text:
Slick Trick Standard Fixed Blade Broadhead Pack of 3
Product Family #: 2847154489
Suggested Products
- Bohning New Style Broadhead Wrench Polymer Red... $4.39 Available
- MTM Broadhead Box 16 Broadheads Plastic Clear... $6.39 Available
- G5 Small Game Head Broadhead Pack of 3... $24.99 Select Options
- Swhacker HDX3 Broadhead Sharpener... $11.15 Available
- G5 Sportsman Broadhead Sharpener Carbide Black... $24.99 Available
- Easton V3 Small Game Mechanical Broadhead 100 Grain Steel Pack... $20.99 Available
Substitute Products
- Slick Trick Magnum Fixed Blade Broadhead Pack of 3... $29.99 Select Options
- NAP Thunderhead Fixed Blade Broadhead Pack of 5... $39.99 Select Options
- Slick Trick GRIZZ TRICK 2 Fixed Blade Broadhead Pack of 3... $29.99 Select Options
- Slick Trick RAZORTRICK Fixed Blade Broadhead Pack of 3... $29.99 Select Options
- G5 Montec Fixed Blade Broadhead Pack of 3... $34.99 Select Options
- G5 Striker Magnum Fixed Blade Broadhead 125 Grain Stainless... $39.99 Available
- Grim Reaper Hades Fixed Blade Broadhead Pack of 3... $33.99 Select Options
- G5 Striker Fixed Blade Broadhead Pack of 3... $39.99 Select Options
Others Bought
- Slick Trick 1" Standard Extra Blades Broadhead Replacement... $13.99 Out of Stock, Backorder OK
- Tipton Deluxe 1-Piece Cleaning Rod 27 to 45 Caliber 40" Carbon... $38.99 Available
- Lansky Puck Dual-Grit Coarse and Fine Knife and Tool Sharpener... $6.99 Available
- Montana X-Treme Heavy Duty Rifle Bore Brush 243, 6mm Caliber 8... $2.09 Available
- Tipton Universal Bore Guide... $15.79 Available
- Caldwell Lead Sled Weight Bag Polyester Green Package of 4... $24.49 Available
- Ruger Magazine Ruger Gunsite Scout 308 Winchester Polymer... $29.99 Select Options
- Hunter's Specialties Field Dressing Gloves Combo with Wrist... $1.99 - $6.99 Select Options
- Trophy Ridge Slick Tip Field Point Pack of 6... $13.79 Select Options
Product Information
Slick Trick broadheads have all of the features that today's bowhunters demand from a hunting head. The Rhinosteel ferrule coupled with Slick Trick's patented Alcatraz Bladelock technology yields exceptional strength and durability to the head. The 4-blade design and the razor sharp .035" thick Lutz Solingen blades will produce devastating wound channels and massive blood trails. With their shorter ferrule and compact blade design these heads feature a smaller profile yielding excellent flight characteristics. If you are looking for a fixed blade that will give you pinpoint accuracy and devastating killing power, you owe it to yourself to give the Slick Trick Standards a try.
Technical Information
Technical Information
- Broadhead Type: fixed blade
- Number of Blades: 4
- Cutting Diameter: 1"
- Ferrule Material: steel
- Replaceable Blades: yes
- Quantity: 3
Know someone who may like this? Email this Page to a Friend
Customer Reviews
The statements and opinions expressed within Customer Reviews reflect each author's personal perspective and do not imply endorsement by MidwayUSA, its Employees or any other organization. Customers should in no way infer that MidwayUSA has validated review information as safe, accurate or appropriate.
NOTE: Prices, specifications and availability are subject to change
without notice.
We reserve the right to correct typographic, photographic and/or descriptive errors.
We reserve the right to correct typographic, photographic and/or descriptive errors.


text:
Home work on tags. Home work on tags. Home of Martin Gibbons, 268 [?] Centre Street, Roxbury Mass. James 11, years old; Helen 9 years and Mary 6, work on tags. Helen said she could tie the most (5,000 a day at 30 cents). Mary does some but can do only 1000 a day. They work nights a good deal. The night before Helen and James worked until 11:00 P.M. See also Home Work report. Location: Roxbury, Massachusetts.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Vertigo Crosby
Named after Captain Nathaniel Crosby who built the first framed home in Portland, Oregon.
Boot Features
- Made in the USA
- Leather lined for a comfortable and classic design
- Black suede uppers make the Vertigo Crosby look like a midnight panther, perfect for laying low in the city
- Built on the Portland made 503 last, the Vertigo Crosby is totally original with a sleek profile and stable platform, fits true to size
- The Vibram® 2060 outsole is both durable and comfortable
- Recraftable to extend the life of your boots
503 Last
Portland made 503 last has a casual fit without compromising Danner's comfortable lace-to-toe construction, fits true to size.
Portland made 503 last has a casual fit without compromising Danner's comfortable lace-to-toe construction, fits true to size.
Tips for the Perfect Fit
- Measure both feet. If one foot is slightly larger than the other, select a size that fits the larger of the two.
- Consider the type of socks you'll be wearing with your boot. For thicker socks, you may want to select a half size larger than you normally wear.
- When you do receive your boots, we recommend first wearing them indoors for a few hours to ensure they're the right fit.
Free Return Shipping
Rest assured that if the boot you receive doesn't fit correctly, we pay for return shipping back to us. You can order with confidence knowing return shipping is always on us.


text:
Features & Opinion
Pyongyang Tries – and Fails – to Intimidate the World
The Unha-3 rocket
© AFP 2013/ Pedro UgarteThe Unha-3 rocket
© AFP 2013/ Pedro UgarteKonstantin Bogdanov, Dmitry Kosyrev, RIA Novosti political commentators
Related News
- Russia Opposes New Sanctions on N. Korea - Lavrov
- North Korea Rocket Launch Fails
- North Koreans to Try Next Missile Launch in 2-3 Yrs - French Expert
- North Korean Rocket Launch 'May Have Failed'
- North Korea Launches Long-Range Rocket - Yonhap
- North Korea Launches Rocket
- U.S., Japan Vow "Appropriate Action" Over North Korea's Launch
North Korea has failed to do in 2012 what the USSR successfully did way back in 1957, when it launched the world's first artificial satellite. The country's much-hyped ballistic missile fell apart just minutes after launch, and its debris fell into the sea. So what conclusions can we draw about the international diplomatic standoff sparked by the launch?
A peaceful achievement with military implications
The rift was clear from the very start: one group of countries (or their experts) saw the event as a thinly-veiled ballistic missile test, while another group claimed it was a satellite launch. The debate was actually about war and peace, but the problem is that both are involved in this case.
Pyongyang's launch of an orbiter was meant as a bit of flag waving by way of military-technological achievement. In many respects, the USSR was engaged in the same thing when it launched its R-7 carrier rocket – the world's first intercontinental ballistic missile – with satellite on board. The clearly audible signal the satellite transmitted from orbit sent a message clearer than any military parade or combat exercise: the U.S. was no longer safe behind its ocean borders.
A successful launch would have at least enabled Pyongyang to pose as a power with the potential to strike America. We say "pose" because there is a difference between putting a satellite in orbit and delivering a nuclear weapon to North America.
For example, you have to deal with the issue of accuracy. Of course, if your bomb is powerful enough, you can more or less disregard precision and drop it within a kilometer or two of any densely populated urban area. But the DPRK is a far cry from Russia, whose strategic missile forces must be able to deliver pinpoint counterstrikes against U.S. silos and command centers in case of a hypothetical war.
There are numerous other problems as well. The simplest satellites are compact and rather lightweight, comparable to the mid-yield nuclear warheads available only to the nuclear superpowers. Pyongyang does not possess these technologies, and won't for the foreseeable future.
Strictly speaking, it is still unclear whether the DPRK has moved from producing nuclear explosive devices (only officially confirmed by two tests) to producing nuclear warheads for existing carriers. There are numerous doubts that it possesses this capability.
Potentially a trial device capable of exploding at a test site can be of any size or weight. A good illustration is the difference between the world's first thermonuclear device (Ivy Mike, 1952, U.S.A.), a 62-ton multi-level affair, and the world's first thermonuclear munition (RDS-6s, 1953, USSR), a bomb that could fit into the bomb bay of a Tupolev Tu-95 bomber. But in a missile warhead, everything hinges on a matter of kilograms and centimeters: the ideal device must be pared down to only the absolutely essential, and for that you need the most advanced technologies.
Even supposing the DPRK will soon manage to make a nuclear warhead, it is likely to be a munition for "regional" systems that threaten Seoul and Tokyo more than they do Washington. It will be a long time before the existing North Korean systems are capable of carrying nuclear warheads – and that would be true even if the recent satellite launch had been successful.
A diplomatic game
All this explains the reaction of the world community to the North Korean launch. Everyone made sure to issue the requisite condemnation, but this attitude is a far cry from the parallel process involving Iran. A few days ago it was believed that the North Korean launch and the talks with Iran in Istanbul would take place simultaneously. Pyongyang got out ahead, but this is of no importance. What is important is that all major world media have kept Iran squarely on the front page, while relegating North Korea to the background.
Why? Don't we have identical stories here? Two countries have been punished by the UN for pursuing nuclear arsenals of their own. Two groups of states with almost the same composition have been engaged for years in a diplomatic game with both countries in a bid to prevent them from gaining nuclear status. But their diplomatic efforts have been largely unsuccessful, to say the least.
And yet, there is a difference in approaches. Take North Korea. Its announced launch was condemned by the United States, Russia, and China, not to mention Japan, above whose territory the most recent DPRK missiles have flown. Everyone reminded North Korea of UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 banning ballistic launches. Everyone warned that consequences would follow.
Nevertheless, a meeting of foreign ministers of China, South Korea and Japan took place over the weekend, and while they issued another stern warning to Pyongyang they failed to go any further. Asked whether Beijing was ready for new resolute steps at the UN Security Council, the Japanese diplomats shook their heads despondently.
Somewhat earlier Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia must "calibrate" its response to the launch, meaning to balance what it wants to achieve with the steps it can afford to take.
Pyongyang has been playing a diplomatic game. Instead of pursuing the six-party talks (the two Koreas, the U.S.A., Russia, China, and Japan), the North Koreans are engaged in a dialogue with the United States (last time it was held in Berlin). Pyongyang was following the well-worn routine of attempting to raise the stakes: after all, previous missiles barely reached Alaska, while the impending launch, if successful, would have been a much more threatening. Japan? To be sure, it was scared stiff, but while the previous three missiles overflew the Japanese islands, the present one was directed at a southern area and the Philippines. North Korea's gesture was subtle and diplomatically elegant.
No matter how hard Pyongyang tries to scare its negotiating partners with its nuclear might, the result is nil. Iran, on the contrary, has achieved all it wanted. Though Pyongyang seems to have made several primitive nuclear devices while Iran has none, this changes nothing in the present line-up.
The world powers are taking different approaches to the two trespassers. We can expect North Korea will be punished across the board (there was a launch after all, even if it failed), but the North Korean nuclear crisis will continue to be addressed through protracted talks. Even if the talks drag on after the U.S. presidential elections in November, a relatively successful outcome is still a possibility. Iran is another matter.
The views expressed in this article are the authors' and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
Publication code:
Send by e-mail
Leave a comment
- SirkoMissing the Point06:25, 16/04/2012"....The world powers are taking different approaches to the two trespassers. We can expect North Korea will be punished across the board (there was a launch after all, even if it failed), but the North Korean nuclear crisis will continue to be addressed through protracted talks. Even if the talks drag on after the U.S. presidential elections in November, a relatively successful outcome is still a possibility. Iran is another matter...."
"... two trespassers. " Oh, my Gosh.. The UN is nothing but an American tool and a farce.
This is a nonsense article which misses the point, perhaps intentionally. If so, then one poses the question who funds Novosti? The CIA...!!! Hahahaha...!!!
What is the big deal? Missiles fail! Russia has had its fair share as have other countries. I used to think that NASA meant North American Space Agency but after the Challenger disaster, I realize it meant "Need Another Seven Astronauts".
The point missed in this article is that countries like North Korea are forced to pursue nuclear technology due to fear. All nations have the unalienable right of national sovereignty and self preservation, so when their leaders listen to a frenzy of belligerent statements such as "axis of evil" and see the U.S. attacking and destroying countries around the globe it logically follows that safety lies in the production of nuclear capability. This is the driving force behind proliferation. Not to mention the hypocrisy of the U.S. in regards to Israel's countless nuclear weapons given to them gratis by American Zionists.
I put it to Novosti that if Stalin did not give the Soviets nuclear capability, by today's real politic standards it may very well have found itself in the shoes of Libya and Syria..
Most read
Top multimedia
Image Galleries: Yury Gagarin: Life of the First Man in Space in Pictures
Video: Yury Gagarin's International Fame
Infographics: Sledge Hockey


text:
Buy flats in Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 - 4 bedrooms
Castle Way, Southampton SO14
Flat for sale - 4 bedroomsAn ideal investment opportunity locate din the city centre. This spacious split level four bedroom flat would ideally benefit from modernisation and offers accommodation arranged over two floors, with a kitchen/diner, living room with a balcony, ...
Marketed by Fox & Sons, SO15. Call 023 8065 8273
Castle Way, Southampton SO14
Flat for sale - 4 bedroomsThe opportunity arises to purchase this second floor, four bedroom split level apartment which has a 15'3 x 10'8 lounge, 15'7 x 3'9 balcony and a 12'8 x 9'3 kitchen/diner. The property also has bathroom, security entry system and double glazed ...
Marketed by Morris Dibben - Southampton, SO15. Call 023 8168 0063


text:
FINDLAY - Open Arms is taking reservations for its annual meeting at 7 p.m. Oct. 22 at Parkview Church, 15035 E. SR 12, Findlay.
This year's event is to feature Beth Holloway, mother of Natalee Holloway, who vanished in Aruba in 2005. Holloway is to share her journey through her daughter's disappearance and presumed murder.
The annual meeting is free. Refreshments are to be provided. Reservations can be made online at openarmsfindlay.org or by calling (419) 420-9261 by Oct. 18.
Open Arms is a nonprofit agency supported in part by the Hancock County United Way.


text:
GOUDE VIBRATIONS: Kenzo has tapped Jean-Paul Goude to shoot its fall-winter campaign, which will break in the July issue of L'Uomo Vogue this week to coincide with the Pitti Uomo trade show in Florence. Kenzo creative directors Humberto Leon and Carol Lim, the duo behind Opening Ceremony, said they have long admired Goude and felt he was the ideal choice to shoot the collection, which was influenced by the spirit of founder Kenzo Takada's Jungle Jap store in Paris in the Seventies.
"Carol and I, growing up, have always been huge, huge fans of his work and when we started at Kenzo, that's one of the initial things that we said would really kind of connect all the dots in the most perfect way," said Leon. "A lot of it was just a conversation about where Paris was when Kenzo first arrived, and I think Jean-Paul Goude has just such great insight into that era. He was just really excited about us telling the story."
The campaign features images of models Xiao Wen and Simon Sabbah, both wearing sweaters embroidered with a tiger and the Kenzo logo, superimposed to form an X shape. "It's really exciting putting in the forefront that this brand is a unisex brand," said Leon. "The idea that this image can work for both men's and women's magazines, depending on how you reverse it, was a very interesting take from his part on our collection." The campaign is slated to run globally starting in September in titles including Vogue Paris, Vogue U.S., Vogue Hommes International, GQ, Love, W, Self Service and Fantastic Man.
Sign in using your Facebook or Twitter account, or simply type your comment below as a guest by entering your email and name. Your email address will not be shared. Please note that WWD reserves the right to remove profane, distasteful or otherwise inappropriate language.Ads by Google


text:
Binyamina | בִּנְיָמִינָה
- Meaning: Binyamina is the feminine version of Binyamin.
- Gender: Female
- Origin: Hebrew
- You Might Also Like: Binyamin
Don't see your favorite name? Email us at email@example.com with suggestions.
Binyamina | בִּנְיָמִינָה
Free Jewish recipes, exclusive giveaways, and tips from the smartest moms around. | [Privacy Policy] |


text:
112 notes January 18, 2013 WHAT IS THIS AM I IN A DREAM OR ARE THREE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE HANGING OUT TOGETHER AND THEN ONE OF THEM TALKS ABOUT OUR BOOK?!?!?!??! Excuse me, I need to go lie down. -AA Filed under carrie brownstein fred armisen julie klausner portlandia vulture
80 notes January 24, 2012 Carrie and Fred interview each other. <3 Anaheed Filed under fred armisen carrie brownstein portlandia best friends


text:
« Previous | Next »
Unfortunately, this product is no longer available.
Please click here for further assistance.
Kahrs Original American Traditionals Collection: Square Nose Reducer Red Oak New York - 78" Long Used when your Kahrs hardwood flooring meets a vertical object that cannot be framed with base or shoe. Examples are sliding glass doors, fireplace hearths or large thresholds. Also can be used where floor meets tile or carpet of similar heightPerfect accessory to give your floor that finishing touch Available in 78" lengths


text:
Advanced Search | Search Tips
Click the button below to add the Sony Vaio VPCY2 Microphone Laptop Internal - VPCY2-MIC to your wish list.
Sony Vaio VPCY2 Microphone Laptop Internal - VPCY2-MIC
Compatible Laptop Models:
Sony Vaio VPCY2, Sony Vaio VPCY21SFX, Sony Vaio Y Series, Sony Vaio PCG-51412L,
We promise to never spam you, and just use your email address to identify you as a valid customer.
This product hasn't received any reviews yet. Be the first to review this product!


text:
Skip to content
In association with
and found 1 items
alford, 20 April 2007 17:13
In June of last year (2006) I received a notice of intended prosecution for speeding (89mph in a 70mph limit). After reading MCN advice, and forwarding the suggested letter and heeding the advice given, I received a further letter threatening to prosecute me for failing to give requested details (name and address etc.) On MCN's advice I forwarded copies of ...
Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy
Compare and buy 100s of bargain priced products for you and your bike


text:
EconlibThe LibraryOther Sites |
Front Page Titles (by Subject) chapter 6: Presidential Powers and Duties - The American Commonwealth, vol. 1
Return to Title Page for The American Commonwealth, vol. 1The Online Library of LibertyA project of Liberty Fund, Inc.Search this Title:Also in the Library:
chapter 6: Presidential Powers and Duties - Viscount James Bryce, The American Commonwealth, vol. 1 [1888]Edition used:The American Commonwealth, with an Introduction by Gary L. McDowell, 2 vols (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1995).
Part of: The American Commonwealth, 2 vols.About Liberty Fund:Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright information:The copyright to this edition, in both print and electronic forms, is held by Liberty Fund, Inc. Fair use statement:This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
chapter 6Presidential Powers and DutiesThe powers and duties of the president as head of the federal executive are the following:
These functions group themselves into four classes:
The conduct of foreign policy would have been a function of the utmost importance had not America, happy America, stood apart1 down till 1898 in a world of her own, unassailable by European powers, easily superior to the other republics of her continent, but with no present motive for aggression upon them. The president, however, has rarely been allowed a free hand in foreign policy. He cannot declare war, for that belongs to Congress, though to be sure he may, as President Polk did in 1845–46, bring affairs to a point at which it is hard for Congress to refrain from the declaration. Treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate; and in order to secure this, it is usually necessary for the executive to be in constant communication with the Foreign Affairs Committee of that body. The House of Representatives has no legal right to interfere, but it often passes resolutions enjoining or disapproving a particular line of policy; and sometimes invites the Senate to coincide in these expressions of opinion, which then become weightier. The president is nowise bound by such resolutions, and has more than once declared that he does not regard them. But as some treaties, especially commercial treaties, cannot be carried out except by the aid of statutes, and as no war can be entered on without votes of money, the House of Representatives can sometimes indirectly make good its claim to influence. Many delicate questions, some of them not yet decided, have arisen upon these points, which the Constitution has, perhaps unavoidably, left in half light. In all free countries it is most difficult to define the respective spheres of the legislature and executive in foreign affairs, for while publicity and parliamentary control are needed to protect the people, promptitude and secrecy are the conditions of diplomatic success. Practically, however, and for the purposes of ordinary business, the president is independent of the House, while the Senate, though it can prevent his settling anything, cannot keep him from unsetling everything. He, or possibly his secretary of state, if the president should not have leisure to give close or continuous attention to foreign policy, retains an unfettered initiative, by means of which he may embroil the country abroad or excite passion at home. The direct domestic authority of the president is in time of peace very small, because by far the larger part of law and administration belongs to the state governments, and because federal administration is regulated by statutes which leave little discretion to the executive. In war time, however, and especially in a civil war, it expands with portentous speed. Both as commander in chief of the army and navy, and as charged with the "faithful execution of the laws," the president is likely to be led to assume all the powers which the emergency requires. How much he can legally do without the aid of statutes is disputed, for the acts of President Lincoln during the earlier part of the War of Secession, including his proclamation suspending the writ of habeas corpus, were subsequently legalized by Congress; but it is at least clear that Congress can make him, as it did make Lincoln, almost a dictator. And how much the war power may include appears in this, that by virtue of it and without any previous legislative sanction President Lincoln issued his emancipation proclamations of 1862 and 1863, declaring all slaves in the insurgent states to be thenceforth free, although these states were deemed to be in point of law still members of the Union.2 It devolves on the executive as well as on Congress to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution whereby a republican form of government is guaranteed to every state; and a state may, on the application of its legislature, or executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), obtain protection against domestic violence. Where, as in Louisiana in 1873, there are two governments disputing by force the control of a state, or where an insurrection breaks out, as in Rhode Island in 1840–42, or where riots stop the movement of mail trains on a railroad, as happened in Illinois in 1894, this power becomes an important one, for it involves the employment of troops, and may enable the president (since it is usually on him that the duty falls) to establish the government he prefers to recognize.3 Fortunately the case has been one of rare occurrence. The president has the right of speaking to the nation by addresses or proclamations, a right not expressly conferred by the Constitution, but inherent in his position. Occasions requiring its exercise are uncommon. On entering office, it is usual for the new magistrate to issue an inaugural address, stating his views on current public questions. Washington also put forth a farewell address, but Jackson's imitation of that famous document was condemned as a piece of vainglory. It is thought bad taste for the president to go round on a political stumping tour, and Andrew Johnson injured himself by the practice. But he retains the right of making political speeches with all the other rights of the ordinary citizen, including that of voting at federal as well as state elections in his own state. He is constantly invited to speak on nonpartisan occasions, and he is free to confer with and advise the leaders of his own party. The position of the president as respects legislation is a peculiar one. The king of England is a member of the English legislature, because Parliament is in theory his Great Council which he summons and in which he presides, hearing the complaints of the people, and devising legislative remedies.4 It is as a member of the legislature that he assents to the bills it presents to him, and the term "veto power," since it seems to suggest an authority standing outside to approve or reject, does not happily describe his right of dealing with a measure which has been passed by the council over which he is deemed to preside, though he now no longer appears in it except at the beginning and ending of a session. The American president is not a member of either house of Congress. He is a separate authority whom the people, for the sake of protecting themselves against abuses of legislative power, have associated with the legislature for the special purpose of arresting its action by his disapproval.5 So again the king of England can initiate legislation. According to the older Constitution, statutes purported to be made, and were till the middle of the fifteenth century actually made, by him, but "with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons." 6 According to the modern practice, nearly all important measures are brought into Parliament by his ministers, and nominally under his instructions. The American president cannot introduce bills, either directly or through his ministers, for they do not sit in Congress.7 All that the Constitution permits him to do in this direction is to inform Congress of the state of the nation, and to recommend the measures which his experience in administration shows to be necessary. This latter function is discharged by the messages which the president addresses to Congress. The most important is that sent by the hands of his private secretary at the beginning of each session. George Washington used to deliver his addresses orally, like an English king, and drove in a coach and six to open Congress with something of an English king's state. But Jefferson, when his turn came in 1801, whether from republican simplicity, as he said himself, or because he was a poor speaker, as his critics said, began the practice of sending communications in writing; and this has been followed ever since. The message usually—for besides the long one at the opening of a congressional session, others are sent as occasion requires—discusses the leading questions of the moment, indicates mischiefs needing a remedy, and suggests the requisite legislation. There are however persons in Congress who view with jealousy the action of the executive, though justified by precedent, when a bill drafted by a member of the administration is laid before either house, and as no minister sits there to explain and defend bills and there may be no majority to pass them, the message may be a shot in the air without practical result. It is rather a manifesto, or declaration of opinion and policy, than a step towards legislation. Congress need not take action; members go their own ways and bring in their own bills. Far more effective is the president's part in the last stage of legislation, for here he finds means provided for carrying out his will. When a bill is presented to him, he may sign it, and his signature makes it law. If, however, he disapproves of it, he returns it within ten days to the house in which it originated, with a statement of his grounds of disapproval. If both houses take up the bill again and pass it by a two-thirds majority in each house, it becomes law forthwith without requiring the president's signature.8 If it fails to obtain this majority it drops. Considering that the arbitrary use, by George III and his colonial governors, of the power of refusing bills passed by a colonial legislature had been a chief cause of the Revolution of 1776, it is to the credit of the Americans that they inserted this apparently undemocratic provision (which, however, existed in the Constitution of Massachusetts of 1780) in the Constitution of 1789.9 It has worked wonderfully well. Most presidents have employed it sparingly, and only where they felt either that there was a case for delay, or that the country would support them against the majority in Congress. Perverse or headstrong presidents have been generally defeated by the use of the two-thirds vote to pass the bill over their objections. Washington "returned" or vetoed two bills only; his successors down till 1830, seven. Jackson made a bolder use of his power—a use which his opponents denounced as opposed to the spirit of the Constitution; yet until the accession of President Cleveland in 1885 the total number vetoed was only 132 (including the so-called pocket vetoes) in ninety-six years.10 From 1892 to the end of Mr. Roosevelt's second administration in 1909 there were 108 vetoes, making in all 541. In his first term Mr. Cleveland vetoed 301, the great majority being bills for granting pensions to persons who served in the Northern armies during the War of Secession. Though many of these bills had been passed with little or no opposition, two only were repassed over his veto. The only president who acted recklessly was Andrew Johnson. In the course of his three years' struggle with Congress, he returned the chief bills passed for carrying out their Reconstruction policy, but as the majority opposed to him was large in both houses, these bills were promptly passed over his veto. So far from exciting the displeasure of the people by resisting the will of their representatives, a president generally gains popularity by the bold use of his veto power. It conveys the impression of firmness; it shows that he has a view and does not fear to give effect to it. The nation, which has often good grounds for distrusting Congress, a body liable to be moved by sinister private influences, or to defer to the clamour of some noisy section outside, looks to the man of its choice to keep Congress in order, and has approved the extension which practice has given to the power. The president's "qualified negative" was proposed by the Convention of 1787 for the sake of protecting the Constitution, and in particular, the executive, from congressional encroachments. It has now come to be used on grounds of general expediency, to defeat any measure which the executive deems pernicious either in principle or in its probable results. The reasons why the veto provisions of the Constitution have succeeded appear to be two. One is that the president, being an elective and not a hereditary magistrate, is responsible to the people, and has the weight of the people behind him. The people regard him as an indispensable check, not only upon the haste and heedlessness of their representatives, the faults which the framers of the Constitution chiefly feared, but upon their tendency, a tendency whose mischievous force experience has revealed, to yield either to pressure from any section of their constituents, or to temptations of a private nature. The other reason is that a veto need never take effect unless there is a substantial minority exceeding one-third in one or other house of Congress, which agrees with the president. Such a minority shares his responsibility and encourages him to resist the threats of a majority, while if he has no substantial support in public opinion, his opposition is easily overborne. Hence this arrangement is preferable to a plan, such as that of the French Constitution of 179111 (under which the king's veto could be overriden by passing a bill in three successive years), for enabling the executive simply to delay the passing of a measure which may be urgent, or which a vast majority of the legislature may desire. In its practical working the presidential veto power furnishes an interesting illustration of the tendency of unwritten or flexible constitutions to depart from, of written or rigid constitutions to cleave to, the letter of the law. The strict legal theory of the rights of the head of the state is in this point exactly the same in England and in America. But whereas it is now the undoubted duty of an English king to assent to every bill passed by both houses of Parliament, however strongly he may personally disapprove its provisions,12 it is the no less undoubted duty of an American president to exercise his independent judgment on every bill, not sheltering himself under the representatives of the people, or foregoing his own opinion at their bidding.13 As the president is charged with the whole federal administration, and responsible for its due conduct, he must of course be allowed to choose his executive subordinates. But as he may abuse this tremendous power the Constitution associates the Senate with him, requiring the "advice and consent" of that body to the appointments he makes.14 This confirming power has become a political factor of the highest moment. The framers of the Constitution probably meant nothing more than that the Senate should check the president by rejecting nominees who were personally unfit for the post to which he proposed to appoint them. The Senate has always, except in its struggle with President Johnson, left the president free to choose his cabinet ministers. But it early assumed the right of rejecting a nominee to any other office on any ground which it pleased, as for instance, if it disapproved his political affiliations, or wished to spite the president. Presently the senators from the state wherein a federal office to which the president had made a nomination lay, being the persons chiefly interested in the appointment, and most entitled to be listened to by the rest of the Senate when considering it, claimed to have a paramount voice in deciding whether the nomination should be confirmed. Their colleagues approving, they then proceeded to put pressure on the president. They insisted that before making a nomination to an office in any state he should consult the senators from that state who belonged to his own party, and be guided by their wishes. Such an arrangement benefited all senators alike, because each obtained the right of practically dictating the appointments to those federal offices which he most cared for, viz., those within the limits of his own state; and each was therefore willing to support his colleagues in securing the same right for themselves as regarded their states respectively. Of course when a senator belonged to the party opposed to the president, he had no claim to interfere, because places are as a matter of course given to party adherents only. When both senators belonged to the president's party they agreed among themselves as to the person whom they should require the president to nominate. By this system, which obtained the name of the "courtesy of the Senate", the president was practically enslaved as regards appointments, because his refusal to be guided by the senator or senators within whose state the office lay exposed him to have his nomination rejected. The senators, on the other hand, obtained a mass of patronage by means of which they could reward their partisans, control the federal civil servants of their state, and build up a faction devoted to their interests.15 Successive presidents chafed under the yoke, and sometimes carried their nominees either by making a bargain or by fighting hard with the senators who sought to dictate to them. But it was generally more prudent to yield, for an offended senator could avenge a defeat by playing the president a shrewd trick in some other matter; and as the business of confirmation is transacted in secret session, intriguers have little fear of the public before their eyes. The senators might, moreover, argue that they knew best what would strengthen the party in their state, and that the men of their choice were just as likely to be good as those whom some private friend suggested to the president. Thus the system throve and still thrives, though it received a blow from the conflict in 1881 between President Garfield and one of the New York senators, Mr. Roscoe Conkling. This gentleman, finding that Mr. Garfield would not nominate to a federal office in that state the person he proposed, resigned his seat in the Senate, inducing his co-senator Mr. Platt to do the same. Both then offered themselves for reelection by the state legislature of New York, expecting to obtain from it an approval of their action, and thereby to cow the president. The state legislature, however, in which a faction hostile to the two senators had become powerful, rejectd Mr. Conkling and Mr. Platt in favour of other candidates. So the victory remained with Mr. Garfield, while the nation, which had watched the contest eagerly, rubbed its hands in glee at the unexpected denouement. It need hardly be added that the "courtesy of the Senate" would never have attained its present strength but for the growth, in and since the time of President Jackson, of the so-called Spoils System, whereby holders of federal offices have been turned out at the accession of a new president to make way for the aspirants whose services, past or future, he is expected to requite or secure by the gift of places.16 The right of the president to remove from office has given rise to long controversies on which I can only touch. In the Constitution there is not a word about removals; and very soon after it had come into force the question arose whether, as regards those offices for which the confirmation of the Senate is required, the president could remove without its consent. Hamilton had argued in the Federalist (though there is reason to believe that he afterwards changed his opinion) that the president could not so remove, because it was not to be supposed that the Constitution meant to give him so immense and dangerous a reach of power. Madison argued soon after the adoption of the Constitution that it did permit him so to remove, because the head of the executive must have subordinates whom he can trust, and may discover in those whom he has appointed defects fatal to their usefulness. This was also the view of John Marshall. When the question came to be settled in the Senate during the presidency of Washington, Congress, influenced perhaps by respect for his perfect uprightness, took the Madisonian view and recognized the power of removal as vested in the president alone. So matters stood till a conflict arose in 1866 between President Johnson and the Republican majority in both houses of Congress. In 1867, Congress fearing that the president would dismiss a great number of officials who sided with it against him, passed an act, known as the Tenure of Office Act, which made the consent of the Senate necessary to the removal of officeholders, even of the president's (so-called) cabinet ministers, permitting him only to suspend them from office during the time when Congress was not sitting. The constitutionality of this act has been much doubted, and its policy is now generally condemned. It was a blow struck in the heat of passion. When President Grant became president in 1869, the act was greatly modified, and in 1887 it was repealed. How dangerous it is to leave all offices tenable at the mere pleasure of a partisan executive using them for party purposes, has been shown by the fruits of the Spoils System. On the other hand a president ought to be free to choose his chief advisers and ministers, and even in the lower ranks of the civil service it is hard to secure efficiency if a specific cause, such as could be proved to a jury, must be assigned for dismissal. The Constitution permits Congress to vest in the courts of law or in "the heads of departments" the right of appointing to "inferior offices." This provision has been used to remove many posts from the nomination of the president, and by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 competitive examinations were instituted for about thirty-four thousand. Of the now enormous number of posts—there were, in 1909, 367,794 officers and employees of the executive civil service—nearly two-thirds were in that year subject to such examinations. A greater number, however, including many postmasterships and many places under the Treasury, remain in the gift of the president;17 while even as regards those which lie with his ministers, he may be invoked if disputes arise between the minister and politicians pressing the claims of their respective friends. The business of nominating is in ordinary times so engrossing as to leave the chief magistrate of the nation little time for his other functions. Artemus Ward's description of Abraham Lincoln swept along from room to room in the White House by a rising tide of office-seekers is hardly an exaggeration. From the 4th of March, when Mr. Garfield came into power, till he was shot in the July following, he was engaged almost incessantly in questions of patronage.18 Yet the president's individual judgment has little scope. He must reckon with the Senate; he must requite the supporters of the men to whom he owes his election: he must so distribute places all over the country as to keep the local wire-pullers in good humour, and generally strengthen the party by "doing something" for those who have worked or will work for it. Although the minor posts are practically left to the nomination of the senators or congressmen from the state or district, conflicting claims give infinite trouble, and the more lucrative offices are numerous enough to make the task of selection laborious as well as thankless and disagreeable. In every country statesmen find the dispensing of patronage the most disagreeable part of their work; and the more conscientious they are, the more does it worry them. No one has more to gain from a thorough scheme of civil service reform than the president. The present system throws work on him unworthy of a fine intellect, and for which a man of fine intellect may be ill qualified. On the other hand the president's patronage is, in the hands of a skilful intriguer, an engine of far-spreading potency. By it he can oblige a vast number of persons, can bind their interests to his own, can fill important places with the men of his choice. Such authority as he has over the party in Congress, and therefore over the course of legislation, such influence as he exerts on his party in the several states, and therefore over the selection of candidates for Congress, is due to his patronage. Unhappily, the more his patronage is used for these purposes, the more it is apt to be diverted from the aim of providing the country with the best officials. In quiet times the direct legal power of the president is not great, but his influence may be great if he combines tact with courage. He is hampered at every turn by the necessity of humouring his party. The trivial and mechanical parts of his work leave him too little leisure for framing large schemes of policy, while in carrying them out he needs the cooperation of Congress, which may be jealous, or indifferent, or hostile. His power to affect legislation largely depends on his personal capacity for leadership, and of course also on the strength of his party in Congress. In troublous times it is otherwise, for immense responsibility is then thrown on one who is both the commander in chief and the head of the civil executive. Abraham Lincoln wielded more authority than any single Englishman has done since Oliver Cromwell. It is true that the ordinary law was for some purposes practically suspended during the War of Secession. But it might again have to be similarly suspended, and the suspension makes the president a sort of dictator. Setting aside these exceptional moments, the dignity and power of the presidential office, as distinguished from the personal influence which a particularly able or energetic president may exert, did not greatly grow between the time of Andrew Jackson, the last president who, not so much through his office as by his personal ascendency and the vehemence of his character, led and guided his party from the chair, and the death of President McKinley in 1901. Here, too, one sees how a rigid or supreme Constitution serves to keep things as they were. But for its iron hand, the office would surely, in a country where great events have been crowded on one another and opinion changes rapidly under the teaching of events, have either risen or fallen, have gained strength or lost it. In no European country is there any personage to whom the president can be said to correspond. If we look at parliamentary countries like England, Italy, Belgium, he resembles neither the sovereign nor the prime minister, for the former is not a party chief at all, and the latter is palpably and confessedly nothing else. The president enjoys more authority, if less dignity, than a European king. He has powers for the moment narrower than a European prime minister, but these powers are more secure, for they do not depend on the pleasure of a parliamentary majority, but run on to the end of his term. One naturally compares him with the French president, but the latter has a prime minister and cabinet, dependent on the chamber, at once to relieve and to eclipse him: in America the president's cabinet is a part of himself and has nothing to do with Congress. The president of the Swiss Confederation is merely the chairman for a year of the Administrative Federal Council (Bundesrath), and can hardly be called the executive chief of the nation. The difficulty in forming a just estimate of the president's power arises from the fact that it differs so much under ordinary and under extraordinary circumstances. This is a result which republics might seem specially concerned to prevent, and yet it is specially frequent under republics, as witness the cases of Rome and of the Italian cities in the Middle Ages. In ordinary times the president may be compared to the senior or managing clerk in a large business establishment, whose chief function is to select his subordinates, the policy of the concern being in the hands of the board of directors. But when foreign affairs become critical, or when disorders within the Union require his intervention—when, for instance, it rests with him to put down an insurrection or to decide which of two rival state governments he will recognize and support by arms—everything may depend on his judgment, his courage, and his hearty loyalty to the principles of the Constitution. It used to be thought that hereditary monarchs were strong because they reigned by a right of their own, not derived from the people. A president is strong for the exactly opposite reason, because his rights come straight from the people. We shall have frequent occasion to observe that nowhere is the rule of public opinion so complete as in America, or so direct; that is to say, so independent of the ordinary machinery of government. Now the president is deemed to represent the people no less than do the members of the legislature. Public opinion governs by and through him no less than them, and makes him powerful even against a popularly elected Congress. This is a fact to be remembered by those Europeans who seek in the strengthening of the hereditary principle a cure for the faults of government by assemblies. And it also suggests the risk that attaches to power vested in the hands of a leader directly chosen by the people. A high authority observes:19 "Our holiday orators delight with patriotic fervour to draw distinctions between our own and other countries, and to declare that here the law is master and the highest officer but the servant of the law, while even in free England the monarch is irresponsible and enjoys the most complete personal immunity. But such comparisons are misleading, and may prove mischievous. In how many directions is not the executive authority in America practically superior to what it is in England! And can we say that the President is really in any substantial sense any more the servant of the law than is the Queen? Perhaps if we were candid we should confess that the danger that the executive may be tempted to a disregard of the law may justly be believed greater in America than in countries where the chief magistrate comes to his office without the selection of the people; and where consequently their vigilance is quickened by a natural distrust." Although few presidents have shown any disposition to strain their authority, it has often been the fashion in America to be jealous of the president's action, and to warn citizens against what is called "the one man power." General Ulysses S. Grant was hardly the man to make himself a tyrant, yet the hostility to a third term of office which moved many people who had not been alienated by the faults of his administration, rested not merely on reverence for the example set by Washington, but also on the fear that a president repeatedly chosen would become dangerous to republican institutions. This particular alarm seems to a European groundless. I do not deny that a really great man might exert ampler authority from the presidential chair than its recent occupants have done. The same observation applies to the popedom and even to the English throne. The president has a position of immense dignity, an unrivalled platform from which to impress his ideas (if he has any) upon the people. But it is hard to imagine a president overthrowing the existing Constitution. He has no standing army, and he cannot create one. Congress can checkmate him by stopping supplies. There is no aristocracy to rally round him. Every state furnishes an independent centre of resistance. If he were to attempt a coup d'etat, it could only be by appealing to the people against Congress, and Congress could hardly, considering that it is reelected every two years, attempt to oppose the people. One must suppose a condition bordering on civil war, and the president putting the resources of the executive at the service of one of the intending belligerents, already strong and organized, in order to conceive a case in which he will be formidable to freedom. If there be any danger, it would seem to lie in another direction. The larger a community becomes the less does it seem to respect an assembly, the more is it attracted by an individual man. A bold president who knew himself to be supported by a majority in the country, might be tempted to override the law, and deprive the minority of the protection which the law affords it. He might be a tyrant, not against the masses, but with the masses. But nothing in the present state of American politics gives weight to such apprehensions. [1] As to the changed position since 1898, see Chap. 96, Vol. II. [2] The proclamation was expressed not to apply to states which had not seceded, nor to such parts of seceding states as had then already been reconquered by the Northern armies. Slavery was finally legally extinguished everywhere by the thirteenth constitutional amendment of 1865. [3] In the Louisiana case federal troops were employed: in the Rhode Island case the president authorized the sending in of the militia of Massachusetts and Connecticut, but the Rhode Island troops succeeded in suppressing the rebellion, whose leader was ultimately convicted of high treason against the state and imprisoned. See as to the guarantee of order and republican government in the states, the case of Luther v. Borden (7 How. 42) and the instructive article of Judge T. M. Cooley in the International Review for January 1875. He observes: "The obligation to guarantee a republican form of government to the States, and to protect them against invasion and domestic violence, is one imposed upon 'the United States.' The implication is that the duty was not to depend for its fulfilment on the legislative department exclusively, but that all departments of the government, or at least more than one, were or might be charged with some duty in this regard. It has been Congress which hitherto has assumed to act upon the guarantee, while application for protection against domestic violence has, on the other hand, been made to the president. From the nature of the case the judiciary can have little or nothing to do with questions arising under this provision of the Constitution." [4] It need hardly be said that the actual separation of Parliament into two branches, each of which deliberates apart under the presidency of its own chairman (the chairman of one house named by the sovereign, whom he represents, that of the other chosen by the House, but approved by the sovereign), does not exclude the theory that the King, Lords, and Commons constitute the common council of the nation. [5] The term "veto" was not used in the Convention of 1787: men talked of the president's "qualified negative." [6] In the fourteenth century English statutes are expressed to be made by the king, "par conseil et par assentement" of the lords and the commonalty. The words "by the authority" of the Lords and Commons first appear in the eleventh year of Henry VI (1433), and from the first of Henry VII (1485) downwards a form substantially the same as the present is followed, viz.: "Be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, and by the authority of the same." [7] Nevertheless, the Congressional Globe for July 14, 1862, records that "The President (pro tempore) of the Senate presented the following message from the President of the United States: 'Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives: Herewith is the draft of a bill to compensate any State which may abolish slavery within its limits, the passage of which, substantially as presented, I respectfully and earnestly recommend. Abraham Lincoln.' " The bill was thereupon read a second time, and a debate arose as to whether the president had a right to submit bills. In the House the message as a whole was referred to the Special Committee on Emancipation. [8] If Congress adjourns within the ten days allowed the president for returning the bill, it is lost. His retaining it under these circumstances at the end of a session is popularly called a "pocket veto." [9] The New York State Constitution of 1777 gave a veto to the governor and judges of the highest court acting together. [10] Of these 132 (some reckon 128), 21 emanated from Johnson and 43 from Grant, while John Adams, Jefferson, J. Q. Adams, Van Buren, Taylor, and Fillmore sent no veto messages at all. (W. H. Harrison and Garfield died before they had any opportunity.) President McKinley vetoed 14 bills, President Roosevelt, 34. Among the most important vetoes were those of several Reconstruction bills by Johnson (these were repassed by two-thirds votes), that of a paper currency measure, the so-called Inflation Bill, by Grant, and that of the Dependent Pension Bill by Cleveland. No bill was passed "over a veto" until 1845. Until 1885 only 27 had been passed over a veto, 15 of these in the time of Johnson. Presidents have occasionally (e.g., Lincoln more than once) in signing a bill stated objections to it which Congress has thereupon obviated by supplementary legislation. [11] As the majority in France was unable to attain its will by constitutional means without waiting three years, it was the more disposed to overthrow the constitution. [12] Queen Elizabeth, in 1597, assented to forty-three bills passed in that session, and "advised herself upon" forty-eight. William III refused to assent to five bills. The last instance of the use of the "veto power" in England was by Queen Anne in 1707 on a Scotch militia bill. Mr. Todd (Parliamentary Government in the English Colonies, vol. ii, p. 319) mentions that in 1858 changes in a private railway bill were compelled by an intimation to its promoters that, if they were not made, the royal power of rejection would be exercised. [13] The practical disuse of the "veto power" in England is due not merely to the decline in the authority of the Crown, but to the fact that, since the Revolution, the Crown acts only on the advice of responsible ministers, who necessarily command a majority in the House of Commons. A bill therefore cannot be passed against the wishes of the ministry unless in the rare case of their being ministers on sufferance, and even in that event they would be able to prevent its passing by advising the Crown to prorogue or dissolve Parliament before it had gone through all its stages. In 1868 a bill (the Irish Church Suspension Bill) was carried through the House of Commons by Mr. Gladstone against the opposition of the then Tory ministry which was holding office on sufferance; but it was rejected on second reading by a large majority in the House of Lords. Had that House seemed likely to accept it the case would have arisen which I have referred to, and the only course for the ministry would have been to dissolve Parliament. It was urged against the provision in the Constitution of 1789 for the president's veto that the power would be useless, because in England the Crown did not venture to use it. Wilson replied by observing that the English Crown had not only practically an antecedent negative, but also a means of defeating a bill in the House of Lords by creating new peers.—Elliot's Debates, vol. ii, p. 472. [14] Congress is however permitted to vest in the president alone the appointment to such "inferior offices" as it thinks fit. [15] As the House of Representatives could not allow the Senate to engross all the federal patronage, there has been a tendency towards a sort of arrangement, according to which the greater state offices belong to the senators, while as regards the lesser ones, lying within their respective Congressional districts, members of the House are recognized as entitled to recommend candidates. [16] See next page, and see also Chap. 65, Vol. II. [17] Recently presidents have under the power given them by statute placed large groups of offices under the competitive system. [18] It is related that a friend, meeting Mr. Lincoln one day during the war, observed, "You look anxious, Mr. President; is there bad news from the front?" "No," answered the president, "it isn't the war: it's that postmastership at Brownsville, Ohio." [19] Judge T. M. Cooley, in the International Review for Jan. 1875. He quotes the words of Edward Livingston: "The gloss of zeal for the public service is always spread over acts of oppression, and the people are sometimes made to consider that as a brilliant exertion of energy in their favour which, when viewed in its true light, would be found a fatal blow to their rights. In no government is this effect so easily produced as in a free republic; party spirit, inseparable from its existence, aids the illusion, and a popular leader is allowed in many instances impunity, and sometimes rewarded with applause, for acts which would make a tyrant tremble on his throne." |


text:
Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Newegg.com - Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, HDTVs, Digital Cameras and More!
* 100% cotton. * Adjustable side tabs. * Side entry hand pocket. * Wallet pocket zippered for safety. * Large inside zip pocket for maps & important documents. * Stand up collat with hideaway drawstring hood. * Velcro closure water-resistant pocket. * Pen & flashlight pockets. * Heavy duty zipper. * Plenty of pockets. * Inside pocket. Material/Fabric: 100% Cotton


text:
Skip to content
and found 17 items
645cc, 68bhp, 120mph, Insurance group
We approached the new V-Strom full of skepticism but have been swayed.First, the restyle is a stunning success in its own right. I can't think of any bike that looks so classy for so little money. Second, almost every aspect has been improved in terms of performance, ranging from engine and handling to manageability and range. But what's impressed most ...
1783cc, 123bhp, 120mph, Insurance group 15
In modern youthful speak the word bad actually means good. In any language big is big and Suzuki's M1800R Intruder is really big – and bad at the same time. This is based on the fact the Intruder weighs in at 347kg leaving the petrol station; has the biggest cylinder bore size (112mm) of any current production bike; and produces ...
1255cc, 96bhp, 145mph, Insurance group
While the rest of the motorcycle industry struggles with inflated pricing, Suzuki is offering the 1250cc, full-faired all-rounder GSX1250F for less than £7k. That's partly because mechanically it's almost entirely a Bandit 1250SA – but the fairing and accessories list make it more useful and sportier looking.
599cc, 97.5bhp, 164mph, Insurance group 15
It was never the fastest or the most powerful in the supersports class of 04 and 05, but the Suzuki GSX-R600 was easily the most fun, especially on the track. Boasting the lightest weight of all its contenders, the most track-focused chassis and the most evil sounding engine note, the Suzuki GSX-R600 is the 600 for dedicated hardcore riders.
124cc, 12bhp, 65mph, Insurance group 4
The Suzuki DR125SE, is a straightforward but attractively styled four-stroke learner trailie that was only available for a limited period, so rare now. Earlier twin-headlamp "Raider' was more common, but most are by now unserviceable. A good Suzuki DR125SE is a valid alternative to an XT125 or the like.
996cc, 125bhp, 165mph, Insurance group 15
The Suzuki TL1000S is a motorcycle which has become the Freddie Kreuger of biking. But it's not that evil really, it just suffers from a poor rear shock design that overheats far too easily. You can go fast on the TL1000S if you know what you're doing and take time setting the bike's suspension, but the Suzuki TL1000S will always retain the ...
996cc, 135bhp, 165mph, Insurance group 16
The Suzuki TL1000 range feature one of the truly great V-twin engines, in some of the most unpredictable handling chassis ever devised. The Suzuki TL1000R has an improved rear shock, which doesn't misbehave so much as the TL1000S model's, but both motorcycles get so light at the front end, so very easily with all that V-twin grunt on tap. The ...
599cc, 100bhp, 147mph, Insurance group 14
As Suzuki's much anticipated and long overdue early 1990s CBR600 rival, the Suzuki RF600R nearly came up trumps. Nearly, but not quite. The Suzuki RF600R's revvy engine, fine handling and roomy comfort are plusses. Frankly weird styling and brittle build are downsides. Still; good value though…
Mid price cruiser style Suzuki GZ125 Marauder works well and makes a decent learner steed. It's got more presence than the budget custom style 125s like Yamaha's SR125 but it's usefully cheaper than the twin cylinder alternatives which cost about a grand more when new. The Suzuki GZ125 Marauder makes a decent, frugal urban commuter too.
749cc, 130bhp, 164mph, Insurance group 16
In 1996 Suzuki unveiled their new Suzuki GSX-R750. The engineers had ditched the cradle frame, which had been a feature of the bike since it invented modern superbiking in 1985. They replaced it with a chassis developed from their RGV Grand Prix machine, crammed in a fallen angel of a motor and then sculpted the shape in a wind tunnel. ...
Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy
Compare and buy 100s of bargain priced products for you and your bike


text:
Issue Task Forces About LAC Spring 2013 Action Update - 20th Anniversary Edition Past Events Contact Us Executive
Director Organizer Organizer Organizer Linda J. Slavik Office Wish List Hit Counter started 7/1/01
LAC in the MediaSRO Hotel Preservation and Alderman Cappleman. (Winter 2013) WBEZ 2/28/13 WBEZ 3/5/13 Sun Times LTE 2/28/13 Sun Times 3/5/13 Tribune 3/9/13 Chicago Reporter 1/21/13 Chicago Reporter 2/28/13 Streetwise 2/28/13 Streetwise 3/15/13 Lakeview Patch 2/4/13 Lakeview Patch 2/11/13 Lakeview Patch 3/4/13 Lakeview Patch 3/6/13 Lakeview Patch 3/8/13 WBBM 2/10/13 DNA Info 3/5/13 Newstips 2/9/13 Newstips 3/5/13 Chicago Police Department and Trans Individuals in Custody. (September 2012) Windy City Times Chicago Phoenix Lez Get Real Human Rights Campaign Children's Memorial Redevelopment Coalition. (May 2012) The Chicago Reporter Chicago Tribune Action Assembly 2012. (May 2012) Chicago Tribune Windy City Times Windy City Times #2 Skyline Stuff Queer People Need to Know IIRON Blog News Tips SRO Hotel Closings. (August 2011) Fair Care Coalition Response to Property Tax Exemption Denials. (August 2011) NBC 5 WTTW Chicago Tonight WBEZ The Talk Chicago Housing Initiative protest on HUD budget cuts. (February 2011)
Progress Illinois
CommonDreams.org 32nd Ward Candidates Forum on the Red Line Project. (February 2011) Sweet Home Chicago articles: Medill Reports-1 & Medill Reports-2. (February 2011) Affordable Housing Forum for Children's Memorial Hospital Site. (January 2011) Budget action on Senator Kirk covered on the Chicago Reporter. (December 2010) Check out an article about 510 W. Belmont in the Huffington Post. (July 2010) Diplomat SRO featured on ABC-7's I-team Report. (February 2009) |


text:
Jan 27, 2013, 07:03 PM | #1 |
iPad Internet Plan Options?
I currently have an iPhone 4S on AT&T which I am paying $20 for 2GB of internet. I also have an iPad Mini Wifi that I wish had an internet plan. Now I understand that my iPad doesn't have the option for a data plan cause it's the Wifi model but I am interested in selling this iPad and getting an iPad that is compatible with a data plan.
I was just wondering if anyone has any idea of what company offers the cheapest price for at least 1GB of data per month? I am really open to any company. Thank you |
0 |
Jan 27, 2013, 07:12 PM | #2 |
Price shouldn't be the deciding factor, coverage should be. What good is a cheap data plan if you can't use it.
0 |
Jan 27, 2013, 07:12 PM | #3 |
If you are looking for 1GB of data specifically, I think that Verizon is your only option. They offer it for $20/month. There are lower priced options through Sprint & AT&T for $15/month, but the data is more limited - 300MB & 250MB, respectively.
0 |
Jan 27, 2013, 07:24 PM | #4 |
Another option would be to upgrade your iPhone to a hotspot-enabled plan and tether your iPad to your iPhone. It might be cheaper overall because you wouldn't have to trade up to a more expensive iPad.
2 |
Jan 28, 2013, 10:57 AM | #5 |
You could also get the mifi device by TMobile and Walmart. $35 for 3.5gb for 60 days. Then all of your devices have coverage. The device itself is $80.
0 |
Jan 30, 2013, 03:42 AM | #6 |
Or you can buy Clear Spot for 49.00 and you get 4G unlimited data for only 49.00 a month. Contract free option
That is OK to make fun of my poor english grammars just because you are bullying deaf people. |
0 |
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 AM.


text:
Logitech Media Combo MK200
A durable keyboard-and-mouse combo that puts the things you do most just one touch away.
Easy listening
You can do more, faster with one-touch controls for instant access to music, volume, the Internet, and more.
Feel-good typing
Your hands will enjoy the low-profile, whisper-quiet keys and standard layout with full-size F-keys and number pad.
Smooth ride
You'll be moving along smoothly with a precise, high-definition optical mouse to help you get around.
A full-size, durable keyboard and high-definition optical mouse that put the things you do most just one touch away with instant access to play/pause, volume, the Internet, e-mail, and more.
Instant media and Internet access
The things you do most are right at your fingertips with one-touch controls for instant access to play/pause, volume, mute, and the Internet.
Comfortable, quiet typing
You'll enjoy a comfortable and quiet typing experience thanks to the low-profile keys that barely make a sound and standard layout with number pad.
Typing can be tiring. Find out how Logitech helps you get comfortable. Learn more.
Easy to read keys
The bold, bright white characters make the keys easier to read—perfect for those with less-than-perfect vision. They're less likely to wear off, too.
High-definition optical mouse
You'll enjoy smooth, responsive cursor control with high-definition optical tracking (1000 dpi). The sculpted, ambidextrous shape feels good in either hand.
Instant access to applications
No need to navigate to launch your e-mail or calculator, or put your computer to sleep—you've got instant access right from your keyboard.
Spill-resistant design
Liquid drains out of the keyboard, so you don't have to worry about ruining your investment with accidental spills.*
Thin profile
The keyboard has a thin profile that adds a sleek look to your desk while keeping your hands in a more comfortable, neutral position.
Durable keys
The keys can last up to up to 5 million keystrokes so you can keep typing long after many keyboards have called it quits .
Sturdy, adjustable tilt legs
You can extend the sturdy folding legs to increase the keyboard tilt by 8 degrees to address your personal ergonomic needs. Rubber feet prevent slipping.
Plug-and-play USB connection
Setup is simple—you just plug them into USB ports on your desktop, laptop, or netbook computer and start using it. Everything works right out of the box.
* Tested under limited conditions (maximum of 60 ml liquid spillage). Do not immerse keyboard in liquid.
Comfort is key with Logitech keyboards
Tap happiness2 million keystrokes. Every day. |
Comfort Wave Design: Curve + Wave + Palm RestYour fingers vary in length—but most keyboards treat them all the same. Our Wave keyboards have a gradual wave-shaped contour to support the varying lengths of your fingers and keep the pressure off your fingertips. |
Perfectly PerfectStrokeLogitech PerfectStroke™ key system combines the benefits of a laptop keyboard with those of a stand-alone keyboard to give you a perfectly pleasant typing experience. |
Laser sensors: A controlling interest
Sensing the detailsWhat does a mouse do? Fundamentally, it allows you to control your cursor. And the best measure of cursor control is the accuracy with which the mouse translates the movements you make with your hand. |
Sensitive to your needsSome people just need a mouse that works. Others need a mouse that can track on many surfaces. And gamers need a mouse that can give them game-changing precision at any hand speed. |
Details, detailsThere are two kinds of sensors: optical and laser. |
Glass. The final frontier.Logitech mice that are built with Logitech® Darkfield Laser Tracking™ use the smallest possible details to create a micro-road map of the surface. That means these mice can track on glass.* |
Gaming-grade controlIf you're an expert gamer, pixel-perfect tracking can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Our mice with gaming-grade laser sensors can track at speeds all the way up to 5700 dpi. So when the game is on the line, you'll get maximum precision, blinding speed, and ultra-smooth tracking. |
Track testedWe rigorously test all of our laser mice on a wide variety of surfaces to make sure your mouse is free of tracking flaws. |
System Requirements
- Windows® XP, Windows Vista®, Windows® 7, Windows® 8, or Linux® kernel 2.6 or later
- Two USB ports
Warranty Information
- 3-year limited hardware warranty
Package Contents
- Package Contents
- Mouse
- User documentation
Part Number


text:
Best Laptop Reviews
Your Selections
Refine Your Results
by Author
- Luke Westaway (1)
- Niall Magennis (1)
CNET UK > Reviews > Computers > Laptops
Acer Aspire TimelineX 4820T review
The 14-inch Acer Aspire TimelineX 4820T offers good build quality, decent performance and impressive battery life. That makes it a good bet for those seeking a laptop they can take on their travels. Read more
19 May 2011 by Niall Magennis
CNET UK > Reviews > Computers > Laptops
Samsung RV511-S01 review
The Samsung RV511 doesn't blow our minds in terms of design or portability, but with a Core i3 processor, 6GB of RAM and a dedicated graphics card, this laptop packs great performance for the price. Read more
24 February 2011 by Luke Westaway


text:
@David_Baez We'll be big shot lawyers in 2014...sooooo $500 bet? We'll take whatever the better line is the morning of the game #confidence
Notre Dame adds Florida State to its 2014 schedule
By Zac Ellis
Notre Dame's schedule for the 2014 season — its first as a partial member of the ACC — just got a little bit tougher. WarChant.com is reporting that Notre Dame has added Florida State to its 2014 slate. The Irish will play five ACC members that season, and they have already locked in three opponents: Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Florida State. To date, there is no plan for the Seminoles to visit the Irish in South Bend in 2015. Notre Dame and Florida State last played in the 2011 Champs Sports Bowl, an 18-14 Seminoles' victory.
@TheRealClements been hearing about this. It's likely in Tallahassee. Might be buying season tickets in 2014 to guarantee my seat.
Get SI's Latest
News, Features, and more info delivered daily!


text:
The False Economy of Apps
Apps are the new black. WIRED (in)famously concluded in September 2009 that the web is dead - all hail the new king: Smartphone apps. Apple's iOS claims 1,000,000 apps in their iTunes app store. Google recently announced their own Play store reached similar numbers. And even Microsoft, lagging third in the mobile OS wars proudly touts 100,000 apps for their Windows 8 platform.
But is this all good business? Or to be more precise: Is this good business for developers and software companies?
On the surface it looks like it - Apple announced that they paid out more than $5BN to their developers. Sounds like big business. But once you dissect the numbers a bit a different image appears.
The problem has multiple facets: Apps are a strongly hit-driven business; the numbers of users (and thus revenue) drop dramatically when you go beyond the top 100 apps. There are a few winners and lots and lots of losers. Then you have to deal with a market where the average selling price is less than the price of a cup of coffee. It might be okay to sell only 1,000 copies of your app if you make $100 on each copy sold. In the app stores you make somewhere in the $1.50 range. And then you mostly don't 'own' the customer. Usually you have no way to engage with your customer beyond your app. Which means you have little leverage in cross selling other products or services.
This makes for a pretty dire picture all in all. Ben Horowitz from the Silicon Valley VC firm Andreessen Horowitz recently told a group of entrepreneurs that he doesn't invest into app businesses - as they don't make enough money and are at the mercy of the respective app store operator.
If you want to dig deeper into the topic I highly recommend reading Loic Le Meur's blog post on "How much can you really make developing mobile apps?" (and note that this post is now two years old!) and the Vision Mobile report "Developer Economics 2012" (free download). Quote from the report: "One in three developers lives below the app poverty line."
So now - is this all bad? Well. It depends. Personally I don't believe that the current app store model is sustainable over the long term. Having said that - more and more time is spent on mobile devices of all shapes and forms. Which means that there are clearly opportunities for monetization and exciting new business models. Which is what I believe we will see over the next 1-3 years: People trying things out, experimenting with new models, many of them failing - and eventually we will find ways to build sustainable business on the mobile infrastructure.
Time to get going and experiment!
Edit: The New York Times recently ran an article "As Boom Lures App Creators, Tough Part Is Making a Living" which comes to similar conclusions.


text:
The festive and spirited atmosphere that is a part of NIU Basketball and Volleyball in the state-of-the-art Convocation Center would not be possible without the contributions made by the Huskie Pep Band. The Pep Band performs at all men's and women's basketball home games, at home matches of the Women's Volleyball team, as well as at conference and national tournaments.
Membership in the Pep Band is open to any NIU student who has high school instrumental experience, but an audition is required for new members.
Rehearsals are held one night a week.
The Huskie Pep Band is an official ensemble of the School of Music, and students receive academic credit for participation.


text:
Can I buy a static IP address for my website>
Category: General Information
I'm told that there are two IP addressed included in my VPS account. But these two IPs are for me only, or shared with other websites?
If theses are shared IPs, can I buy extra static IP addresses for my websites?
Thank you very much!
If theses are shared IPs, can I buy extra static IP addresses for my websites?
Thank you very much!
Hello chengdupaulyin, and thanks for your question. You can purchase additional dedicated IP addresses for $2.00/month or $24.00/year. We have a guide on how to obtain additional IP addresses that goes over the specifics of a shared IP address vs a dedicated one, as well as how you can purchase one via our AMP (Account Management Panel). By default your IP addresses would be shared between multiple websites which is fine, typically you'd need a separate dedicated IP address if you were using a SSL certificate, or had a legacy application that couldn't use hostnames and had to still rely on an IP. Please let us know if you have any further questions at all. - Jacob |
Like this Question?
Do you want to publish a tutorial to our support center?
Do you want to publish a tutorial to our support center?
Related Articles
It looks like there are no related articles.
Would you like to ask a question about this page? If so, click the button below!
Need more Help?
Ask the Community!
Get help with your questions from our community of like-minded hosting users and InMotion Hosting Staff.
Current Customers
Chat: | Click to Chat Now | E-mail: | firstname.lastname@example.com |
Call: | 888-321-HOST (4678) | Ticket: | Submit a Support Ticket |


text:
Update: Former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., on Friday responded to a World-Herald reporter's question about the 1998 story with this statement:
"My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of 'open service' and committed to LGBT military families."
WASHINGTON — Chuck Hagel's potential nomination to the Cabinet suffered a fresh setback Thursday as a major gay-rights organization questioned his previous comments and votes.
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that Hagel's comments in a 1998 World-Herald story and his "consistent anti-LGBT" record" in the Senate raise serious questions about where he stands today.
Gay-rights groups said comments by Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran, cast doubt on his ability to implement the repeal of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay people from serving in the armed forces. In 1999, he said he opposed repealing the ban, telling the New York Times that "the U.S. armed forces aren't some social experiment."
"The next secretary of defense must be supportive of open service as well as equal benefits for lesbian and gay military families, and Sen. Hagel must address these issues immediately," Griffin said. "Whomever is selected to be the next secretary ... needs to understand there are clear expectations for progress."
Specifically, the group said Hagel must repudiate remarks he made to The World-Herald about James Hormel, then President Bill Clinton's nominee for ambassador to Luxembourg.
Hagel said at the time that ambassadorial posts are sensitive.
"They are representing America," Hagel said then. "They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job."
Hagel said in the article that he had a good chat with Hormel and described him as a "nice fellow." The GOP senator also made clear that he was not opposed to appointing a gay ambassador.
He and others took issue with Hormel's openness and advocacy on gay-rights issues.
Hagel pointed to a documentary film that Hormel helped fund that showed teachers how they could teach children about homosexuality. Hagel also cited a separate clip showing Hormel at what Hagel described as an anti-Catholic event in San Francisco that featured a group of drag queens known as the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence."
"It is very clear on this tape that he's laughing and enjoying the antics of an anti-Catholic gay group in this gay parade," Hagel said at the time, citing the majority status of Catholics in Luxembourg. "I think it's wise for the president not to go forward with this nomination."
Hagel defenders today point out that the senator did not stand in the way of Hormel's appointment advancing through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which he was a member.
Nor did Hagel organize opposition to Hormel. Hagel never had a chance to vote up or down on the Senate floor because the Republican leadership never allowed a vote. Clinton ultimately gave Hormel the job through a recess appointment.
Deb Fiddelke, who was Hagel's communications director in 1998, came to Hagel's defense on Thursday.
"Any group can take any quote out of context and try and create a larger issue and because of the situation, Sen. Hagel can't speak back right now and defend himself," Fiddelke told The World-Herald. "When I worked for him, I saw him treat everybody, regardless of their background, with fairness."
Hagel in 2005 opposed a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"I'm a conservative. I believe the sanctity of the Constitution of the United States is very important," he said. "I don't think you need a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
"That's a state issue."
In fact, that quote was featured on the website of the organization that criticized Hagel on Thursday, the Human Rights Campaign.
Still, gay-rights activists could take issue with Hagel's past opposition to gay marriage. He said in 1996 that he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and supported Nebraska's state-level ban on gay marriage, which passed overwhelmingly in 2000.
Griffin's concerns about Hagel could influence President Barack Obama. Griffin is a well-connected Hollywood political consultant who has led the Human Rights Campaign since summer. He was among Obama's top fundraisers before taking the group's helm, raising more than $500,000 for the president's re-election.
Griffin was instrumental in recruiting the legal team of Theodore Olson and David Boies, who successfully challenged the ban on same-sex marriage in California, a case now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hagel is considered a top candidate to replace Leon Panetta at the Pentagon, although a number of senators have expressed reservations about the possible nomination. Their concerns center on Hagel's past comments about Israel and Iran. Outside groups have suggested that, based on Hagel's remarks, he isn't sufficiently supportive of Israel.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney defended Hagel during his daily briefing Thursday.
"We have made no personnel announcements, and I'm not going to engage in that," Carney said. "What I can tell you is that Sen. Hagel fought and bled for his country. He served his country well. He was an excellent senator."
Nominees typically are told to keep a low profile and not to engage with the press until they have been confirmed. A reporter at the briefing noted that Hagel is just the latest person to come under intense criticism before being officially nominated.
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was heavily criticized as a potential nominee for secretary of state, a post now expected to go to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
Does the White House have an obligation to provide defense for people in that situation?
"I'm not aware of an obligation to do anything beyond what we've been doing," Carney said, "which is ... in the case of Sen. Hagel, who has served admirably both in uniform and as a senator, to make clear our views on that."
World-Herald staff writer Roseann Moring contributed to this report, which includes material from World-Herald press services.
World-Herald staff writer Roseann Moring contributed to this report, which includes material from World-Herald press services.
Contact the writer: 202-630-4823, firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
1 1/2 parts Cruzan® 9 Spiced Rum6 parts Pineapple Juice
Build over ice in a highball glass. Garnish with a cherry.
Those good folks at the DMV have a tough job. If you have a little extra time, go wait in the line just to tell them to have a nice day.


text:
order by phone... 1-800-828-4548
order by item number...add items to my cart
Browse more:
An acid-free black crepe paper photographic tape for optimum light-blocking and masking. Used in photo processing labs, mounting and masking out unwanted portions of transparencies, patching holes, camera bellow repair, sealing out light, etc.
Please select one of your Lists or create a new List.
Your cart is currently empty.
™ Pro Tapes is a trademark.


text:
Well, they are. More so than most religions.
I woud be very interested in seeing this evidence.
We also have no irrefutable evidence Santa Claus isn't real either.In the case of Jesus, we do not have irrefutable evidence that either Jesus or God are not real;
See, this is a problem with you. For some reason you seem to think that myths you personally believe in are acceptible as evidence and can sway opinions of people who have vastly different beliefs.and, additionally, we have the creator of the Universe...
And so are the authors of the bible.The author(s) of Superman are merely peer human beings...
There is no evidence. Not even a smidgen of a clue.At best, in the case of God and Jesus, we only have a minority of people who will remain in denial despite what evidence has been presented or will be presented, short of their bearing witness after their death of God or short of Jesus' second coming.
'The marquis. Well, you know, to be honest, he seems a little bit dodgy to me.'
'Mm,' she agreed. 'He's a little bit dodgy in the same way that rats are a little bit covered in fur."
And unlike you and Castel, I don't think my book is morally superior to anyone else's (or no book). It's simply the one I choose to follow. Nobody deserves to burn in Hell because they don't follow my faith.
Do you not realize that "your book" teaches that there is only one God, call everyone else gentiles, implies that the God of creation established a special covenant with only your people, and do you follow the ancient history of your fellow Jews? Christianity than came along and made it a faith of inclusion. Also, please try to separate the fact of the matters from your own individual perspective.
Where are you getting your facts? All indications are that the Gospels were written merely decades after the resurrection of Jesus, which could place the authors within their elderly years at the time of authoring the Gospels (e.g. Luke died in 84 AD and he wrote the Gospel according to Luke and Acts; see archaeologist Sir William Ramsay; clearly, thats not by someone born generations later). When you say generations, what are you trying to mean? Generations could mean hundreds or thousands of years later. To repeat, the sources (e.g. conflicting versions) that you keep eluding to were written coming into a time frame of hundreds of years later, thus they were not canonized for inclusion into the Bible. What youre calling conflicting events is an exaggeration, if you mean the minor discrepancies among the four Gospels (e.g. none of the discrepancies take away from the overall message or premise of the accounts, a citing that would make them truly contradictory). There is no demonstrated logic on that point.
Everett Ferguson also got a degree from Harvard; the reasons you provide for not looking up his contribution is not very sound, as just about everybody who sets out on an expedition of discovery has an agenda. Do you think because he obtained part of his education from a Christian college that it somehow invalidates his findings? This person is very knowledgeable of the Persian, Greek, and Roman cultures; he uses that knowledge to than examine the existing culture that existed at the time Jesus lived, than proceeds to examine the early church; his work does not solely reference the Gospels as sources making reference to Jesus and the first Christians (e.g. some of his sources include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Titus Flavius Clemens, and Tertullian). There is simply no comparison between the evidence that the Nazis relied upon with the evidence that Everett Ferguson relies upon.
They possibly did kill all or most of them, or, at least the ones brave enough to stick up for what they witnessed; history tells us that Christians were killed as a matter of routine during that period; I also said that some of their accounts were likely obliterated through other means; or some their accounts are simply yet to be discovered; they clearly contributed, because they did share their experiences all over, at least by word of mouth, causing the message to go viral and the Christian faith to form; use logic, do you think just five to ten people could have been that effective to cause the word to be spread in so many places during that time period? When Paul set out, the New Testament consistently makes reference to existing groups of Christians that he encountered in furthering his evangelist cause.
Dont I say, if thats their only source? That implies that other sources may exist.
Jesus rising from the dead is proven science is your words, not mine; I already said that human logic cannot and does not have to account for the abilities of God, whos beyond human logic.
Nothing could have gotten warped to the degree that you imply overtime which was relied upon by Christians, because we rely on the Gospels as our starting point and the authors of the Four Gospels were alive at the time of Jesus resurrection, or only about one generation removed, while all of the Four Gospels convincingly provide the same account of events with a few minor and insignificant discrepancies. The fact that there is not even more information from that period is likely due to the practices at the time by groups other than Christians, against Christians, which has been the point continually repeated.
Clark seems like a cool dude to me, considering he doesn't demand that you worship him. Sure Superman sounds a bit cocky, but he is kind of super, isn't he? Whereas God... well let's just say if you're gonna call yourself 'God' you're an arrogant prick.
And I know that Supes had his ups and downs storytelling wise, but at least all of his stories are coherent in nature, which you can't really say about that whole God stuff.
Where do you get you information that says most people do not believe in God? As much as you would like to see otherwise, most people still believe in God and the proportions have not shifted significantly since about 1970. Additionally, Christianity is the faith practiced by most people on Earth, despite the persecution to limit it's spread in various locations around the world; none the less, persecution would logically limit the number of people to openly profess their preference for Christianity; thus, the faith is not larger because of the means you appear to be implying, but for other reasons entirely. There is no trouble with the way the vast majority of Christians interpret God; you're relying on more of the fringe elements of Christianity. Catholics and Lutherans agree on the essential facts concerning God; the discrepancies come in the way Catholics, Lutherans, and Protestants choose to approach God (e.g. Protestants do not believe in having a Pope and differ on the place of Mary, Mother of Jesus); Catholics, Lutherans, and Protestants all agree to a significant degree on the way to God; that's one of those issues that's key to being Christian. I've only cited what's clearly evidence of how the early Christians were treated by all people during the first century AD and it read genocide, although martyrdom has been used to describe the systematic murder of Christians.
Clearly, I'm exercising general civility in the face of the ridicule of a figure like Jesus, if you compare what could be the reaction expressed by another large religion of the last several weeks in the press; try ridiculing that faith and see what civility you get. I know there's an attempt to try pitting Christianity, Judaism, and Islam against one another, but I'm rebuffing the instigation; seems like an attempt to pit the various Christian denominations against one another, as well.
Last edited by dshipp17; 11-24-2012 at 12:20 PM.
The Bible does not teach that women should marry their rapist. Christianity, at the level I'm defending it (purely from the Biblical text), is not sexist; you're at the level of where people may have chosen to interpret and, subsequently, practice Christian teaching; additionally, cultural changes does not shift the purity of God's Word. Christianity is not a religion of phobias, but it does define what's right and wrong as derived from the Creator of the Universe and biological life; thus, it's not a matter of choice based opinion.