text:
Atheism vs. Christianity
This isn't a new video by any means, but it is something I'd like to address.
There's a common misunderstanding among theists about atheism. The quote on the right is a good representation of what the average theist thinks atheism is. It's only a wonder they don't buy into it.
This of course is not at all what atheists believe. There's nothing "magically" done according to scientists or any rational thinker. The same however, can not be said for theists. The irony about the quote is that they suggest that something happening "magically" is just stupid, but when God does it, it's okay.
In the video they talk about the death count from Atheism. They suggest that only 2000 people in the history of mankind were killed in the name of religion and that "it happened a long time ago" (as if that makes a difference).
Now, I could go into the death talley and show how religion wins out on the death toll count many times over, but it's more than that.
Religion is bad because the ideas are bad. They say, "Hey… don't worry about messing this life up, there's another one after this." They teach that you should spend this life preparing for the next. If you honestly believe that, you have diminished this life. You are NOT living life to it's fullest.
Religion is a bad idea because it claims to draw it's morals from this God, This God who (according to their book) believes in all manner of atrocities. When a religious person does something good, it's to gain favor with this God, not just because it's a good thing, as Atheists do. They live their life repressed and in servitude. This is no way to live.
Religion is bad because it cheapens the true awesomeness of the world we live in by trying to explain it with man made myths. The biblical story of creation absolutely pales in comparison to the true story of how our universe started.
Does atheism have all the answers to life's mysteries? No. But neither does religion, despite what it claims.
Check out the videos after the break.
Comments (245)
That's it…god did it? That's your sum total of knowledge, or what you want to know. Then, if god made us, who then made god, and who made that god, and on and on. There is no proof or evidence of any kind of magical god who does anything, especially if you pray, believe, or have faith. Life just goes on.
Energy has always been in existence, and can change from matter to energy, and energy to matter. That's the best explanation than "god did it."
You are assuming there is an afterlife and one is conscious after death. There is also proof of any existence of any kind after death.
Name calling without some discussion and proof of your claims indicates you have an IQ of about 70…just barely able to flip a hamburger.
What's rubbish is for the little, brainless, dumb xians to make all kinds of claims, like there is an afterlife and have ZERO proof of their claims. Now,that is rubbish.
D'Souza was just convicted of mail fraud and election irregularities. Its likely he will go to jail. Oh well, another self righteous xians bites the dust…afterall xians make so many claims about how morally superior they are. Almost every day there is a preacher or a priest who lies, rapes little kids, steals…and the stupid xians continue to believe they are superior. NOT.
Liar..Why do you Xians lie so much…its because you are forgiven in advance for lying and anything you did. Afterall your imaginary paranoid schizophrenic committed suicide by cop (Roman soldier) while wearing a diaper so you could lie and be forgiven. Everyone one on the picture is an Atheist.
.Darwin was an Atheist: In 1880 the Austrian writer Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg visited Darwin at his home, Down House, in Kent. The coachman who drove Hesse-Wartegg from the train station at Orpington opined of the famous Mr. Darwin: "Ha es en enfidel, Sar- yes, an enfidel — an unbeliever! and the people say he never went to church!". The passage quoted here was actually marked in Darwin's copy of this German newspaper (the Frankfurter Zeitung und Handelsblatt) – See more at: http://publicdomainreview.org/2011/06/28/was-char…
Yes, Mark Twain was an Atheist: http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Mark_Twain
Lincoln was also an Atheist, and probably gay: Was Abraham Lincoln an atheist? – Yahoo https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2007…
Jun 08, 2007 · No, his closest friends and advisors have clearly expressed that he was an agnostic verging on atheist. He once even wrote a book which supposedly …
Ben Franklin was certainly a functional Atheist and said many anti religion, anti belief quotes: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Benjamin+Fran…
EINSTEIN..was certainly an Atheist and said so in a letter written for publication: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Einstein+Lett…
Thomas Jefferson was the biggest Atheist of them all and WROTE OUT and REMOVED all Christian, religious laws…there are no less than at least 300 Atheist Quotes by Jefferson: http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Carl Sagan: http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSag…
Just how do you know for a "fact" Lincoln was religious. Is this another one of those bull shit Christian idiots who has no proof but we are to believe their crap because they said so? Really…. Really? Get real, and grow up.
Lincoln was never religious, he went to church with his wife, because she wanted him to. and Lincoln had to work with the silly Christians, so he pandered to them. Below is exactly what Lincoln said in his own words about religion. Why do you xians lie so much?
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
The 16th President of the United States (1861-1865)United States Flag
Lincoln's closest associate, William Herndon, while describing the sheer complexity of Lincoln's religious views, stated that Lincoln was "at times, an atheist"; in describing Lincoln's unshaking belief in the existence of a form of "providence" of some kind, Eric Hoffer, in his groundshaking book, The True Believer, listed Lincoln as an example of a "positive True Believer"
Abraham LincolnMy earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
– Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J S Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death (Willie died in 1862), quoted by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln the Freethinker," also appearing in Remsburg's "Six Historic Americans" (Authenticity questioned by some because it allegedly does not appear in Wakefield's papers [Andrew Lutes, persistent picker of insignificant separationist nits]; authenticity questioned by others who claim that Wakefield did not exist [forgotten web site which also featured all the regular and long-refuted arguments for Lincoln's Christian piety]. Go figure!)
What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.
– Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Mary Todd Lincoln in William Herndon's Religion of Lincoln, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 118
It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity.
– Abraham Lincoln, Manford's Magazine, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 144
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
– Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln the Freethinker"
The only person who is a worse liar than a faith healer is his patient.
– Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Victor J Stenger in Physics and Psychics
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not that we be not judged.
– Abraham Lincoln, sarcasm in his Second Innaugural Address (1865)
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
– Abraham Lincoln, chiding the editor of a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, quoted from Antony Flew, How to Think Straight, p. 17
Oh, that [his Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward's nonsense, and it pleases the fools.
– Abraham Lincoln, to Judge James M Nelson, in response to a question from Nelson: "I once asked him about his fervent Thanksgiving Message and twitted him with being an unbeliever in what was published." Quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 138
The United States government must not undertake to run the Churches. When an individual, in the Church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest he must be checked.
– Abraham Lincoln, regarding the Churches, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 143
If there is no military need for the building, leave it alone, neither putting anyone in or out of it, except on finding some one preaching or practicing treason, in which case lay hands on him, just as if he were doing the same thing in any other building.
– Abraham Lincoln, order relating to a church in Memphis, Tennessee, issued on May 13, 1864, Nicolay and Hay, Works of Abraham Lincoln, chapter on "Lincoln and the Churches," quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 143. In the same chapter Nicolay and Hay state that in order to prevent treasonable preaching, Secretary Stanton appointed Bishop Ames, of the Methodist Church, to be supervisor of all the Churches in a certain southern district. President Lincoln at once countermanded the order.
When the Know-Nothings get control, it [the Declaration of Independence] will read: "All men are
created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
– Abraham Lincoln, letter to Joshua F Speed, August 24, 1855, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure….
If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us," but he will say to you, "Be silent; I see it, if you don't."
– Abraham Lincoln, in an 1848 letter to his law partner, William Herndon, criticizing Polk's decision to invade Mexico for the purpose of preventing future war (and, in essence, pointing out some of the flaws in what is now called the "Bush Doctrine of Preventative War"), quoted from a letter published in the Post Crescent by Jack Bradford, quoted from a December 26, 2003, letter to Cliff Walker by Robert Nordlander
There was the strangest combination of church influence against me. Baker is a Campbellite; and therefore, as I suppose with few exceptions, got all of that Church. My wife had some relations in the Presbyterian churches, and some in the Episcopal churches; and therefore, wherever it would tell, I was set down as either one or the other, while it was everywhere contended that no Christian ought to vote for me because I belonged to no Church, and was suspected of being a Deist and had talked of fighting a duel.
Speed: Cautious Not to Offend Christians
"He was very cautious never to give expression to any thought or sentiment that would grate harshly upon a Christian's ear."
– Joshua Speed, explaining at least some of Lincoln's extremely careful choice of language that was later used by Christians in attempts to "prove" Lincoln's Christian piety, in Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln, quoted from A W Furches, personal letter to Cliff Walker (January 10, 2002)
Britannica: Far Removed from the Dogmatist
"The measure of his difference from most of the men who surrounded him is best gauged by his attitude toward the fundamentals of religion. For all his devotion to his cause he did not allow himself to believe that he knew the mind of God with regard to it. He was never so much the mystic as in his later days and never so far removed from the dogmatist. Here was the final flowering of that mood which appears to have lain at the back of his mind from the beginning — his complete conviction of a reality of a supernatural world joined with a belief that it was too deep for man to fathom. His refusal to accept the 'complicated' statement of doctrines which he rejected, carried with it a refusal to predicate the purpose of the Almighty. Again, that singular characteristic, his power to devote himself wholly to a cause and yet to do so in such a detached, unviolent way that one is tempted to call it passionless. He retained nothing of the tribal forms of religion and was silent when they raged about him with a thousand tongues."
– Encyclopædia Britannica, 14th ed., quoted in Franklin Steiner, The Religious Views of Our Presidents, p. 139-40
Vlad…read what Einstein wrote in a letter to a Newspaper in which he said he was an ATheist. A stupid, lying preacher (is there any other kind?)…was telling people that Einstein was religious. Einstein got tired of these lies and wrote a letter to be published so everyone in the US could read it that he was not religious nor did he believe in god. See below:
In the letter, this is what Einstein said:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends," Einstein wrote in German in a 1954 letter that will be auctioned on eBay later this month. "No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
What Einstein said about god: Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
– Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)
For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
– Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)
Make everything as simple as possible but not simpler.
– Albert Einstein (attributed: source unknown)
[O]nly if every individual strives for truth can humanity attain a happier future; the atavisms in each of us that stand in the way of a friendlier destiny can only thus be rendered ineffective.
– Albert Einstein, Foreword to Homer W Smith, Man and His Gods
Strange is our situation here on Earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men — above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends.
– Albert Einstein, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief, p. 241
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
Prove there is a god, it is that simple. If you cannot and you keep insisting there is a god, then you are just another delusional, mentally ill liar for Jesus.
Atheist Carl Sagan said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Just how religion brainwashes people and makes them immoral and evil, is that when you call them a liar, when you demand proof or shut up, the religious say nothing back. They are not even offended.
Religion, belief, and faith, without a shred of proof turns people into psychopaths and paranoid schizophrenics in which the world revolves just around them. Theocracy is ending. Yippee
And exactly HOW did god make himself obvious to them. How? The ONLY way a god can be obvious is if he does something…as cited in the bible…. Beside Jesus saying he was going to "come back that generation"…which he did not, and its been some 44 generations and Jesus is STILL not here yet. Jesus lied about a lot of things. Its funny that you xians are clueless as to what is in your bible. And if you paid attention and really read the bible, you would be disgusted and conclude you are an Atheist. Here is what JESUS LIED ABOUT:
Here are the quotes from Jesus that proves that he lied:
1) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS). JESUS LIED–NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN
2) Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB) JESUS LIED–NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN
3) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS) JESUS LIED–NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN
4) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB) JESUS LIED–NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN
5) And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB) JESUS LIED–NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN
6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB) JESUS LIED–NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN
7) If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB) JESUS LIED–NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN
8) It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB) JESUS LIED–NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN
9) On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB) JESUS LIED–NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN
Don't you xians get tired of being gullible fools.
YES, THERE IS RAW EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION….in 25,000 studies, by 20,000 scientists, over 150 years…with the raw evidence of some 10 million fossils. AND WE ARE STILL EVOLVING, DUH.
Your singular problem is that you are as gullible as a goat, who believes what your preacher tells you instead of doing your own research. I bet you did not even pass 6th grade earth science either.
Human Evolution Evidence – Human Origins Program
Smithsonian Institution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution , and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable …
Human Fossils – Genetics – Human Family Tree – Behavior
Five Proofs of Evolution | Evolution FAQ
Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact …
What is the evidence for evolution? – Understanding Evolution
University of California, Berkeley
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution. The theory of evolution is broadly accepted by scientists — and for good reason! Learn about the diverse and …
Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution
Palomar College
Evidence of Evolution. The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously …
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes … http://www.cracked.com › Science
May 18, 2011 -if you or someone you know refuses to believe that organisms change over time without proof on a monkey-man level, here are some animals in …
9 Scienctific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False …
Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man – Listverse
by Jamie Frater – in 2,827 Google+ circles Jan 5, 2009 – Through history, as natural selection played its part in the development of modern man, many of the useful functions and parts of the human …
HowStuffWorks "Is there fossil evidence for human evolution?"
by Robert Lamb – in 199 Google+ circles Fossil evidence for human evolution is a little harder to piece together than you might think. Learn about fossil evidence for human evolution.
Human evolution – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to Evidence from the fossil record – [edit]. Replica of fossil skull of Homo habilis. Fossil number KNM ER 1813, found at Koobi Fora, Kenya. Replica …
human evolution :: The fossil evidence — Encyclopedia … http://www.britannica.com/…/human-evolution/…/Th...
Encyclopaedia Britannica
The process by which human being s developed on Earth from now-extinct primates. … In addition to anatomic evidence from this time, there is also a 27.5-metre …
Fossil Hominids, Human Evolution: Thomas Huxley …
University of California, Berkeley
But he chose not to write about humans in his first book about evolution, … that all of the known evidence was consistent with humans having evolved from a …
5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving | Mental Floss
Mental Floss
May 30, 2012 – When we think of human evolution, our minds wander back to the thousands of years it took natural selection to produce the modern-day man.
Theists are like small children who think that their Barbie doll and plastic GI Joe action figure is real and talks to them. Christianity and religion teaches believers that invisible gods are real…and worse, says that if you don't believe in these imaginary sky fairies you will go to hell.
Belief in imaginary friends is backed up by FEAR….xians have no balls, they are essentially COWARDS who are scaird of thinking for themselves and doing a little real research to see if the bible is factual or not.
YOU are JUST ANOTHER LIAR FOR JESUS…. EVERYONE IN THAT POSTER WAS/IS AN ATHEIST: Liar..Why do you Xians lie so much…its because you are forgiven in advance for lying and anything you did. Afterall your imaginary paranoid schizophrenic committed suicide by cop (Roman soldier) while wearing a diaper so you could lie and be forgiven. Everyone one on the picture is an Atheist.
.Darwin was an Atheist: In 1880 the Austrian writer Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg visited Darwin at his home, Down House, in Kent. The coachman who drove Hesse-Wartegg from the train station at Orpington opined of the famous Mr. Darwin: "Ha es en enfidel, Sar- yes, an enfidel — an unbeliever! and the people say he never went to church!". The passage quoted here was actually marked in Darwin's copy of this German newspaper (the Frankfurter Zeitung und Handelsblatt) – See more at: http://publicdomainreview.org/2011/06/28/was-char….
Yes, Mark Twain was an Atheist: http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Mark_Twain
Lincoln was also an Atheist, and probably gay: Was Abraham Lincoln an atheist? – Yahoo https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2007….
Jun 08, 2007 · No, his closest friends and advisors have clearly expressed that he was an agnostic verging on atheist. He once even wrote a book which supposedly …
Ben Franklin was certainly a functional Atheist and said many anti religion, anti belief quotes: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Benjamin+Fran….
EINSTEIN..was certainly an Atheist and said so in a letter written for publication: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Einstein+Lett….
Thomas Jefferson was the biggest Atheist of them all and WROTE OUT and REMOVED all Christian, religious laws…there are no less than at least 300 Atheist Quotes by Jefferson: http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Carl Sagan: http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSag….
- See more at: http://thinkreason.net/117/atheism-vs-christianit…
Yes, you are crazy and delusional. At the rate that people are STOPPING BELIEF IN GODS….anyone who says they are religious in 2050 will be labeled insane. If you cannot prove that gods exist…then know that you believe in BS.
Christians don't do good so that they may escape hell and go to a better place! That's not the basis of being saved. Heaven is just a bonus to as us christians. Infact God views our good deeds as semen! They are nothing but filthy rugs. Our doing good is due to Him that lives within us. We don't focus on the good things we are doing but we just focus on Him who enables us to do good things.
It is really stupidly irritating to find both extremes on these forum posts. Atheists who are depicted as wanting to rid the world of all Christians, and Christians arguing over petty subjects which don't make a difference to anything anyway. In-fact. I will PROUDLY SAY I'M CHRISTIAN, but still agree with many of the points on this post. Religion is dead, useless and causes much confusion with many people. My FAITH is NOT a religion. I don't live life with a set of rules that determine my every move. I live life with a living and breathing God whom I have a relationship with. My life is based on the Bible because the Bible IS JESUS (the Word made flesh = Jesus). I completely understand that Atheists have their opinion on Religion – infact, I seriously admire the faith is takes to NOT believe in anything, its something that us Christians can even learn from. So please, stop attacking us with scriptures that are completely out of context and petty subjects which don't make a difference to anything. And fellow Christians, please stop getting into ridiculous arguments which really mean nothing – and sort your blimin' attitude out!!!
To the Godless reprobate that is already biased against God's word, you've got to prove everything to him or else he claims he won't believe. The truth of the matter is that wouldn't believe anyway even if you could prove it to him. When it comes to the argument of the opposed to God and followers of the bible and/or religious sects. both are lead mostly by fables, doctrines, and rote of men. This scripture says "All scriptures is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 States: "21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Different sects against God ask questions to disqualify God's existence. Titus 3:9-11 "9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned." And the defense from a lot of so called pundit Christian's and or bible believers is STUPID and taught by rote of men. Jeremiah 10:14 "EVERY MAN is STUPID and without KNOWLEDGE." Isaiah 29:13 "Wherefore the Lord said, For as much as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:" Matthew 15:7-9 "Teaching doctrines of men and worshiping the LORD in vain." Doesn't mean it's high times for the reprobates against God. His Word and judgments endure forever. Psalm 119:160 "The ENTIRETY of your word is TRUTH, and every one of your righteous judgement endures forever." Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." People consider God to exist, but he has no influence on them or the world directly or indirectly. Everything becomes relative by the measure of their feelings, likes and dislikes. God then becomes made in mans image. Living by relative truth stops human beings in their personal growth/pursuit of truth and neutralizes their moral growth. Moral truth, spiritual truth has to come from a great source than mankind. A personal freedom as choice cannot exist without consideration of what is really true. 1 Timothy 2:4 "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." To him who believeth, no explanation is necessary; to him that believeth not, no explanation is possible." by Elbert Hubbard
Firstly, I want to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and that I (try hard to) respect them. However, I just have a few things that I want to say after reading through this debate.
First of all, I can't help but noticing whose side the cocky, faux act-of-superiority-like comments are coming from. And don't even deny it, we all know the answer.
I'm so sick of atheists disrespecting Christians for their beliefs and adressing them as 'stupid and silly.' They often think Christians must be incredibly stupid to believe in God, Jesus and the holy spirit. God created the earth in six days and rested on the Sabbath day. He created everything on the earth, and created human beings. He loves all of us whether we sin or not, and his son Jesus died for our sins on the cross so we could have eternal life after death and not perish. Atheists think that's foolish to believe that. Well, your theory of an expanse of nothingness suddenly exploding to later form an earth with little particles growing into apes doesn't sound completely believable and flawless either. I know I have no evidence to back me up here, but I've heard around that some parts of the Old Testament of the Bible are metaphorical stories and passages. I don't exactly know if it's sinful to believe that in Christianity, but I just had to put it out there.
Another thing too, although I know some don't, why do Atheists's celebrate Christmas? CHRISTmas. It's a celebration of Jesus' birth, a time for happiness and family and food and gifts. An Atheist's take on Christmas consists of all of those listed excepting Jesus' birth, which is the reason we celebrate the day in the first place. I want to hear it from an Atheist. Do you celebrate it just for your kids, or for the gifts? For the reunion of family? If so, you are disrespecting the reason and concept of Christmas, and using the holy day as an excuse. This goes for Good Friday and Easter Sunday as well, the remembrance of Jesus' birth and death.
Being an Atheist is fine. If that's what you want, so be it. But God loves you, Christian or not, and he holds a place for you in Heaven if you return his love with your own, and your full strength faithfulness.
I am a fourteen year old girl, so please don't call me foolish, because I'm only young. If it would really bring you joy to cyber bully me or accuse me of my words, go ahead. I attend a Christian school, and ever since I began going to this school in year seven, it has strengthened my faith in God, and I am proud to say that I am a Christian. I know little of Him, but I plan to devote my life to Him and learn about his righteousness.
75 % of the popular figures represented in this picture are agnostic not atheist!! there is a considerable difference between the two!! if you cant trust a atheist to get his facts right maybe you should consider that his ignorance also guides all his thoughts!
Exactly Jessie I like to call myself a Deist, you are very right, at the very least Christianity gives you a sense of hope and truth , I considered myself a Christian for 25 + years and I convinced myself what the Bible says was truth and I do understand what many Atheists thinks about Christians and why many Deists mock at faiths because they might be ashamed by believing what they see now as not truth. its called their EGOIC MIND is offend.
"Ever since the world was created, people, bla bla bla"— People were not here when the world was created. Look to science. Cristian religion is based on stories created by mankind from its earliest times. What a ridiculous idea is that if you place your palms together and point your fingers to the sky someone is watching, and may grant your every wish. You call him god. Well, rather than grant your wish he does a lot of other things— He allows over six million of his creation to perish at the hands of their brothers. He is also very good at floods, forest fires, earthquakes and volcanic explosions. No space to list the many other ways he has created to do away with his creatures.
There is no raw, empirical evidence of gravity. Personally, I believe there is a kind of magnet placed inside the earth by god. Some things, like iron, the magnet strongly attractions, other things, like feathers, the magnet doesn't attract nearly as strong. Then god, in his infinite wisdom, gave the feathers to birds so they would be light and could fly. Us folks who believe that god put a magnet in the earth are called "magnetists". Magnetists and creationists have to stick together. If we don't, the scientists will make the Bible look silly.
Viruses and bacteria that cause diseases mutate, sometimes to become resistant to particular drugs. This is creatures evolving!. It can be seen happening over very short periods. If a type of creature can undergo small changes over small periods of time. Obviously other creatures can go through a series of changes over a long period of time.
Ok, Craig, I've walked around helping people who cry, get up and be happy again. I haven't ever upset anyone much (minus my mum for keeping my room messy) and I don't randomly decide to murder someone. I've given up my time, helping others do their work or whatever better. I don't believe in God, and according to you, I will be in 'hell burning' just because I didn't believe in God. And even if this 'God', the all powerful and amazing god, exists, and if he is so good at knowing what's right and wrong, then he wouldn't let me go to this, hell, that you speak of.
You said "there had to be a reason for which the universe was created"?…is the fact that all the chemical compounds that are necessary to support life are found throughout the universe, in the stars, not a logical reason? Why is that such a wild thing to believe? I respect both theories of creation and evolution, but I tend to lean towards evolution simply because it makes more logical sense to me. You also said "what if this "profecy (*prophecy*)" about the returning of jesus really happens?.. just what if.. Can you afford to have your soul lost?" It hasn't even been humanly proven that we have "souls"…souls are a religious belief…so asking if atheists "can afford to have lost their souls lost" is like asking if an atheist can live without their bible. Again, no disrespect to your beliefs, I'm just respectfully sharing my thoughts.
I'm on both sides.
The main flaw I see atheists make is attacking religion on basis of moral law. They pick a certain law or passage and say I don't agree with this or that so I reject it. With this line of reasoning it leaves them no outs when it comes to moral law / right v wrong. Agnostics maybe but atheists no.
They reject the idea of a moral law giver so they have no authority on what is or isn't right.
For example, ask an atheist if murder and rape of the innocent ( or not so innocent for the matter) and most will tell you its wrong. Yes, a few will say depends, but when pressed on details at some point an honest athiest will draw the line and admit some moral law they believe in. Thus, they are the moral law giver and they make the laws/rules. It may be ok to them to kill or murder depending on situation. Bad for the person getting rapped or killed but Good for them. I.E shouldn't have a problem with rapping to pass there genes on and killing for resources to allow them to survive. LIKE primates that kill and impregnate other opposing groups in the wild-which happens. If they disagree with this and state what theirmoral laws are – they have just created their OWN religion- being their own moral law giver. One can't get around this.
An atheist can not know 100 percent there is no God they just take the plunge and believe ( some would say by faith ) there is no God or absolute moral law giver depending g on your preference. Possibility of being wrong eliminates 100 percent certainty.
"The fool in his heart "…..you know the rest.
Hi, my name is Mike and I am currently working on a book called, 'How to Debate Atheists.' I have completed the first three chapters and would appreciate any feedback.
With all do respect I believe you side stepped my point by redefining atheist. I believe you understand my definition from most dictionaries as being the lack of belief in God or gods. Agnostic is defined by not being sure one way or the other. You may redefine if you want but one can easily break down circular logic.
But for arguments sake lets use the definition from dictionary.
To the point of where I get my morals. Not only do I believe this but I also FEEL it. My morals are embedded in my personality. I can remember from a very early age knowing right from wrong before I ever heard of religion. I guess you could say I was a sensitive kid. We all inherently have that "angel" and "devil" inside.
This is not to say we are not tempted one way or other or that we can't suppress or moral compass….just that it is there if we are honest with ourself. The BIble just reinforces which one I should be choosing and why, and consequences if I dont. IM free to choose either one, but being human/ a lot of times selfish, I often choose wrong.This is why I need a savior. I AM sinful by nature. I know what is right but often rebel against it. FOR example , I have often hurt others with my sin. Ive done things I wouldn't want done to me.
I deserve punishment. I demand d justice so justice is demanded of me.
You could phcoanalyze this I guess. But a ten year old could see the theme of guilt. What are you guilty of?
And where does your guilt stem from? If you steam and YOU feel nobody gets hurt do you feel bad? And why?
Thanks for your reply. I hope you dodo t take questions personally. I know you have a conscience- we all do. That's how we tell right from wrong ultimately. Tools such as Ten Commandments convict us so we will have no excuse in from of God. In other words, we will have no argument for not asking forgiveness.
Srry for errors my phone screen is cracked lol. I meant to say sin not steam towards end of post.
I think you can figure out other spell errors. Thx
Umm, sorry but yes: we do understand logic. What proof do YOU have that god doesnt exist? In your opinion, we dont have proof, but dont come back at me like that. What is your proof??? Tell me. ANd dont come back with the original what proof do you have that it exists, because it just seems like you are avoiding the question.
I feel very sorry for you, son, that you dont believe in anything. Have fun in your "Nothingness" as you say it when you die, while we will be having eternal hapiness in heaven.
There may well be a Creator. There may well be millions of gods. There may be millions of supernatural beliefs that are really true. Almost every culture has its superstitions. So how do we determine which to believe and which to discount as very improbable and therefore beliefs that we should not lay awake at night worrying about? Do you worry that Allah is going to cast you into the Muslim hell? Of course not.
Supernatural claims by definition cannot be proven false with physical evidence. We each must weigh what evidence we have available to us to determine the likelihood of a supernatural claim. You do not lie awake at night terrified of being cast into the Muslim hell by Allah because you do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to believe this supernatural claim.
And I hold the same position regarding your Christian supernatural claims. Just as you are not angry at Allah, I am not angry at the Christian god. Just as you are not choosing to rebel against Allah, I am not choosing to rebel against Yahweh/the Trinitarian Christian god. You don't worry about the Muslim hell because you don't believe that Allah exists, as I do not believe that Yahweh exists. You would demand evidence from a Muslim to believe his supernatural ancient tale, as I am doing with you of your ancient supernatural tale.
Most atheists and agnostics (including me) do not attempt to prove that a Creator does not exist. Our argument is that there is no evidence to prove that the Christian god is the Creator; that the Christian holy book is the very Word of the Creator; or that the Church represents the Creator here on earth. We believe in Science and Reason. Give us good evidence that the Christian god exists and we will believe. But give us evidence, don't ask us to accept your supernatural tale by blind faith.
You wouldn't accept the Muslim story by blind faith, so why would you expect us to believe your Christian story by blind faith?
Well thought I would weigh in. I am a Diest so just one step removed from an Atheist. I was raised Catholic and was later a born again Christian. Any revealed religion just don't add up. There are hundreds of world religions and hundreds of sects in the Christian religion. Which one is right. At least with the Atheist they don't just accept something out of hand (and please give up on the notion that the Bible is the absolute "word of God".). It was written by 66 different people and wasn't put together until 325 AD at the Counsel of Nicea (about 300 years after Jesus died), if in fact Jesus even lived. It is agreed that none of Christ's apostles wrote down anything nor did Jesus. Paul was not one of the twelve apostles and never even met Jesus, so everything in the New Testament is hearsay at best. Faith is merely a way to explain something you know nothing at all about. So become a Diest. I believe in a God of the Universe but don't think God can be defined by man or that God takes an active role in peoples lives. We are to learn through reason and discovery and merely "hope for" something after we die. We can't know what it might be, so instead of "Faith" just rely on "Hope". They are not the same thing.
Atheists, just give up! If christians are so closed mined that they won't listen to Steven Hawking, what makes you think they will listen to you? Jane its not your job to judge athiests. Isn't that the job of your god?


text:
Definitions for undergarmentˈʌn dərˌgɑr mənt
This page provides all possible meanings and translations of the word undergarment
Random House Webster's College Dictionary
un•der•gar•mentˈʌn dərˌgɑr mənt(n.)
an article of underwear.
Category: Clothing
Origin of undergarment:
Princeton's WordNet
undergarment, unmentionable(noun)
a garment worn under other garments
Any garment worn underneath others, especially one worn next to the skin; an item of underwear.
Undergarments are clothes worn under other clothes, often next to the skin. They keep outer garments from being soiled by bodily secretions and discharges, shape the body, and provide support for parts of it. In cold weather, long underwear is sometimes worn to provide additional warmth. Some undergarments are intended for erotic effect. Special types of undergarments have religious significance. Some items of clothing are designed as undergarments, while others, such as T-shirts and certain types of shorts, are appropriate both as undergarments and as outer clothing. If made of suitable material, some undergarments can serve as nightwear or swimsuits. Undergarments are generally of two types, those that are worn to cover the torso and underwear, though garments which cover both also are available. Different styles of undergarments are generally worn by women and men. Undergarments commonly worn by women today include brassieres and panties, while men often wear briefs or boxers. Items commonly worn by both sexes include T-shirts, sleeveless shirts, bikini underwear, thongs, and G-strings.
Translations for undergarment
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
an article of clothing worn under the outer clothes.
- onderkledingstukAfrikaans
- قِطْعَةٌ من المَلابِس الدّاخِلِيَّهArabic
- долна дрехаBulgarian
- roupaíntimaPortuguese (BR)
- spodní prádloCzech
- die UnterkleidungGerman
- undertøjDanish
- εσώρουχοGreek
- ropa interiorSpanish
- alusrõivasEstonian
- لباس زیرFarsi
- alusvaateFinnish
- sous-vêtementFrench
- בֶּגֶד תַחתוֹןHebrew
- अन्दर के कपडे़Hindi
- donji vešCroatian
- fehérneműHungarian
- pakaian dalamIndonesian
- nærfat, undirflíkIcelandic
- (sottoveste)Italian
- 下着Japanese
- 속옷, 내복Korean
- apatinis/pasivilktas drabužisLithuanian
- pavilktas drēbes; apakšveļaLatvian
- pakaian dalamMalay
- onderkledingstukDutch
- underkjole/-trøye (osv.)Norwegian
- spodnia część garderobyPolish
- لباس زیرPersian
- دكاليو لاندېPashto
- roupa de baixoPortuguese
- lenjerie intimă/de corpRomanian
- предмет нижнего бельяRussian
- spodná bielizeňSlovak
- spodnje oblačiloSlovenian
- donji vešSerbian
- underplaggSwedish
- ชุดชั้นในThai
- iç giysiTurkish
- 內衣褲Chinese (Trad.)
- предмет спідньої білизниUkrainian
- زير جامہUrdu
- quần áo lótVietnamese
- 内衣Chinese (Simp.)
Get even more translations for undergarment »
Find a translation for the undergarment definition in other languages:
Select another language:
Discuss these undergarment definitions with the community:
Use the citation below to add this definition to your bibliography:
"undergarment." Definitions.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2014. <http://www.definitions.net/definition/undergarment>.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
2011 HR in Hospitality Conference
April 4-6, 2011, Washington, DC
Get an in-depth look at the current labor and employment law issues facing the hospitality industry at the HR in Hospitality Conference, April 4 - 6, 2011 at Marriott Wardman Park in Washington, D.C.
The program features 3 plenary sessions that LR professionals like you can't afford to miss: "The NLRB Under the Obama Administration" -- moderated by Dean Katz, "Hot Topics in Labor and Employment Law" and the "Cornell University HR Executive Summit" featuring top labor and employment law experts -- including many Cornell ILR alumni -- dissecting today's legal issues.
Plus, you can choose from 3 Labor and Employment Law breakout sessions on FLSA Audits, Discrimination & Class Action Lawsuits, and the new Labor and Employment Law "UnConference" session where you drive the discussion.
Get your $500.00 Cornell discount off the on-site rate by registering with Promo Code ILRE at www.HRinHospitality.com.


text:
- Antique Jewelry
- The Ages
- Engagement Rings
- Antique Rings
- Diamond Jewelry
- So Much More
20th C. Eternity in a Wedding Band
With no beginning and no end, 18k white gold creates an eternity band wedding ring. The textured surface sports a foliate motif along the entire surface.
Date: Mid to slightly earlier 20th century.
Measurements: 1/8 of an inch (0.2 cm) in length north to south on the hand and rises 1/8 of an inch (0.2 cm) in height off the finger. Weight of 2.7 grams (1.7 dwt).
Ring Size: US 6-1/4 (UK M; Euro or Int. Circum. 52.5 mm; Int. Dia. 16.7 mm; Japan 12) and can be sized down to fit most; we do not recommend sizing up due to pattern. Ring sizing information.
Hallmarks: 18k; Sohengrin.
Condition: Excellent.
Origin: American.
Forms of Payment
- VISA and MasterCard, Discover and American Express credit & debit cards.
- Personal checks drawn on U.S. banks only - Please allow 7 business days for clearance.
- Money orders, cashier's and traveler's checks - Please allow 7 business days for clearance.
- PayPal.
Other Forms of Payment
Bank Wire - For international orders and orders of $5,000 and over. Please contact us for more details.
Layaway information and for full details see Payment Methods.
Same Day Shipping - Order by 1 pm CST M-F!
FREE for All U.S. Orders - Standard 2 Day Shipping.
FREE for All International Orders - Standard 2-7 Day Shipping.
Full details at Shipping & Insurance.
Standard Money Back No Risk Guarantee
If you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, notify us within (3) days of receipt for a full refund. Return shipping is free!
Just write "extended return" in the comments box of your order to qualify! Notify us by December 29th, ship back by January 2nd, 2015.
Standard Return Procedure
- Notify us of your intention to return the item within three (3) days of receipt. You may contact us by email or by telephone.
- Please ship back to us within another two (2) days after we receive notification from you.
- As soon as the item is received, a full refund is issued to you that same day.
More details at Full Guarantee including gift giving and holiday options.


text:
Jobs and schools promise to be top issues in next year's city elections. The mayor's education agenda faces its toughest test in the African-American communities that gave him strong support in 2011.
Join the conversation
We encourage our readers to leave comments and engage in dialogue about our stories. But before you do, please check out our "rules of the road."
Current Issue
Set the record straight on teachers pension fund problems
The Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund found itself at the center of controversy in recent days as dramatic headlines blamed pension payments for the Chicago Public Schools' budget shortfall and the subsequent layoff of thousands of employees. Dramatic headlines may grab attention, but they obscure the truth. It's time to set the record straight and ask CPS to accept responsibility for past mistakes — so that they are not repeated.
CTPF is a $9.5 billion pension plan that serves 60,000 teachers, administrators, and retirees of the CPS, including charter schools. Our members do not contribute to or receive Social Security, so their pension is their primary retirement security. All teachers are required to live in the city. More than 85 percent of CTPF beneficiaries live in Illinois, and 50 percent of these beneficiaries continue to live in the City of Chicago. CTPF benefit payments generate more than $1.5 billion in economic impact for Illinois and help create more than 11,500 jobs. In 2011, the average annual benefit was $41,584.
Our teachers have pensions for a reason — they provide stable retirements at less cost than other retirement programs. The pension equation is a simple one, which works when all sides are in balance. Teachers and employers contribute revenue, and our fund invests revenue and pays benefits. CTPF has invested prudently and has a 30-year rate of return of more than 8 percent. Our members have never missed a pension payment, investing 9 percent of their salary from each paycheck toward retirement.
CTPF currently owes members about $17 billion in future pension costs. With $9.5 billion in the bank, it means we have about 54 cents for every dollar we owe. As recently as 2001, CTPF had more than $1 in assets for every $1 it owed.
So how did the equation fall out of balance?
Diverting pension funds
To understand this we need to examine the critical component of the pension equation — revenue. From the late 1920s until 1995, CTPF received a dedicated property tax revenue from the citizens of Chicago. CPS didn't have a pension payment. CTPF invested the tax revenue and created one of the strongest retirement funds in the state.
Facing a budget crisis in 1995, CPS convinced the Illinois legislature to divert the dedicated CTPF levy into the CPS operating budget. Removing that guaranteed revenue source, however, fundamentally changed the structure of our fund and knocked the pension equation out of balance.
What happened next is the little-known yet critical part of our story. Instead of making the "normal" cost of pension payments, CPS used the money that would have gone to pensions for other purposes. For a period of 10 years, 1996-2005, CTPF received no employer contributions.
Professional actuaries have determined the amount that the employer should have contributed during those years totaled more than $2 billion.
Even with the strong investment returns CTPF earns, a fund cannot survive without stable revenue. When our funded ratio fell below 90 percent in 2006, CPS was forced to make payments for the first time in a decade. Instead of taking responsibility and paying the bills, CPS returned to Springfield in 2010, asking to reduce payments through a euphemism called a pension "holiday." Legislation passed in 2010 allowed CPS to pay less than they owed, underfunding pensions by an additional $1.2 billion for three years from 2011-2013.
With the "holiday" ending in 2013, CPS returned to the Illinois legislature on May 31 to ask for an additional $350 million in relief. The measure failed, but no other solution was offered.
Call it a holiday or relief, but these euphemisms really meant that CTPF didn't receive enough money to keep the pension equation in balance.
Sadly, the State of Illinois also has failed CTPF. When CTPF lost the tax levy in 1995, the state agreed in principle to support CTPF at a rate proportional to the downstate teachers — but that funding failed to materialize. Instead, state funding for CTPF has fallen dramatically.
In 1995, we received about 23 percent of the funding provided to the Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Illinois. Today, we receive less than 1 percent — even though we have 18 percent of the state's teachers. Funding promised from the state should have amounted to about $2.7 billion since 1995. Chicago's taxpayers continue to fund downstate and suburban pensions, yet the state has failed to support Chicago's teachers.
So what can we do? Much of the focus on pension funds has been on so called benefit reform — meaning the call has been to reduce benefits for members. Yet excessive benefits did not bring us to this point – a lack of revenue did. The CTPF Board of Trustees has taken the position that revenue reform must occur before benefit reform. We have seen the damage that a lack of revenue has done to our fund, and we need to remedy the situation.
Revenue reform could follow many paths, including increasing taxes, restoring our dedicated tax levy, refinancing the pension debt, or eliminating funding schemes that have caused artificially lower historical payments. The employees, employer, retirees and state must work together to come up with a plan that will stabilize CTPF.
CTPF has done — and continues to do — its part to solve the pension problem. We have acted cautiously and invested prudently. We have built a diversified investment portfolio which has exceeded our expected rate of return, but we can't invest our way to financial security. We need revenue.
We know that excessive benefits didn't cause this problem, and cutting benefits alone won't solve it. We need to balance the pension equation and only responsible action from the employer can accomplish this. Teachers have looked at the past and learned difficult lessons. We hope CPS will do the same.
Kevin Huber is executive director of the Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund.
22 comments
Thank you Mr. Huber.
Shame on CPS and state legislators. They took a great fund and continue to beat it to death. Retirees, be a part of RTAC, it is the only 911 we have.
CPS Pension Problems
CTPF President Huber described the plight of the CPS teacher pension fund with excellent detail -it's the best explanation yet! Political deals, CPS difficulties, and. education bashing aren't needed. Tax reform so that the upper income 2% pay their fair share of taxes is probably mainly, painfully largely an answer!
Kevin Huber's article
Overall Mr. Huber's article was factual and correct. But then he got to the issue of State funding for CTPF. As we know the Speaker of the House is now calling for all school districts to fund their own teachers pensions instead of the State. So any hope for additional State funding for CTPF is highly unlikely at this time or in the near future.
Mr. Huber states " The CTPF Board of Trustees has taken the position that revenue reform must occur before benefit reform." However, the Mayor of Chicago has taken the exact opposite position, revenues should not be discussed before pension reform. Isn't possible to discuss both issues at the same time as part of a legislative solution?
Rod Estvan
Private Industry
Let's take an engineer at Boeing for example..if when he/she retires ajd he sells their shares for HUGE profit, much of their profit is Government money, do they get biffed on Social Security? Answer: No....
Yet I DONT EVER SEE ANYONE bashing government contractor employees? I don't think they should, but they don't.
Informative but slightly misleading
Informative article but there is something missing and, somewhat, misleading I feel. You note that the funding ratio was over 100% as of 1995 and through 2001; there is no need for the state/city to make funding payments when the liability matches, or is over, the available assets. However, the 100% funding ratio is misleading because current actuarial pension analysis, as used by governmental entities, assumes a rate of return of 7-8% when actual returns, especially considering the previous 10 year, has been much lower than that. The actual funding ratio, if we use a more realistic rate of return, such as 4-5% (being that pensions are, essentially debt, this is appropriate and ballparks current bond rates) would indicate that they are less funded than current accounting for pension funds would lead us to believe. This would also relate back to the time period of 1995-2001 when it was assumed to be 100% funded. In reality, it was much less funded than that, but this is a problem of pension accounting rules as defined by governmental accounting standards; private company accounting standards require more realistic rates of return, which are around 4-6%. Yes the city contributions weren't made, but based on misguided return assumptions, it didn't have to. When the market tanked twice during the aughts and asset values plummeted they were required to make up the difference when returns did not equal the expected 8%, and make contributions to make up for any shortfalls. If we modify our actuarial analysis it'll require a larger contribution from employees and employers and a reduction in promises but at least it'll be sustainable. Lets not fool ourselves that the pension funds were adequately funded at any point in time though.
Media complicity in political misdirection
The pension issue, while legitimate, has become a tool used by city and state political leaders to misdirect popular attention away from other causes of budget shortfalls. Because the economics are complex and involve data analysis which is often more predictive than solid, discussion in the media more often than not is based on the passing along of common wisdom, whose origin is often the spin found in press releases from politicians and conservative "reform" groups. When the Chicago Tribune does any real education reporting, it is usually after the fact, and promptly ignored by their editorial board. As I've said in this forum in the past, the only genuine, skeptical investigative reporting to be found in Chicago seems to be in Catalyst, the Reader, and on Chicago Tonight.
On the subject of veteran teachers vs. newer, cheaper ones, I have yet to see a detailed explanation of how pension analysis estimates future costs. If it is based on past methods, these estimates are flawed. For example, as veteran teachers retire, they are increasingly being replaced by ones from Teach For America and other such programs, a large percentage of whom don't stay in the system long enough to qualify for a pension, either due to burnout (especially in charter schools) or because they mainly came to fulfill student loan requirements or perform a public service before moving on to their "real" careers. Also, I've yet to see anyone point out that when Rahm eliminated the 4% raise in the last CTU contract, it not only meant that the raises in the new contract were based on a lower figure than they would have been, but that future pensions would also be based on a lower average. I'm sure none of this escaped the attention of the mayor and CPS.
This is an excellent analysis
This is an excellent analysis by Mr. Huber, and some interesting comments. I have tried to explain the funding of the CPSPF as being similar to the funding of Social Security. Technically, that is not entirely correct, according to Mr. Huber, who explains that the employer's share used to come directly from property taxes. I also was not clear on the State funding promise,nor what happened after the original 10-year "holiday." Bottom line, CPS needs to do its share, but, most important, the truth about the CPS fund in contrast to other pension funds needs to be told. This is not being done, and the New York Times article of August 5 is an example.
VERY misleading!!!
The average return for the last 10 years is only 5.7%, and the only reason it is that high is because they made some extremely risky investment this past year, that luckily paid off.
Also, even though you claim the city/state have not contributed their sharer during the pension holiday - they have contributed more than employees have during that period of time.
and why should teachers get a 4% raise, when the CPI is at 1.1%?
Does anyone want to get a raise that only keeps up with iflation? are teachers not allowed to imporve their station in life? are you saying teachers have caused our country's ecomomic problems. Reg employees give 6.2% and so do their employees to Social Security..on top of it I would guess most employees who have a college degree get some type of 401k with a match....also if an employee dies his 401k goes to his estate. employees on pensions lose half and then the other half when their spouse dies...it is not so black and white like you portray. and you know as well as I do that REAL INFLATION is more than 1.1%......
Black and white - yes
Everyone who works want the biggest raises, the best benefits, the shortest workdays, the most money, the least responsibility, .... In the private sector, the profit motive keeps all that in check. In the public sector, unions and the threat to strike throw it all out of balance.
Compound 4% raises over a 30 year career. I would love an annual 4% raise!!!!
Most employers match 3% 401k and 6.2% SS. CTU teachers put in 2%, CPS puts in 7%, then the CPS puts in an additional 10 to 30%, and the state puts in some more. Pretty good deal for teachers!!!
Misleading analysis
Mr. Huber makes it sound like the CTU were innocent bystanders of rogue CPS administrations. However, a closer look at the facts showed that they played a role in creating the large unfunded pension liability to now exists.
(1) CPS teachers only pay 2 percent of their salary toward their pensions, not 9 percent. They only paid 2 percent the entire time that CPS did not make the employer contributions. What did they get in return? An 80 percent increase in salary -- before taking into account step and lane increases.
(2) The CTU did not actively oppose the pension holidays because they were getting increases in salaries that would eventually entitle them to hire pension payments in the future.
RE: State Funding
Chicago has for decades been diverting revenue for the schools (and other public services) into TIF, approx. $5.5B depending on the source, of which CPS would get ~50%. Tax revenue destined for the schools should be exempt from TIF. Perhaps the pension payment holidays would not have happened had CPS had this revenue.
TIF is a Red Herring
Don't believe everything you read about TIFs. You could funnel every TIF dollar into CPS, and CPS would still be broke.
Also - Pension holiday doesn't mean CPS didn't have to pay anything into the pension fund, even during the pension holiday the CPS put in more money than the employees did. They just capped their contribution. Teacher put in 2%, the district put in 7% for the teachers (this is the 9% employee contribution), then the district put in another 10%-20%, and the state put in some on top of that. That is what we are calling the "Pension Holiday".
If that is a Holiday, I need my employer to do a 401K Holiday!
Start taxing pensions
Illinois is one of only 10 states that EXCLUDES state pension income from taxation. At the very least, the difference between the average citizen's SS benefit (which is not taxed) and a pensioners' state pension benefit should be taxed at the same 5% rate as everyone else.
Funding Illinois State Teacher Pension Plans
Gold Mine: Tax pension and retirement payments.
Illinois does not tax retirement income no matter how much you make. That is crazy. You could even exempt $25,000 and social security and tax the rest of the retirement income. Those funds could fund teacher pensions.
Teacher and principals contribute 9%. Someone told you a lie
Teaches and Principals contribute 9% of their salary every pay period. Someone told you a lie if you believe that teachers and principals only contribute 2% each pay period to their pensions. The board chose an accounting practice, years ago, to not put the full contractual salary into the pay check...so CPS withdraws the 2% on the face of the check, and the other 7% is contributed directly from CPS. But the 7% is salary...not a CPS contribution. CPS is fond of spinning this lie, even its Board members tell this "story" when they are in public. But,
The NORMAL Cost, the normal employer cost is CPS's responsibility...just as any other Employer in Chicago is required by law to make a contribution to the retirement of its employees. Your information is false, someone lied to you and now you are passing this misinformation on. Please stop.
Mr. Emanuel and his backers need to be honest about TIF
The TIF has robbed students and families across Chicago from tax dollars for schools, parks and libraries. Schools lose a quarter of a billion dollars each year in tax revenue siphoned from schools to TIF. Teachers and Principals get paid a salary. Some is paid directly (a payroll check), the rest is deferred contractual compensation in the form of a Pension.
CPS has been involved in underpaying its employee pensions since 1995 when CPS stopped making its full pension payments. Over 3 billion is owed to teachers. In addition, CPS owes interest on its Pension Default. The mayor wants to default again this year on the Chicago Public Pensions.
CPS voted to pay its contractual pension bill this year, unfortunately, the amount barely pays the interest due because of past pension Holidays, state legislative pension relief, and Board of Education pension defaults.
Some call this a Pension Heist. I don't go so far, but a Pension is a Promise.
It is time to Release the TIF's back to the schools. Restore the pension contributions that have been provided teachers since 1895. And restore the dedicated Tax Levy for teachers pensions that Chicagoans contributed since the 1920's. Chicago is willing to fund its schools; the BOARD just doesn't always respect its teachers and principals retirement promises.
Teachers Pensions
Who you kidding lady??? If you took all of the 2%'s money there wouldn't be enough. Too bad you don't live in the real world. Blame crooked politicians and triple dippers. Too late to fix it now!! Bye Bye Pensions!!!!!
Your facts are all incorrect and wrong.
Your facts are not correct.
Nothing you wrote is accurate.
Teachers contractually contribute 9/ of their salary to their pensions. CPS has underfunded the pension forover13 of the last18 years. Billions of dollars were not paid and the state has mandated that it is time for the Board to pay what is due. Fair deal.
Andrea Zopp's hypocrisy... Pension lies from CPS continue...
Let's update this story, since the pension fund is still facing the challenges brought on by lack of adequate revenue to Chicago public schools. And part of that story is no further than the Chicago Tribune editorial page of May 22, 2014. But there is a strange bit of disinformation right there: An Op Ed by the "CEO of the Urban League" asking for better funding for public schools like Chicago's -- while ignoring the ways in which the writer, in other capacities, has worked against the public schools of Chicago.
Anyone who might miss it should note that Andrea Zopp, who is featured as an Op Ed person in today's Chicago Tribune, is also a member of the Chicago Teachers Pension Fund and a member of the Chicago Board of Education. While Zopp talks as if her only job was "CEO of the Urban League," she has been as instrumental as anyone in Chicago in helping to destroy the public schools she now claims need better funding from Springfield. Zopp's voting record since she became on of Rahm's minions on the Board of Education is around 98 percent for privatization and decimation. On April 23, 2014, she voted against two of the three "reconstitutions" on the agenda, but for reasons she didn't state voted for the destruction of Gresham Elementary School. And over the past three years, she has voted (as I watched) in favor of every destructive CPS policy: Closing 49 elementary schools one year ago today; expanding charter schools as fast as she possibly can; and purveying "turnaround" until finally in April 2014 she had some second thoughts...
