I slipped on an imaginary banana peel.
RCC: Any regrets this past year?
FG: So many I cannot put into words. Thanks for bringing it up.


text:
1. San Antonio
2012-13 finish: 58-24.
Coming: Marco Belinelli, Jeff Pendergraph.
Going: Gary Neal, DeJuan Blair.
Before anyone asks the Spurs to appear en masse on the next episode of "Derek," Ricky Gervais' thoughtful look at retirement home living, let's assess a few benefits of being old and reliable: San Antonio has finished first-first-second in the West over the last three seasons. Plus, the Spurs aren't really all that old; Kawhi Leonard, the team's new No. 3 option, is barely out of his Nickelodeon Jr. stage.
2. Clippers
2012-13 finish: 56-26.
Coming: Coach Doc Rivers, J.J. Redick, Jared Dudley, Darren Collison, Antawn Jamison, Byron Mullens, Reggie Bullock.
Going: Coach Vinny Del Negro, Chauncey Billups, Eric Bledsoe, Caron Butler, Lamar Odom, Grant Hill.
Chris Paul + Rivers = NBA Finals? It's certainly possible, but a few things have to happen for the league's onetime lottery-pick franchise to reach the elite level. First, Blake Griffin needs to become a late-game offensive option and DeAndre Jordan must morph into a defensive force. If the Clippers can also improve their three-point shooting, well, see you in June.
3. Oklahoma City
2012-13 finish: 60-22.
Coming: Steven Adams, Andre Roberson, Ryan Gomes.
Going: Kevin Martin, DeAndre Liggins.
Hello, anyone there besides Kevin Durant for the next four to six weeks? A team already dealing with separation anxiety after the departure of Kevin Martin now must gird itself for a month or more without Russell Westbrook and his worrisome right knee. Even the spindly wonder known as Durantula may not be enough to keep the Thunder from taking an early-season tumble in the standings.
4. Golden State
2012-13 finish: 47-35.
Coming: Andre Iguodala, Marreese Speights, Jermaine O'Neal, Toney Douglas, Nemanja Nedovic.
Going: Jarrett Jack, Carl Landry, Richard Jefferson, Brandon Rush, Charles Jenkins, Jeremy Tyler.


text:
For Immediate Release: March 24, 2011
News Highlights:
More Information:
Amy Young, Alexandria's Poet Laureate, invites all Alexandrians to participate in National Poetry Month activities throughout the month of April. Schools, local businesses, libraries, and recreation centers will promote poetry writing and reading and encourage broad participation in the month-long celebration.
The City of Alexandria celebrates poetry to promote an appreciation of the written word in all forms, especially poetry, to emphasize the importance and pleasure of reading and writing to Alexandria's young people, and to uphold and call attention to Alexandria's reputation as a leader in the arts.
Literary events scheduled include:
The Academy of American Poets has designated April as National Poetry Month to celebrate poetry and its ability to enrich everyday life. To learn more about National Poetry Month and the activities celebrated throughout the country, visit Poets.org.
To learn how you can get involved in local poetry activities, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com, or call Cheryl Anne Colton, Regional Program Director, Office of the Arts, at 703.746.5565.
Find neighborhood parks?
Start a small business?
Learn about new development?
Pay my taxes or parking citation?
Report fraud, waste and abuse?
Speak at a City Council meeting?
Apply for a marriage license?
Find information for retired City employees?
Get information about permits?
Search property and sales data?
Find visitor information?
Find volunteer opportunities?
Obtain and review public documents and records?
Find information about parking?
Learn more about Verizon FiOS?
1108 Jefferson St.
Alexandria, VA 22314703.746.4343Fax: 703.838.6344Email: Information
Office Hours
8 am - 5 pm
James B. Spengler


text:
Moderators: Tonyblack, Jason, Toothy
Tiffany wrote:Today, my friend & I saw in 3D Ice Age 4, Continental Shift. A good film, I thought as good as the three before, imaginative plot, good casting, well animated & new characters introduced with the original ones.
We had a great time, despite the little darlings in front of us, one directly in front of me who kept peering around the seat she was sitting in. Previously she had been sitting on the back of the one in front of her. Charming child!!!!!! She did sit properly when the film started, but Oh! the mess the Family left behind when the film finished.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests