text:
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)" -- Ayn Rand.
Friday, February 17, 2012
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)" -- Ayn Rand.
74 comments:
- Lido said...
On the plus side I heard that the Maryland Legislative body just passed the resolution to allow gay marriage there, just something to make us feel better but yeah as someone who lives in New Jersey I am shocked and outraged, and if I had voted for in the election for this person I'd be even more incensed
Wait hypocrisy in the Republican party? Republicans choosing posturing rather than actually helping people?
- Smashmatt202 said...
You know what this reminds me of? George Carlin:
So these aren't really rights, they're privileges that our government allows... That sucks. :(
Oh fuck off, Ayn Rand wrote jailhouse love letters to a man that dismembered a little girl, talking about how he stood against society and they had no right to judge him and all that fucking bullshit.
Fuck Ayn Rand in her grave.
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
Yea, that was a pretty dickish thing for him to do. I mean, I'm always one to gripe when the judiciary or executive branch try over reaching into outright legislation, regardless of what cause it may be for (ends do not justify the means when it comes to setting legal president). So for a governor to veto legislation because it's "to important" to be passed by the legislator... Ya know what? That's bullshit. The legislator exists for exactly this sort of thing. You only go to a popular vote when it requires some sort of constitutional amendment which this clearly does not. Christie was clearly abusing his veto power here.
And, Bob, I noticed you never mentioned the whole Affordable Care Act controversy. You'll get outraged when the right is trying to take away civil rights, but mum when the left does it?
- antecedentless said...
@Bob, We ignorant anti-progress teabaggers have put Christie in the "Bob Dole"/Rockefeller class a long time ago.
@Narf, I think he called the the act a toothless nothing.
On the health insurance issue: The big stinging point is the attempt to deal with moral hazzard, that is the individual mandate, on our side. At first I supported the individual mandate, but I understand the constitutional issues behind. Nevertheless, not having health insurance is irresponsible. There is no "right to not have health coverage" in the U.S of A. If someone ends up in the E.R. and they can't (or won't) pay, the hospital and taxpayer foot the bill. We do not let them die.
On that note: the idea that insurance should pay for women's birth control is beyond silly. Even if it where for reducing health risks, in most cases it will not be for STD preventing female condoms. It will be for the pill, which only help prevent babies. Also, the recent Catholic Church political theater is a sick game, nothing more. They successfully brought up the Catholics Are So Backward/"every sperm is sacred"/Christians hate sex for pleasure myth. Even the catholic church supports "when it's dry the swimmers die" means of 'natural' birth control. Nobody is forcing anyone to have a baby before they are ready financially.
As for the not having a right to marry (lies, nothing is stopping anyone from getting married to the opposite gender)/gay issue in general... I leave that alone, for now ;)
- Wendy said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Wendy said...
Hey, Bob, I like how you don't at ALL mention that President Obama opposes gay marriage as well, but lay the ENTIRE anti-gay marriage platform at republican feet. It's almost as if your not objective at all and totally biased...oh wait.
- biomechanical923 said...
RIP Carlin
-"Its called the American Dream,because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Hey, it could be worse. You could be a woman in Virgina.
Warning, extremely graphic content: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1064997/-Virginia-House-getting-all-up-in-your-vagina
Never thought pro-rape would be a party platform but what do I know?
- A. Ivan said...
It speaks volumes that the only defense right wing commentators can ever muster is "well, the left is no better, because [insert example that upon close inspection is obviously better/largely unrelated]". That, or accusations of bias and hypocrisy, which quite apart from being bullshit do nothing to make the actual issue look better.
- antecedentless said...
>Getting all up in your vagina
How sad. You honestly believe that, don't you. "The law doesn't specify what kind of ultrasound must be used" and even if it did, it is completly optional, and a whole lot less invasive to the vagina than, say... oh... ABORTION. The left-wing memes are getting so absurd.
- Hammbone said...
you must be a man... birth control pills have some major effects on the famale body's chemestry and cause alot of other effect besides "stops babies" please dont spout ignorance.
@wendy, STFU troll, and you ARE a troll even a moron could at least produce some arguement.
- antecedentless said...
I've made some major typos and spelling goofs here before, but wow. It's spelled female, and chemistry. There is only one e in argument. What are you, 12? That aside, my point still stands. The only thing the pill helps prevent during a sex act is babies, not STDs.
All that aside, I said in the comments before: car insurance does not pay for saftey checks. Home insurance does not pay for clearing gutters. Health insurance should not pay for contraceptives.
- Megabyte said...
Forget that... what about how we got universal healthcare? The people actually spoke on it! There is currently a man in the senate who was voted in SPECIFICALLY because he would be the last vote needed to cancel it. So what do the Democrats do? Why they just "pretend it passed" so they can vote it in only in the house it will get by in and have it get through anyway. They outright ignored the people... not just didn't give them a say... they DECIDED THEIR SAY MEANT NOTHING when it did not agree with them and bent the rules to the point of snapping to get around the very people they claim to represent.
Now in this case, I dont think this governor did the right thing, but think about it. I'd rather have someone who cares what the people they supposedly represent think enough to give them a say then someone who will tell them to STFU when they don't agree...
Even if they might take it too far (which is what happened... the message he was sending was to tell the people they will have to vote on it if they want it). And that is the dynamic I am seeing here.
antecedentless: Ah, the classic losers argument... Your spelling sucks therefore I must be right. Oh and Jacka** you may have fooled some other morons somewhere else with that trick but you did not actually address her points.
Also, I think it is HILARIOUS that the people talking about how precious and important life is, are also the people right here talking about contraception JUST preventing pregnancy. Oh, no big deal. The gov shouldn't pay for that. Guess what? In the next 15 years or so there will be 9 billion people on this earth. Our planet CANNOT sustain more than 12 billion. It is just not feasible and the day we reach that magic number is getting closer and closer. I am not suggesting we go so far as to implement the abortion encouraging one child policies of china (though, barbarism and more men then women aside, they did work). What I am saying is we as a race have long passed the date where if there is a way to prevent essentially ALL unwanted pregnancies before abortion even need be discussed (there is its called the pill, its called condoms, its called contraceptives) we do not have the luxury of denying ANYONE the ability to use them.
So instead of taking the easy way out and insulting the grammar of other people and stating your argument in broad comparisons that make no sense and are completely meaningless. Why don't you have the balls to actually make your argument. My priest told me/ the bible told me is not a valid argument for why those that do not share your beliefs must suffer for them.
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
@ antecedentless
I really have no issue with insurance paying for contraceptives. I'm not comfortable with calling them "preventative care", but I get the idea... having insurance pay for things that would prevent larger issues down the road is better in the long run. And perhaps home and auto insurance should be doing the same thing.
The real issue is that this law would force religious organizations that find contraceptives morally objectionable (like, say, a Catholic church) to pay for them themselves. It's a blatant disregard for freedom of religion.
@ Anonymous
If it were the government paying for the contraceptives, there wouldn't be an issue.
@the almighty narf: Fair enough. I understand what you are saying. I guess for me I just have trouble seeing how organizations that want so much to prevent abortions from occurring refuse to provide a means from preventing the condition that causes people to seek one in the first place (unplanned pregnancy). But you are right this is a place for the government. It does disregard freedom of religion to do so no matter how much it makes sense.
Though I would argue many of the people against this would be equally against the government paying for it.
Oh and also Catholic Hospitals are heavily subsidized by the government. I submit that this makes the problem far more grey. Yes they have the right to religious freedom, but if they are receiving free money from the federal government do they not have some responsibility to those that do not agree with their faith? Just some food for thought.
I love how people are jumping around the main issue here by bringing up women's rights and abortion and rape and whatnot. Those are fine debates, but are WAY off-topic. Bob's post was simple: NJ vetoing gay marriage is hypocritcal, bigoted, and idiotic.
I just love it when people bring up totally unrelated stuff when they get mad at Bob.
"Oh shit, Bob made a good point that makes Republicans look bad! What do I do...oh, I know! I'll bring up something totally unrelated so we can sidestep the real issue!"
Yes, I get it. Not every Republican is a Bible-thumping gay-bashing douchebag. But don't even TRY to deny that Bible-thumping gay-bashing douchebags make up a scarily large percentage of the party. Are there douchebags on the Democratic side too? Of course. Douchebaggery is not a Republican-exclusive thing. That said, stupid/douchey acts done on one side of the political spectrum do not make stupid/douchey acts on the other side "okay."
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
@ Anonymous
I'm certainly not going to argue that the beliefs of the Catholic church on contraceptives makes any sort of seance, just that it's their beliefs to have.
And I don't think government subsidization should have any sort of effect at all since I imagine many Catholic leaders would just as soon forgo government money before acting against their beliefs (which is what typically happens when the government tries to interfere with the practices of religious based charities in general), which would ultimately cause far more problems than this bill is trying to solve.
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
@ the other Anonymous
What do you want? Pretty much everyone acknowledges what Christie did what bullshit. There's no discussion to have there.
- Megabyte said...
I think the anonymous one missed the point I was making. If you take the guy at face value, he decided it wasn't his choice to make. It was the people's. You can agree or disagree in how he handled that, but you can't argue that it's a better mind set then... say... flipping off the people because they disagree with you.
Course then again, I also am convinced in this particular issue, we are dealing with pretty much retards on both ends. Which means if we want to actually do it right, you have to plan for them. No one is doing that.
- antecedentless said...
Sorry for driving the whole issue off topic by trying to address narf at length.
But a couple things first
>Your spelling sucks therefore I must be right.
I did not say that at all. I was poking holes in the "spout ignorance" argument by exposing how ignorant Hammbone made himself/herself look. Namecalling is a big no-no here. How did I not address his/her points? Do these side effects somehow improve women's health? Do they prevent disease? No.
Back on topic:
Unless Chris Christie scheduled a vote on gay marraige in November (or even has the power to schedule such a vote), the whole "driving bigots out to vote on the same day as the presidential election" conspiracy is moot.
- Blue Highwind said...
Hey Chris Christie, you dumb shit: The people of New Jersey did decide to legalize gay marriage when we elected these pro-rights legislates in the first place.
And we'll decide it again once we vote your ass back into unemployment in November.
- Megabyte said...
Excluding your vitriol, this is EXACTLY the kind of response someone should have. Like what he did? Vote him back in? Don't like it? Kick his ass out. Done and done.
- James said...
It's sad that the ONLY candidate running for high office that supports gay marriage rights, Gary Johnson, is completely ignored while the anti-gay idiots get all the publicity and keep getting to enforce their bigotry.
- biomechanical923 said...
"Warning, extremely graphic content: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1064997/-Virginia-House-getting-all-up-in-your-vagina
This is fucking absurd. I think it only proves that a lot of proponents of anti-abortion are entirely dependent on appeal-to-emotion and "yuck factor" to state their case. This is a last ditch effort for sickos to basically shove a telescope up a woman's vagina and say Look at it!!! Look!!! It has a face!!! How can you kill something that has a face!!!. Despicable.
"The real issue is that this law would force religious organizations that find contraceptives morally objectionable (like, say, a Catholic church) to pay for them themselves. It's a blatant disregard for freedom of religion.
But the religious beliefs of the business you work for shouldn't be able to dictate what kind of healthcare their insurance company provides.
Certain religions (like Jehova's Witnesses) have moral objections to giving blood (even for testing), receiving blood, and even vaccinations.
Do you really think that due to some "moral code", employers can instruct that their insurance companies refuse paying for blood tests, transfusions, DNA testing, vaccination, organ transplants, etc? Even if their life depended on it?
If they did have that right (which they don't), then why don't we see religious organizations up in arms about not wanting their tax dollars to pay for blood transfusions?
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
@ biomechanical923
Ok, right now I work for a caterer that specializes in Kosher food, as such the vast majority of their business practices are dictated by traditional Kashrut law. I, of course, am not Jewish and neither are most of the cooks who work there. None the less we all try to respect their customs while at work as best we can. If I had to take any serious issue with the way they run their business, I would simply leave instead of try to force my morals onto them. It wouldn't do either of us any good.
If someone works for an expressly Catholic organization, they're probably pretty well aware of what their moral code is. So, if something like this is an issue for them... why the fuck are they working for a Catholic organization? I'm not saying that they necessarily have to follow Catholic beliefs... just to respect them as much as they would want their employer to respect theirs.
So... yea, I have no issue with a the religious convictions of a business or non-profit organization dictating what insurance they provide. If an employer's moral standings aren't acceptable for you, just don't work for them.
And there's a world of difference between what one pays for themselves and what their tax dollars get used for. I don't think there's anyone who isn't a bit outraged by something the government spends money on.
Your argument, narf, of "if you don't like their policies, just quit", simply doesn't work out in real life. Very often people would quit but there are simply no alternatives that pay as well, if they exist at all. Because in that situation, people are forced to work a certain job to maintain a reasonable quality of life, the government should be able to give them the option of acquiring birth control.
To reply to antecedentness's much earlier argument that female birth control doesn't help prevent a disease, only pregnancy, I need to point out that employer's health insurance also covers medications that would prevent conditions that would ruin a person's life (as unintended pregnancy would) even though they would not affect their physical health, such as antidepressants.
- antecedentless said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
Yes! Dance, my puppets! DANCE FOR ME! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
- Ryan said...
Just for the fun of it, here's a different perspective:
1) This whole thing with vetoing Gay Marriage is a trick to make me agree with Ayn Rand about something. Gross, but ok, I do, opposing gay marriage makes you a douchebag, and so does the idea that people should vote on rights.
2) The Virginia law where women have to be penetrated with an ultrasound probe before they can get an abortion is nothing but proof that social conservatives are no better than the Taliban.
3) The idea that religious liberty is being violated by allowing the insurance companies who provide insurance for employees of Catholic institutions to pay for the birth control of those employees (which they *want* to do because it ultimately saves them money) is such total bullshit that I don't even know where to start. First, the idea that Catholics should get the special right to ram their religious beliefs down the gullets of every janitor they hire is bullshit. Second, the idea that contraception is immoral is bullshit. Third, any insurance plan that covers Viagra and not orthotricycline is patriarchal bullshit and anyone who says it isn't AND is not either an old man or a cancer survivor trying to produce a child is a hypocritical douche. Fourth, Mitt Romney signed the exact same rule in Massachusetts and nobody said jack shit about it, because nobody cared before Republicans started whining like the woman-hating babies they are. Fifth, Daryl Issa is such an unbelievable turd stick with his panel full of male ideologues and his self-comparisons to Martin Luther King that the only appropriate punishment I can think of would be for him to be forced to carry a child to fucking term in a surgically implanted womb.
4) Abortion is a civil right. There is no other civil right that requires you to get penetrated in order to exercise it.
5) We got universal health care, Megabyte, because Congress voted for it. That's how democracy works. If we had a sane electorate, we'd have a single payer system like they have in civilized countries, but we're still better off than we were before.
6) Honestly, this whole conversation makes me wish somebody *would* start a war on religion.
- Megabyte said...
Wrong, Ryan. We got it because they found a way to go around the Senate actually voting on it.
Yes, CONGRESS passed it, but both houses are supposed to before a bill becomes a law. That did not happen.
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
@ Dr. Pibb
But, is "it can be hard to find another job" really enough reason to throw out the 1st amendment? Does separation of church and state really mean so little?
- biomechanical923 said...
I think you're misinterpreting the first amendment. The right to have a religion doesn't entitle you to the right to enforce your religion. Your rights end where mine begin and all that good stuff...
The consequence of failing to understand this basic idea is pretty evident if you look at England. Muslims are up in arms that their religion is being "oppressed" because other people are refusing to obey Shar'ia law, and the government is confused as fuck about what to do.
- James said...
In other news, Barack Obama is also opposed to gay marriage rights.
- Mister Linton said...
@biomechanical- Therefore the government SHOULD enforce it's irreligion on religious organizations? You need to think through your argument a little further.
- Ryan said...
When the government says "you have to provide health insurance, but you don't have to pay for birth control, BUT the insurance companies can, without your consent, still offer free birth control to the people you cover", that isn't forcing irreligion on anyone. But when I try to get a job, as a non-Catholic, at an institution run by Catholics, and that organization refuses to give me certain benefits based on their religion, that *is* forcing religion on me. QED.
And Mega...http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396
Okay? Knock it off.
- Ryan said...
And James, you're right that Obama hasn't had the guts to openly state his support for gay marriage, but since he won't defend DOMA in court and he's the guy who helped get DATT repealed, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
@ biomechanical923
"The right to have a religion doesn't entitle you to the right to enforce your religion. Your rights end where mine begin and all that good stuff."
Wait, wait, wait.... The Catholic church doesn't have the right to force their morals on others, which is why we should force our morals on them and force them to pay for things they find morally objectionable?
...the fuck?
We're not talking about the Catholic church actually preventing accesses to contraceptives in anyway. We're talking about the church not being forced to provide access themselves. That isn't even close to being the same thing.
@ Ryan
"When the government says "you have to provide health insurance, but you don't have to pay for birth control, BUT the insurance companies can, without your consent, still offer free birth control to the people you cover", that isn't forcing irreligion on anyone"
I would love to see a source specifying the the church itself wouldn't have to put any money toward it.
- Megabyte said...
Hi Ryan... Shinanigans on the vote recorded... because the man who was added to the roster basically on his pledge to vote against isn't in that list.... you know, Scott Brown? (The only Brown is from OH in that list.)
As I said, circumvented... so why don't you knock it off... okay?
- Megabyte said...
Btw, evidence? The election he won on happened in 2010... this vote "occured" in 2009. So... how could he win on this? UNLESS they decided to pass a vote retro-actively so the CURRENT senate didnt vote? As I said, circumvented.
- Sylocat said...
It's amazing how many of these problems could be sidestepped by instituting UHC... you know, like most other civilized countries have.
But no, that won't happen, because right-wing nutcases keep shrieking, "I Don't Want My Taxes Paying For Other People's Healthcare," even though, thanks to ERs not being able to turn people away, they already ARE paying for those who can't pay, and it costs the taxpayers more than UHC would cost them.
- Dave from canada said...
@ Narf
That analogy is incredibly fallacious and you know it.
Your religion does not make you exempt form the law. And let's be honest, if it were a muslim organization complaining, this "controversy" wouldn't even exist.
All the government is doing is reminding catholic run institutions that the government, NOT the vatican, determines what they can and cannot do on american soil. If there is a conflict between their religion and the law, they can leave.
And people already DO pay for things they find objectionable. The catholic church is a tax exempt organization in the US, which means that everyone else is paying what the catholic church would be.
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
@ Dave from canada
"That analogy is incredibly fallacious and you know it."
I made a few analogies, so you're going to be a bit more specific if you want a rebuttal.
"And let's be honest, if it were a muslim organization complaining, this "controversy" wouldn't even exist."
Of course it would. It would just be Democrats and the ACLU picking the fight instead of Republicans. However, I would like to think I'd be just as upset if it were Islam or any other religion under attack because I know that any legal precedent used to take away their religious freedom will eventually be used against me.
"All the government is doing is reminding catholic run institutions that the government, NOT the vatican, determines what they can and cannot do on american soil."
See, that's the problem... the state can't dictate church policy. That's what "separation of church and state" means. They're separate. They can't interfere with each other. It's completely unconstitutional for the government to even try to determine what "they can and cannot do on american soil".
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Freedom of religion is supposed to protect the church from the state just as much as it's supposed to protect the state from the church.
And this isn't even an issue of what the church "can or cannot do"... this is an issue of the church being forced to do something against their will.
- Laserkid said...
Okay before I dive more deeply into this cesspool I need to address something...
@Dr. Pibb
"To reply to antecedentness's much earlier argument that female birth control doesn't help prevent a disease, only pregnancy, I need to point out that employer's health insurance also covers medications that would prevent conditions that would ruin a person's life (as unintended pregnancy would) even though they would not affect their physical health, such as antidepressants. "
I just can't let this one stand - depression IS a disease, its a mental disease that you can't "catch" like the cold, but it IS genetic, like cancer, and as someone who has suffered from depression his entire adult life I am rather offended that you reffered to it in this manner.
Anti depressants don't prevent you from being depressed, they treat the chemical inbalance in the brain to fix those already suffering from it. It's not a prevantive contraceptive of sort, its an active agent that fixces a problem already there.
*breaths in*
With that off my chest I need to weigh in on a lot of things it seems.
First off...
While I personally am not of the opinion that gay marriage should be legal, if it was passed through a legitimate vote of cognress (and nto some dictatorial mandate of some random ass court) - then it should be passed. Unless the bill itself was written in such a way to trample on others's liberties (for example forcing churchs to marry gay couples against their religious beliefs), then this veto is retarded. If the people don't like what their congress enacted, then they kicjk them out, replace them with a mandate to reverse it. You know, like what happened in 2010 after the healthcare mandate bullshit.
On the actual topic of marriage - I'm of the opnion marriage shouldn't BE a legal thing. It took me a lot of thought and consideration to get to that position but here's my deal. If the government wanted to sponser unions and didn't reffer to them as marriage, then 98% of the issues with gay marriage would disappear. Originally, I was for the idea of civil unions for gay couples and marriages for straight couples, because the whole entire problem with gay marriage is its a misnomer. Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman and nothing stops a gay person from marrying another gay person of a different gender - but thats not what they want (nor should they). What they, legitimatly, want is to be recognized by the government just as straight couples are, and thats completely valid.
The problem is the government, in its judeo christian foundings, reffered to their union by the same name that religions do - Marriage. The problem arises of a seperation between church and state issue - marriage is a fundamentally speaking religious thing that the government adopted, this si why theres such an outcry.
As such, an actual system of civil unions between twop people on a government level and a SEPERATE religious recognition for marriage as a religiout non governmental rite (as opposed to right) would make both parties happy by and large. Excepting those on the religious side who through some misguided righteousness want to "cure" homosexuals, and on the other side those who, through legitimate anger and misdirected disdain, want to "educate" the religious, for whom no solution other then the trampling of eachothers rights would be accepted.
- Laserkid said...
to continue from above (because per usual I'm being too wordy)
As a raised catholic, I don't understand the church's disdain for cotnraceptives - they prevent abortions and as far as I can tell are waaaay better psychologically for most people than actual abortions which can be (but not for everyone) a traumatic experience. That said, if said organization does not want to cover contraceptives to those for whom they employ, that is their right to do so - this would be different if they say fired someone who used them - that is NOT their right.
That all said, it is also the individuals right to not work for them if they take issue with this. To the argument that thats better said than done - as finding better or equal paying jobs in the real world, thats quite true - but staying to work for them because of this is the choice you have made - for the sake of a better employment you trade off against the lack of coverage for contraceptives.
Much as in my own employment I get to weigh in wether or not I work for a better paying company that only gives a half hour lunch, or the company I am at thats tw dollars an hour less profitable, but affords me a one hour lunch. As a worker, you have to make the decision of the employment that works BEST for you. No employer is required to give you everything you want, and if you choose to work for the better paying job that doesnt give you all the perks you want, because it pays more that doesn't mean they have to give you all the perks you want because otherwise you'd take a paycut. It means you made the choice to trade off perks for dollars.
Thats how freedom works, you get imperfect choices, as opposed to imperfect mandates.
- Dave from canada said...
@ Narf
IN case you are wondering, it's is arguments like that that make people think republicans are stupid. Because you to make that argument you are either an idiot who doens't know what a church is, or dishonest and trying to justify something you know to be wrong becuase it benefits you (and given how fast you went to the Democrats and ACLU are secret muslims well, I'm guessing its the latter)
The government is not dictating church policy. They aren't telling catholics what to belive. They are telling them what the universal standards are that they have set up for everybody. The catholics (or rather a group of conservative catholics and protestants desperate to drum up some election year controvercy in a time where their most electable bid is an elitist mormon who can't go 5 minutes without alienating some part of his base) are the ones intruding by attempting to have their particular religious hangups given preferential treatment.
Your religion does not allow you to decide which laws you obey. End of story.
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
@ Dave from canada
"(and given how fast you went to the Democrats and ACLU are secret muslims well, I'm guessing its the latter)"
...wait, what? I said that Democrats and the ACLU would stick up for the religious liberties of Muslims, as they have been quick to do over the last 10 years when oppression has come against them. And, again, so have I. Standing up for religious freedom is a good thing, regardless of what religion it might be for.
I realize that you'd love to paint me as being racist toward Muslims, but unfortunately I simply am not.
"Your religion does not allow you to decide which laws you obey."
I shouldn't have to because any law that would make that an issue in inherently unconstitutional. The government simply can not make laws that would prohibit in any way the free practice of religion. The 1st amendment makes that crystal clear.
Lots of issues here.
@ Narf
Yes the government can tell you that you can't practice certain things and argue faith. If your faith requires human sacrifice can you still kill virgins? No, The Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. U.S. "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." and (referring to the above mentioned human sacrifice argument: "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
- biomechanical923 said...
"Standing up for religious freedom is a good thing, regardless of what religion it might be for."
Employers are required by law to provide their employees with health insurance.
If I needed to get a transfusion / transplant to stay alive, and my employer said "Sorry but the CEO is a Jehova's Witness, so we don't pay for transfusions anymore because it's against his religion" then those religious beliefs actively put lives at risk, because somebody else's religion says "if you need a transfusion, then maybe you should die".
You're advocating for the right for employers to hold people's lives in their hands. Or, maybe more specifically, you're arguing that employers should have the right to place other people's lives into the hands of gods that they don't believe in.
Employers do not have the right to refuse to provide health insurance regardless of whether or not they dislike the fact that people are getting healthcare that they think somebody doesn't deserve.
If I'm opposed to war, does that mean I can refuse to pay taxes until the war is over?
It did pass the Senate and the House too. http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003712
In Congress bills can originate in either house. When legislation passes both houses it is often not exactly the same in both passed bills. When it is passed in both houses they send the bill to the conference committee which then works out a compromise bill which is then returned to each house and passed.
When the Senate bill was passed in December of 2009 the Democrats had a 60 vote filibuster proof lock on the passage and the bill was passed. The house passed their bill but it wasn't the same bill and it would need to go to conference committee to be aligned.
In the meantime Paul Kirk who was appointed to serve in the now passed Ted Kennedy's seat was replaced himself in the special election that Scott Brown won. The Democrats now only had 59 members in the Senate, which meant they couldn't override the Republicans filibuster.
However since the bill had already passed the Senate it would just need to pass the House. (see the 1975 seminal work I'm Just A Bill). Remember when the Republicans were screaming "They shoved the bill down our throats"? Well this is when it happened. The House which only needs a simple majority vote, pushed the bill through and the President signed and the Vice-President commented "This is a big fu%king deal."
I hope this helps
- Ryan said...
Thank you, Mr. Opposition,for your fact-finding and general consistency. So what we have here is:
#1: It turns out that the election of Scott Brown is not how a bill does or does not become a law.
#2: It turns out that we don't actually have to give legal respect to any religious opinion that exists.
#3: It turns out that standing up for religious liberty no matter what religion it is is not only not a good thing, it's a dangerous thing (I'm not standing up for polygamy, genital mutilation, virgin sacrifices, honor killings, or denial of access to contraception, and neither should anyone else). Legally, that's because we don't have to, but MORALLY, that's because (and here's my problem with arguing about this) religion is generally bad news and we'd all be better off without it.
- Dave from canada said...
@ Narf
No, you didn't. Because this is nto about religious liberties. This ais about peopel trying to get special rights from the government due to their religion.
"I shouldn't have to because any law that would make that an issue in inherently unconstitutional. The government simply can not make laws that would prohibit in any way the free practice of religion. The 1st amendment makes that crystal clear."
Dear god this is getting stupid. NO it doesn't. The 1st amendment does not let you do whatever you want as long as you call it religion, You aren't allowed to sacrifice babies, or keep slaves, or not pay taxes or stone unruly children or go through traffic lights just because your religion says so.
And this law IN NO WAY affects people's ability to practice their religion. For fuck's sake it is explicitly spelled out time and time again.
You aren't defending religious rights because you don't have a right to be exempt from the law. You are demanding special treatment. You are demanding that the federal government give preferential treatment to one religion over another or religion over irrelegion and THAT violates the first amendment.
- Mister Linton said...
Everyone in this argument has provided ample evidence for rational people to conclude that it is completely STUPID to tie people's health insurance to their employers (something anyone who has ever changed jobs already knows). Thank you everyone for getting to the root of this idiocy. Hopefully now this ridiculous health care law can be repealed and we can move forward with honest reform that actually makes sense (like moving the tax write off away from business and to the individual).
- Megabyte said...
No Ryan,
#1 a bill becomes a law by being voted in in BOTH houses. What we learned is that we have witnessed the party in question decide since they can't get this, they are willing to retractively decide a previous senate "would have voted for it" and offically declare it is all good that way. They have set a very dangerous standard here and the next time congress/senate/the president does it, regardless of who it is, you can thank Pelosi and her ilk for thinking of it and showing it works.
2) Actually we do. 1st Amendment demands it. What he have learned is that we have a debate with actually legitimate points... who's religion overrides, the employer or the employee?
3) We learned you hate religion... in all forms... in short, you are a dick atheist.
- Megabyte said...
Incidently, a dick atheist, is the kind who can't stand other people believe in something. If you are an atheist, and just let it go at that, you are not a dick atheist, you are just an atheist.
Megabyte: and incidentally a dick christian is one who rams his views down everyone else's throat rather than just letting it go at that... hmm I wonder whether that describes you?
Also, Dude it did pass the senate. The house just decided instead of making the senate pass it again they would just pass the original senate version. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Also 59 votes to 41 is a very large majority. Filibusters were NEVER meant to force every single bill to have such a large majority. They were simply meant to force longer discussions on important bills. That happened job done. Maybe instead of blaming the democrats for some injustice you created in your mind you should blame the republicans for a gross misuse of the filibuster rule.
What we're seeing here is the same thing we saw with the birther movement. Anytime the Republicans don't get what they want the just try to find some reason to invalidate it. Sometimes things go your way and sometimes the majority of the country disagrees with you. Accept it.
- Megabyte said...
Well, Anon... I dont think it makes me anything... you know since Im not arguing for any specific religion. If anything, Im looking at a potential window for a debate. If the Employee's religious rights and the Employer's religious rights conflict, who wins? Im not sure we've had to ask this before... at least not in any kind of time I have talked about it.
Also, I never said it wasn't legal. But considering even you are admitting the bill as it was at the time of the vote was NOT what was passed, this should strike you as a rather alarming action. Im rather struck that Im seeing an 09 on the vote that went while Im seeing articles dated by the machines they are stored on at 2010 saying how Brown would be the one to beat Obamacare.
BEFORE you even think these must be "conservative idiots" or something else, realize what I am saying and get the idealog out of your logic processes.
We are looking at things saying to beat it AFTER that senate link says it was voted in... and dated by a computer, NOT by hand. Does this sound to you like this wasn't shady in some way? Really? Then add to that what you just said where they didn't even vote on the current version, and legal or not, it was CLEARLY meant to ignore what the people wanted... you know the people who put someone in specifically to be the last vote needed to cancel it.
At the very least, this is an accusation to level directly at Pelosi. (Not my only one mind you... I have real issue with anyone who is willing to use the death of a co-worker for their benefit before the body is even cold.... she is a monster for how she treated the late Ted Kennedy. but that is another issue for another day) She has set a standard that will happen again, mark my words... and next time you may not be happy with the results. I dont want to hear you bitch when you defend them now.
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
Ok, a few interesting points up there and I'll try to get to most of them. But, first I'd like to give this analogy.
Let's say that some government official got it into their head the FDA knows what they're talking about and that restaurants should be forced to stick to stricter dietary guidelines like, say, the food pyramid. This law, of course, being mostly directed at fast food places that wouldn't know a vegetable even if someone chucked it at them. But then, lets say that this same law was being used to tell vegan/vegetarian restaurants that they had to start serving meat to adhere to the dietary guidelines and they could be fined or even shut down if they didn't, and there wouldn't be any exception given to them simply because they had moral issues with it. Would that be ok?
@ v_opposition
"If your faith requires human sacrifice can you still kill virgins?"
Ya know, I had to sit and think about that a bit, but considering that we live in a culture where suicide and assisted suicide are becoming more and more socially acceptable... assuming, it were a consensual act, that would be an entirely private matter that I don't think the government would have any business getting involved in.
That said, that court decision was clearly a case of one religion trying to force it's morals on another and would never hold up if it were made today.
I can understand the idea that the government should be able to prohibit an action regardless of religious belief (I don't agree, but I'll leave that for now). But, that's not what this case is about. In this case the government is compelling an organization to commit an action against their religious beliefs.
@ biomechanical923
"If I needed to get a transfusion / transplant to stay alive, and my employer said "Sorry but the CEO is a Jehova's Witness, so we don't pay for transfusions anymore because it's against his religion" then those religious beliefs actively put lives at risk, because somebody else's religion says "if you need a transfusion, then maybe you should die"."
They would be putting your life at risk if they didn't bother telling you until you're on the operating table, sure. That should totally be illegal. However, if they made you aware of their policy upon employment, then it would be your own decision to make.
"You're advocating for the right for employers to hold people's lives in their hands."
I'm advocating that employers shouldn't be compelled against their will to do something they find morally objectionable, and that the employee's life is and always will be in their own hands.
"Employers do not have the right to refuse to provide health insurance..."
Yea, well, we'll see how long that holds up in court.
"...regardless of whether or not they dislike the fact that people are getting healthcare that they think somebody doesn't deserve."
"Deserve?" This has absolutely nothing to do what what anyone may or may not "deserve". The Catholic church is opposed to contraception outright. They see the use of contraception as a sin, and that enabling someone else to sin is just as bad as doing it themselves.
"If I'm opposed to war, does that mean I can refuse to pay taxes until the war is over?"
I would completely support your civil disobedience in that case.
- Echoed Wails said...
First time I've seen anything by Ayn Rand that I agree with, though with all honesty all I know about her is gleaned from playing Bioshock and looking her up the "Useful Notes" section on TV Tropes so I'm not well versed with her works and objectivism in general. If the people have spoken and voted for the legalization, then the governor should accept it. I hope this shoots her in the foot. The people can elect their governors or has she vetoed that away too?
@Echoed Wails
The Governor is a man.
- biomechanical923 said...
@Echoed Wails
Objectivism as a scientific philosophy insists that there's an objective truth that exists, but we don't know what it is yet, and that we should not inhibit science, art, or philosophy, because they help us on the path to discovering absolute truth.
Objectivism and Ayn Rand as the Fox News pundits like to throw it around, however, is pretty much just Economic Libertarianism. It's like anarchy but for rich people.
@megabyte: classic, ignore my larger point and focus specifically on only the smallest part. You completely ignored the larger point, that the republicans have abused the Filibuster to the point that for any vote to pass the senate it needs 60 votes these days. That was never how it was intended to work. The democrats would not have needed to use a previous version if they could have brought the bill to a vote. 59 votes is more than enough for a majority. The filibuster is not meant to stop things from passing. They were intended to slow down important bills that are moving too fast and the minority wishes to force more discussion. That is it. Yes the democrats did game the system a bit I suppose. But they should not have had to. They had the votes, easily, with or without Kennedy.
- TheAlmightyNarf said...
@ biomechanical923
I've always taken the stance the Ayn Rand was a sociopath who confused her disorder for a political philosophy.
- Megabyte said...
You're getting closer, Anon, but you are not there yet. You never mentioned a filibuster till now as a way to excuse the Democrats once you have been forced to admit wrong doing on their part, so don't tell me that was your point. It wasnt. Your point was to defend your party when at the very least the leads of it are indefensable.
And btw, there is nothing that needs to move slower then a 1000 page bill that most of the house hadn't even read and is going to change how things work for every citizen in the country. I would call that pretty justified, especially when there were at least 3 versions of it floating around and no one could explain which one they were talking about.
Megabyte: I would look again I DID mention the filibuster in my original post to you. I have mentioned it twice now you just ignored it the first time. The filibuster DID slow the bill and however sad this is most of congress doesn't read ANY of the bills they pass. By your logic we shouldn't pass anything (though I must admit at this point we may be better off if that happened). But I digress, my point is that there are a thousand excuses to continue a filibuster, but when it all comes down to it there is only one honest explanation. The republicans didn't agree so they filibustered. It had nothing to do with the fact that no one had read the bill, the republicans hadnt either. It had everything to do with a knee jerk reaction against more complete healthcare coverage, however flawed the bill was. That is my problem with the republicans, and that is why I have trouble putting much blame on the dems for what they did. It wasn't exactly right, but what the republicans have done ever since Obama was elected has been worse.
- Megabyte said...
A quick question... which one was your original? You dont have a name, so that should be a legitimate question. And it makes it entirely possible to be missed, especially in a thread this long.
Still, let's move on with this one entry right here.
"The filibuster DID slow the bill and however sad this is most of congress doesn't read ANY of the bills they pass. By your logic we shouldn't pass anything (though I must admit at this point we may be better off if that happened)."
Well if they are not doing their jobs and seriously considering what they are passing (which requires at least READING it), then you are correct. They shouldn't pass anything... at all. And frankly, any one of them who isn't doing at least that should be tossed out of office as failures.
"But I digress, my point is that there are a thousand excuses to continue a filibuster, but when it all comes down to it there is only one honest explanation. The republicans didn't agree so they filibustered. It had nothing to do with the fact that no one had read the bill, the republicans hadnt either. It had everything to do with a knee jerk reaction against more complete healthcare coverage, however flawed the bill was."
A flawed bill that no one read of this extreme reach is unacceptable. Sorry. It should have been scrapped and started again at best... especially when we didn't even know which version was which.
"That is my problem with the republicans, and that is why I have trouble putting much blame on the dems for what they did. It wasn't exactly right, but what the republicans have done ever since Obama was elected has been worse."
It was far from right... it was a complete disregard of what the people wanted (again, they worked around an election won on being the vote to cancel this in one of the most liberal/Democratic states in the nation), gaming the system in new ways you can expect to come up again later, and if the results are not in your favor, you have NO RIGHT to bitch since you try to brush it off now...
"if the results are not in your favor, you have NO RIGHT to bitch since you try to brush it off now..." sounds like what you are doing... just saying. Also I don't. If the republicans did the same thing with a bill I disagreed with I would not be mad that they passed an earlier version (if the bill passed, it passed. I don't care if it was 2 versions ago) I would be mad that they passed it at all. The health care bill was flawed, but not in the way you assumed I suggest. It was flawed because it did not do enough, not because it wasn't proofread enough (obviously just imho). If the dems ever managed to get enough group cohesion (never going to happen) to filibuster something you support to death, despite you having an overwhelming majority of support, I wager you would again be shrieking about how wrong it is. Just remember what you just told me when that happens.
And you keep complaining that I am shrugging off what the dems did. Guess what, you STILL have not said anything about what the republicans did. You are shrugging that off too. Every accusation you have made of others on this board you are equally guilty of. Do not be high and mighty about things you do yourself. Though that does seem to be the conservative way these days.
"if the results are not in your favor, you have NO RIGHT to bitch since you try to brush it off now..." sounds like what you are doing... just saying. Also I don't. If the republicans did the same thing with a bill I disagreed with I would not be mad that they passed an earlier version (if the bill passed, it passed. I don't care if it was 2 versions ago) I would be mad that they passed it at all. The health care bill was flawed, but not in the way you assumed I suggest. It was flawed because it did not do enough, not because it wasn't proofread enough (obviously just imho). If the dems ever managed to get enough group cohesion (never going to happen) to filibuster something you support to death, despite you having an overwhelming majority of support, I wager you would again be shrieking about how wrong it is. Just remember what you just told me when that happens.
And you keep complaining that I am shrugging off what the dems did. Guess what, you STILL have not said anything about what the republicans did. You are shrugging that off too. Every accusation you have made of others on this board you are equally guilty of. Do not be high and mighty about things you do yourself. Though that does seem to be the conservative way these days.
- Megabyte said...
You're damn right I'm bitching about it. And I will again when it happens again, even if it brings about something I'm in favor of. You know why? It's a horribly dishonest tactic.
I also approve the filibuster because no one read the damn thing. If NO ONE read it, then NO ONE should have voted on it.
Of course if they didn't read it, they didn't do their job, and I want everyone who is guilty of that out of a their job. (Hey, if I decided not to do my job, I'd be out of one... fair is fair.)
In short NOTHING about it was right... not the bill (for now, you will have to agree to disagree with this, but stick with me), not the way it was passed, not how sides were picked on it, and not even how it was debated... no more right then them "having to vote on it to tell us what's in it."
So good topic really i like any post talking about STD symptoms pictures and more , you shall search in Google and Wikipedia about that .... thanks a gain ,,,


text:
Tag Archives: lower PPC cost
High Quality Landing Pages: Your Wildcat Offense?
Watching the Miami Dolphins and the New York Jets battling it out on Monday Night Football, I could envision all of the people on their sofas, pounding down their beers and wolfing down their snacks. Oblivious to the world around … Continue reading

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Home > News & Events > Wayland Press Release Archives > 2005 News Releases > September 2005 > WBU hosts benefit concert for hurricane victims
WBU hosts benefit concert for hurricane victims
PLAINVIEW – The Division of Fine Arts at Wayland Baptist University will present a special hurricane relief concert and call to prayer to benefit the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The concert is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 15, in Wayland's Harral Auditorium.
There is no admission for the concert, but those attending will be asked to give to relief efforts. Gifts may be directed to special charity and relief groups including the Baptist General Convention of Texas, the Catholic relief fund, Salvation Army, Red Cross and others. A list of organizations accepting funds for the relief efforts will be provided.
The concert will close with a time of prayer for the victims and relief workers.
The concert will feature vocal and instrumental performances from Wayland's International Choir, Wayland Singers, Spirit and the Pioneer Band, as well as other student groups.


text:
I'm creating a lengthy program, that has a player, and an arraylist of solid objects. For each run through the program, the program checks if there is a collision between the player, and any of the object in the arraylist. If there is a collision, the program then determines the orientation of the collision from: to left, to right, to up, or to down. I only want the program to recognize one orientation of collision at a time. However, I cant seem to figure out a geometric way to prevent the program from realizing more than one collision, or the wrong type of collision.
//I use these variables to assume a bounding box around objects/player. private int xPosLeft = x; private int xPosRight = x+Constants.width; private int xPosUp = y; private int xPosDown = y+Constants.height; //A bounding box is made for every object, and the player in this fashion.
I don't know how to explain the problem.. other than that a collision can't occur unless the player is already overlapping an object. When that happens, I simply fix up the position of the player. But it results in a 'twitchy' animation (as long as the key is pressed.) Also, if you take a minute to realize the variables, a collision to the left can also be a collision to the right... the variables may not all be parallel in structure.. because I keep changing them to figure out why I can't get it to work.
//Object is to the left of the player. public boolean CollisiontoLeft(Player Greenman) { if(Greenman.xPosLeft > xPosRight) { CollisiontoLeft = true; Greenman.xPosLeft = xPosRight; Greenman.xPosRight = Greenman.xPosLeft + Constants.xSize; Greenman.gamexPos = xPosLeft+Constants.xSize/2; Greenman.canRight=false; return true; } else return false; } //Object is to the right of the player. public boolean CollisiontoRight(Player Greenman) { if(Greenman.xPosRight < xPosLeft) { CollisiontoRight = true; Greenman.xPosRight = xPosLeft; Greenman.xPosLeft = Greenman.xPosRight - Constants.xSize; Greenman.gamexPos = xPosLeft+Constants.xSize/2; Greenman.canRight=false; return true; } else Greenman.canRight=true; return false; } //Object is above the player. public boolean CollisiontoUp(Player Greenman) { if(Greenman.yPosDown > yPosDown) { CollisiontoUp = true; Greenman.yPosUp = yPosDown; Greenman.yPosDown = Greenman.yPosUp + Constants.ySize; Greenman.gameyPos = yPosUp+Constants.ySize/2; return true; } else return false; } //Object is below the player. public boolean CollisiontoDown(Player Greenman) { if(Greenman.yPosDown < yPosUp) { CollisiontoDown = true; Greenman.yPosDown = yPosUp; Greenman.yPosUp = Greenman.yPosDown - Constants.ySize; Greenman.gameyPos = yPosUp+Constants.ySize/2; return true; } else return false;
Anyways.. tell me if you know how to fix this.


text:
20 Num. xvii. 5[and Jude II.]
21 [What would Cyprian have said to Boniface III., A.D. 607, and to Nicholas, A.D. 858? The former attempted to set up a universal throne: the latter founded the papacy on the forged Decretals.]
22 Num. xvi. 26.
23 Hos. ix. 4.
24 "Within the very barriers of the Church;" v. l.
25 John xx. 21-23.
26 [Here comes into view the question of clinic baptism and of the exceptional mode of sprinkling or affusion. On which let the ex treme modesty of our author be a check to me. Elucidation XX.
27 Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26.
28 Num. xix. 8, 12, 13.
29 Num. viii. 5-7.
30 Num. xix. 9.
31 The Oxford translator has given this name as "Socrates" here, but, as it appears, by an oversight only; for the original text has "Soranus," who is described as "of Ephesus, under Trojan and Adrian, a well-instructed author in methodical medicine," just as the translator describes Socrates. [Elucidation XX.]
32 The exact meaning of this sentence is very doubtful.
33 [ We may think this fanciful in argument: but this absorption of all Scripture, by primitive believers, into the analogy of faith, is not to be despised. See St. Paul's example, Gal. iv. 21.]
34 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, 6.
35 [ Acts xvi. 16and Acts xix. 15. We must not overlook such Scriptures in judging the exorcisms of the primitive Church.]
36 [Clinics, nevertheless, were treated by canonical law as less fit for Holy Orders. See Canon XII., Neo-Caesarea. Thomassin.]
37 Rom. xiv. 12, 13.
1 Oxford ed.: Ep. 1xxvi. We gather that this was written in exile from these words, "If the limits of the place appointed me did not restrain me, banished as I am on account of the confession of the Name." a.d. 693.
2 [Compare vol. iii. p. 693.]
3 Scil.: "of the cross." [Fanciful in logic, but our author may be indulged in his rhetoric. It was suited to the times.]
4 [i.e., of the stocks.]
5 [As of convict criminals. An honourable tonsure.]
6 Phil. iii. 21.
7 [This is very strong language, and absolutely disproves transubstantiation and "the eucharistic God" of Dufresne, Med., iii.]