One of the biggest hypocrisies on the Zopp record is her willingness to preach, as a pension trustee, about how CTPF should hire more minority and women and local pension groups, while, wearing her hat at the Chicago Board of Education, she has voted to hire almost nothing but out-of-town executives (beginning with Barbara Byrd Bennett, from Detroit) and to pay them "relocation expenses" as high as $30,000! She votes as if there are no talented school administrators in Chicago, then preaches local hiring etc. when she dons her "trustee" hate.
This is not simply doubletalk -- it's tripletalk.
Teachers' payout at early age retirement.
How come teachers can retire so early and get so much money? Not being sarcastic - just want to know. I know they get lesser benefits since 2011 - but still .... Also I thought in 1981 the CPS agreed to contribute 7 percent of the contributions of teachers in exchange for no salary hikes. That means teachers only contribute 2 percent - not the 9 percent usually stated. However, as I understand the Chicago Teachers Union has negotiated 4 percent salary hikes every year across the board - how come, given the prior agreement on no salary hikes? I am not a teacher, I am just trying to cut through all the conflicting statements.. Social Security takes about 6 percent from contributors - boy, a $42,000 pension (average usually listed) sounds awfully good to me.
Tier 1 includes all teachers who began working in Chicago Public Schools, a related charter school or an Illinois reciprocal system before Jan. 1, 2011.
Full pension:
Age 62 with at least five years of service
Age 60 with at least 20 years of service
Age 55 with at least 33.95 years of service
Reduced pension:
Ages 55 to 59 with at least 20 years of service (your pension is reduced by 6% for every year you are under age 60 and is not recalculated when you turn 60)


text:
Genes in the Food!
The creation of a scientific report on a contentious issue presents a special difficulty. On the one hand the drafting committee must include representatives of various constituencies with opposing views. So the committee that wrote the new report included academics involved in genetics, economics, and agriculture, a representative of a public interest environmental action group, a lawyer who helps clients to obtain regulatory approvals, and a state government environmental regulator. On the other hand, there cannot be a majority and a minority report, since after all we are dealing with Objective Science, and scientists either know the truth or they don't. NRC reports always speak with one voice. Such reports, then, can produce only a slight rocking of the extremely well gyrostabilized ship of state, no matter how high the winds and waves. Any member of the crew who mutinies is put off at the first port of call.
While usually artfully concealed, the machinery of forced consensus is apparent in the pest-protected plant report. The economist on the committee, Erik Lichtenberg, clearly felt that the sorts of regulation recommended by the report were not worthwhile and, indeed, would have costs not justified by any claimed benefits. He and his cost-benefit analysis are quarantined in an appendix and referred to only in a footnote: "This appendix was authored by an individual committee member and is not part of the committee's consensus report. The committee as a whole may not necessarily agree with all of the contents of appendix A." Of course, appendix A is merely economics, while the "committee as a whole" must "necessarily agree with the contents" of the rest of the report or it wouldn't be a scientific report. In fact, the committee could have discounted the appendix on substantive grounds. Like so much of cost-benefit analysis, it fails to take account of the fact that the costs, possible ill-health, fall on different parties than the benefits, profits to corporate entities who produce the inputs into agriculture. More fundamentally, it avoids the deep problem that to provide a quantitative balancing of the books, the costs and benefits would have to be assessed in the same currency, while it has never been possible to come to a general agreement on the dollar cost of sickness and death.
There are five general issues that are in contention in the struggle over GMOs. Three of these, threats to human health, possible disruption of natural environments, and threats to agricultural production from a more rapid evolution of resistant pests, comprise the agenda of the NRC report. The other two, disruption of third- world agricultural economies and principled objections to "unnatural" interventions, are deliberately excluded. Page 2 of the report states in italics: "The study does not address philosophical and social issues surrounding the use of genetic engineering in agriculture, food labeling, or international trade in genetically modified plants." In analyzing the risks of GMOs the committee follows a general principle established in previous Academy reports, a principle that it regards as fundamental, namely that it is the product and not the process that matters. For the NRC it is irrelevant whether a variety has been produced by conventional genetic manipulations or by transgenic transfer of DNA. What counts is whether the new property of the resultant organism is harmful to health or the environment.
The NRC authors point out, quite properly, that the conventional methods of breeding, including sexual crosses between species that do not ordinarily cross in nature, might produce varieties with some heightened toxicity to humans or other species, or with unusual invasive abilities, or with greater resistance to pests that would hasten the evolution of more effective pest species. Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, in their extremely informative The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops, give many examples of new troublesome weeds that have arisen from the hybridization of crop plants with their wild relatives and several where rare wild species have been driven to extinction by hybridization with crop plants.
Indeed, the only examples we have so far of the adverse effects of agricultural varieties on any animal or plant species in nature, including on human health, have been from conventionally bred organisms or from the introduction of invasive species from distant geographical areas, or from foods like peanuts or milk to which some people are naturally allergic. So if the usual products of agricultural practice already provide numerous examples of adverse effects, why is there the massive popular and political anxiety centered on genetically engineered crops in particular? None of the authors of the reports and books seems to have noticed that if it were really only the product and not the process that matters, then nothing has changed. The NRC report itself provides a protocol for protecting consumers against new food toxins and allergens (i.e., substances causing allergies) that applies irrespective of the genetic method used in variety development and which makes use of the already existing federal apparatus for the approval of new plant varieties.
First, one asks whether a new substance is found in parts of a plant that consumers eat or with which workers come in contact. If not, the substance is "exempt from health concerns." If it is found in such parts, then does it have chemical properties common to many allergens? If it does, then safety assessment is needed. If not, then is it similar to other substances that people eat? If not, then again we need safety assessment. The real problem revealed in the NRC report, although it did not seem to bother the panel, is that the data on which "safety assessment" is currently based are not produced by the federal agencies themselves but are provided by the very parties who are asking for approval to distribute the new variety in the first place. Moreover, no one seems to have noticed that there is, in fact, an aspect of the process of genetic engineering that does make that process unusually likely to produce unpredictable results.
All the attention has been paid to the physiological effect of the gene that has been put into the recipient, but none to the effect of where it is inserted in the recipient's genome. Genes consist of two functionally different adjacent stretches of DNA. One, the so-called structural gene, has information on the chemical composition of the protein that the cell will manufacture when it reads the gene. The other, the so-called regulatory element, is part of a complex signaling system that concerns where and when and how much protein will be produced. When DNA is inserted into the genome of a recipient by engineering methods it may pop into the recipient's DNA anywhere, including in the middle of some other gene's regulatory element. The result will be a gene whose reading is no longer under normal control.
One consequence might be that the gene is never read at all, in which case it will probably be bad for the recipient and will never be part of a useful agricultural variety. But another possibility is that the cell will now produce vast amounts of a protein that ordinarily is produced in very low amount, and this high concentration could be toxic or be involved in the biochemical production of a toxin. Yet another possibility is that a toxic substance that used to be produced only in one part of a plant, not ordinarily eaten, could now be manufactured in another part. Tomatoes are delicious, but you would be ill-advised to eat the leaves and stems because they contain toxins. It is not impossible that a genetically engineered tomato might, by bad luck, start to produce these toxins in the fruit. Thus the process of genetic engineering itself has a unique ability to produce deleterious effects and, contrary to the recommendations of the NRC report, this justifies the view that all varieties produced by recombinant DNA technology need to be specially scrutinized and tested for such effects. Exactly how one would go about doing that, in view of the unknown nature of the danger, is uncertain. Even extensive testing on a variety of animals provides no guarantee of safety since there are plant substances that are toxic to some species and not to others.
As yet no one that we know of has been poisoned by a transgenic plant. There have been a couple of close calls, however. The most widely cited case is the Brazil nut protein produced by a transgenic soybean. In some subsistence agricultural communities, for example in West Africa, diets are severely deficient in an essential amino acid, methionine. Brazil nuts produce a protein that is rich in methionine and so it was thought that inserting the appropriate gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans would provide an easy fix for West African malnutrition. Unfortunately the Brazil nut protein is known to be allergenic and the transgenic soybean proved to be so as well, so the variety was never released.
Proponents of recombinant DNA technology like Alan McHughen point to this case as a proof that self-policing by a variety developer can be counted on to avoid disaster. One's confidence in self-policing is somewhat diminished, however, by the realization that the allergenic properties of the protein were well known before the Pioneer Hi-bred seed company ever started to develop the variety in the first place. At some point they must have realized that the Food and Drug Administration would have refused approval of the variety even under our present system of regulation. How one wishes for a transcript of the discussions in the company board room.
A major part of the NRC report and the entirety of Rissler and Mellon's book are concerned with ecological issues in the broad sense. One anxiety is that "superweeds" will be produced, dominant plants that will spread en masse either through cultivated fields or through natural habitats. Sometimes what is meant by "weeds" is unwanted species that are growing in cultivated fields. At other times these are confused with introduced invasive species like the European purple loosestrife that has taken over so many American wetlands. There are no known examples of hybrids between cultivated plants and wild relatives becoming superweeds that have destroyed natural habitats, largely because too many of the characteristics selected during domestication make cultivars—cultivated varieties of plant species—dependent on the tender loving care given to them by farmers. Nor will the addition of a gene conferring herbicide resistance or pest resistance change that dependence. Plants growing in natural habitats are not subject to herbicides, nor are they attacked regularly by the hordes of predatory insects attracted to the concentrated free lunch offered in cultivated fields.
On the other hand, more difficult weeds of cultivated fields certainly will evolve if herbicide resistance becomes incorporated by natural crossing into species that are already weeds. The fear of superweeds is promoted by the metaphor of "escape" used to describe the passage of an engineered gene into a wild species. The image is of the mad scientist (or not-so-mad germ warfare biologist) who has created a virulent disease organism, ready at any moment to create a major epidemic unless it is rigorously confined to the laboratory or, better yet, destroyed. But transgenes are not spread like microbes, entering the body from outside. They are transmitted by reproduction of the entire genome of an organism, and if a cross occurs between an engineered plant and a wild relative, the result is an offspring that is hybrid in every respect, including all those characteristics that make cultivated varieties so ill-adapted to survival in nature, such as their demands for unnaturally high levels of nitrogen fertilizer.


text:
|27 Comments
Recent Comments:
Maintenance day loot from WoW.com {WoW}
May 18th 2010 1:56PM /roll
Win a pony from WoW.com {WoW}
Apr 15th 2010 5:08PM /roll
WoW 5th Anniversary Giveaway: 5 Razer Naga gaming mice {WoW}
Nov 24th 2009 2:12PM /roll
Enter to win a Creative WoW headset of your own {WoW}
Nov 5th 2009 9:11AM /roll
Enter to win a Creative WoW headset from WoW.com and Creative {WoW}
Oct 15th 2009 11:05AM /roll
Enter to win a Razer Naga and Megasoma mouse mat {WoW}
Oct 9th 2009 9:20AM /roll
Blizzard working to fix graphics issues on Macs {WoW}
Aug 19th 2009 9:02AM I would really want them to fix the graphical issues with PowerPC Macs as well.
Not everybody has a Macpro!!!
Out with the old {WoW}
Aug 5th 2009 1:23PM WTB new endgame warlock flying mount with new epic endgame questchain to obtain it!
Breakfast Topic: Would you play a Worgen or a Goblin? {WoW}
Jul 19th 2009 5:11PM Goblins suck! seriously they are a neutral entrepreneur race of little bastards. I really hope Blizzard does not implement this give us something moderately cool like Ethereals or Pandaren or Felblood somethings... Eradar or Felblood elves or Orcs, but that seems too similar too current.
and for Worgen, don't really care cuz I probably would never roll alliance.
Blood Pact: All about soul stones {WoW}
Jul 7th 2009 10:22AM Hey, I just wanted to apologize for my ill words the other day about your article. I actually used your advice and ss'd a tank on Aureya in 25 Ulduar and it almost saved the day. He was like "whoa some warlock soulstoned me", but we wiped anyway, but it took a lot longer — so yeah I usually ss the tree always, cuz of the battle rez or the healer in general. But your article actually got me thinking a little more — so please accept my apology. It was a good article.


text:
Hello everyone, I've been debatting wether or not I should post this for months now. I need your help, because I would love to hear your thoughts because all these years you have been the reason I kept this site going.
I'm thinking about deleting Esmeefans.com, I'm really sad that I feel this way but it's really difficult to keep up a fansite when there is not much going on in Esmée's career right now. I know she is working in the studio on her second album, but "Outta Here" was released 4 years ago and it's been too long if you asked me ;-)
So, what would you guys thinking about Esmeefans.com being deleted/going offline?
Jul 08 Briana says:
I come on this site everyday knowing there will be no new news but to look back at old pictures of Esmee & how she was enjoying life making her debut album! I would say keep the site until the end of this year or until Esmee's 25th bday! I glad you open a site for us Esmee fans but if we want more Esmee we can search on YouTube! Thank you for this amazing site & when it's time for it to go you'll know! Thanks Lindsey! Love Briana (@Rihtina_Raylake)
Jul 08 Mbase says:
I come to the website every now and then, but it bugs me she (Esmée) deosn't inform us. I feel like she needs to perform in clubs and bars, maybe with some covers or some of her old songs. But I kidna feel like she doesn't really care that much anymore.
BUT with that said, I do think her second album will come this year, and it would be a pity if there wasn't a place to discuss it. I also feel like we are giving up on her if you delete this fansite (it's obviously your choice, but you know haha).
That being said, i think that Esmeefans is the first fansite ever dedicated to Esméé, and that it would be a lost if you delete the fansite. If the second album is good, and getting received well, i think you might regret for giving up the fansite ;)
I would miss it, but it's your choice at last ;)
Jul 09 vmarkg says:
I know how you feel. I wouldn't delete it, maybe just go on hiatus for a while. There is so much good content, it would be a pity to delete it forever.
I think Esmee is having a hard time as an independent getting her music published. There doesn't seem to be too many people in her corner, other than Billy Mann. I can't understand why someone didn't pick her up after her split from Tennmann. Maybe it was her choice to remain independent, I don't know, but things sure didn't work out the way us, her long time fans thought they would. Really disappointing.
Jul 10 FENNY says:
Lieve Lindsey en fans
Persoonlijk zou ik het jammer vinden als deze site verdwijnt. Zelf heb ik er ook al die jaren op gekeken om alles te volgen, het persoonlijke mail contakt met Lindsey was geweldig.
Lindsey natuurlijk 1000 XXX THANKS.
Ik denk voor Esmée als dit je jong overkomt op je slaap kamer, is het natuurlijk geweldig, de music wereld geeft ups en downs en het is al geweldig om je zelf staande te houden. Ben dus trots op haar. Esmée is eigenlijk niets veranderd, zich zelf gebleven, heeft het naar haar zin in Londen, wat toch wel een wereld muziek stad is, werkt dagelijk hard in de studio's, gelooft in zich zelf en gaat er 100 % voor. Ze was onlangs in New York om met Billy Mann te schrijven en werken, waar ze een fantastische warme vriendschap mee heeft, op muziekaalvlak ben ik daar ook dankbaar voor. Geduld is een schone zaak, ik weet dat Esmée zonder haar fans, die haar van het begin volgen niet kan en dankbaar is. Die CD komt er, maar dingen hebben tijd nodig en je bent afhankelijk van grote mensen om je heen. Esmée keep gooing on, Love XXX je mama.
Jul 12 Lindsey says:
Thanks everyone for your comments and nice words. I've decided to keep the site for now :-)
Jul 18 Joel says:
Hi guys, reading this thread and your comments gave me the courage to send Esmee a personal message on FB with a little request in support of the admin of this website. I hope she will contact you if she reads my message.
Kind regards,
a fellow worried fan :-)


text:
Important Global Message
The Miami-Dade County Portal will be undergoing maintenance starting at 11 p.m. Saturday, May 3 and for all of Sunday, May 4. Intermittent outages may be experienced. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Thank you for your patience as we improve our online services.
Holiday Service Schedule
Transit may operate a regular or a Sunday schedule, depending on the holiday. Please see below for more detailed information.
For more information please call 3-1-1 or 305-891-3131. Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Saturdays, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Transit information agents are not available on Sundays or County-observed holidays.
County - observed holidays for 2014
On the following County-observed holidays for 2014, Metrobus, Metrorail and Metromover will follow a Sunday schedule:
- New Year's Day, Wednesday, January 1, 2014
- Memorial Day, Monday, May 26, 2014
- Independence Day, Friday, July 4, 2014
- Labor Day, Monday, September 1, 2014
- Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, November 27, 2014
- Christmas Day, Thursday, December 25, 2014
On the following County-observed holidays for 2014, Metrobus, Metrorail and Metromover will follow a regular schedule:
- Martin Luther King, Jr's Birthday, Monday, January 20, 2014
- President's Day, Monday, February 17, 2014
- Columbus Day, Monday, October 13, 2014
- Veteran's Day, Tuesday, November 11, 2014
- Friday after Thanksgiving, Friday, November 28, 2014
You are now leaving the official website of Miami-Dade County government. Please be aware that when you exit this site, you are no longer protected by our privacy or security policies. Miami-Dade County is not responsible for the content provided on linked sites. The provision of links to these external sites does not constitute an endorsement.
Please click 'OK' to be sent to the new site, or Click 'Cancel' to go back.