8 Ps. li. 18.
9 Rom. xii. 1, 2.
10 Ps. cxvi. 12, 13, 15.
11 Matt. x. 19, 2.
12 Luke xxi. 14, 15.
13 Matt. v. 19.
14 [No one can read these obiter dicta of our author without assurance that the martyrs were a numerous army, beyond what is generally allowed. "A noble army, men and boys" (Heber).]
15 Rom. viii. 18.
16 [See next letter. I cannot conceive of any Christian as not profoundly touched and edified by this eloquent and scripturral letter of a martyr to martyrs in a period of fiery trial. They truly believed what is written, "to die is gain." Phil. i. 21.]
1 Oxford ed.: Ep. lxxvii. A.D. 257.
2 This is confirmed in Epistle lxxix., where mention is made of one mine in particular.
3 Otherwise, "the sinews of the common enemy cut in two, his carcase was trodden under foot." [ Rom. xvi. 20.]
4 [ A graphic idea of mine-tortures is here afforded.]
1 Oxford ed.: Ep. 1xxviii. A. D. 257.
2 [These acolytes were of Greek name, but of Western usage only. They were a sort of candidates for Orders; and our Moravian brethren retain this ministry and the name, to this day.]
3 Or, "united."
4 Or, "patiently bear."
5 [This always means in prayers and at the Lord's Supper, in the common intercessions. Scudamore, Not. Euch., p. 327.]
1 Oxford ed.: Ep. 1xxix. A.D. 257.


text:
Only sustainable business can be long-term business
Our mission is clear. We want to shape a sustainable future.
Environmental actions and sustainability initiatives
Our annual sustainability report presents an overview of Extruded Solutions sustainability initiatives. The content is based on what we consider the most material issues, given Extruded Solutions business operations and their impact on the environment and society. The interests and concerns of our stakeholders have also been taken into consideration. Data has been consolidated to cover all operations.
Extruded Solutions, former Sapa Sustainability Report
The Sustainability Report is an interactive PDF, adapted for reading on computer screens or tablets.
- Our components contribute to better products
- Better products contribute to a better world
- We know and respect the communities where we are located
- We reduce the negative impact on the environment
- We make sure our people are safe, in a safe workplace
Contact us today with any questions and we will help you as quickly as possible.


text:
Sneakers Alexis Fashion Stone Zee Women's Multi Danielle 1aSgWqWRcw
A Song of Ice and Fire creator George R.R. Martin isn't overly affected by technological trends; he still writes his Song of Ice and Fire novels on a DOS word processor, for Pete's sake. Since 2005, he's also maintained a personal blog on LiveJournal, called Not a Blog, where he wrote about his interests (a lot of stuff about football and the Hugo Awards), and occasionally about his work on ASOIAF, like when he announced back in January of 2016 that The Winds of Winter still wasn't finished, or when he posted insights into his process while working on A Dance with Dragons.
But no more. After 13 years on LiveJournal, Martin has moved his Not a Blog over to his personal site, GeorgeRRMartin.com. What prompted Martin to make the move?
One possibility is that Martin wants more control of his own content, particularly with The Winds of Winter getting closer to a release. But there's another, more interesting possibility: fear of Russian interference.
Let me explain. As io9 summarizes, LiveJournal was purchased by Russian company SUP Media back in 2007, a couple years after Martin started blogging on it. Nearly a decade later, in December 2016, the company's servers were moved to Russia. Then, around this time last year, LiveJournal's terms of service were updated to ban "political solicitation" and "perform[ing] any other actions contradictory to the laws of the Russian Federation." In other words, the service was being brought into compliance with Russia's internet laws, which have a history of extreme censorship. For example, conversations about issues related to the LGBTQIA community are basically banned, as are certain expressions of political speech, as when Russia cracked down on the spread of an image of Russian president Vladimir Putin in heavy makeup.
Martin talks about politics from time to time, so he may have wanted to shift to a platform with fewer restrictions.
Also, under the new terms of service, any blog that gets over 3,000 views per day is required to register as a media outlet, which exposes it to yet more restrictions. And we checked Not a Blog 100 times a day for possible updates on Winds, so we're pretty sure it crosses that threshold, although the rule doesn't apply to paid, permanent accounts. And none of this gets into concerns about privacy. As an American living on American soil, Martin wouldn't be as at risk of blowback as LiveJournal users in Russia, but he could still could have had his account deleted.
Whatever the reason, Martin's blog has a new home on the net. With any luck, he made the change in preparation for some Winds of Winter-related announcement.
To stay up to date on everything Game of Thrones, follow our all-encompassing Facebook page and sign up for our exclusive newsletter.
Watch Game of Thrones for FREE with a no-risk, 7-day free trial of Amazon Channels
h/t Multi Stone Alexis Fashion Zee Danielle Sneakers Women's Los Siete Reinos, The Mary Sue


text:
Definitions of sprain
v. t. - To weaken, as a joint, ligament, or muscle, by sudden and excessive exertion, as by wrenching; to overstrain, or stretch injuriously, but without luxation; as, to sprain one's ankle. 2
n. - The act or result of spraining; lameness caused by spraining; as, a bad sprain of the wrist. 2
The word "sprain" uses 6 letters: A I N P R S.
No direct anagrams for sprain found in this word list.
Words formed by adding one letter before or after sprain (in bold), or to ainprs in any order:
a - parians piranas e - paniers rapines g - parings parsing rasping sparing h - harpins i - aspirin rapinis o - soprani p - parsnip s - sprains t - spirant w - inwraps
Shorter words found within sprain:
ai ain ains air airn airns airs ais an ani anis ar ars as asp in ins is na nap naps naris nip nipa nipas nips pa pain pains pair pairs pan pans par paris pars pas pi pia pian pians pias pin pina pinas pins pirn pirns pis psi rain rains ran rani ranis rap raps ras rasp ria rias rin rins rip rips sain sap sari sarin si sin sip sir snap snip spa span spar spin sri
List shorter words within sprain, sorted by length
Words formed from any letters in sprain, plus an optional blank or existing letter
List all words starting with sprain, words containing sprain or words ending with sprain
All words formed from sprain by changing one letter
Other words with the same letter pairs: sp pr ra ai in
Browse words starting with sprain by next letter
Previous word in list: sprags
Next word in list: sprained
Some random words: aesthete ocotillo ecesis ohed eserine airwise ivermectin
This is not a dictionary, it's a word game wordfinder.
- Help and FAQ - Examples - Home
Privacy and Cookies Policy - Share - © Copyright 2004-2019 Morewords.com - 13.939mS


text:
West Side Health Care District gets ready to move in to new modular offices, too
West Side Hospital will be demolished soon, clearing the way for a new medical campus.
It's going to be torn down for a lot less money than was first though.
The West Side Health Care District voted last week to accept a $180,000 bid from a Fresno firm to tear down the old hospital that was built more than 60 years ago.
The board decided Steve Dovali Construction's bid of $180,000 was the lowest responsive bid for the project.
One other bid came in lower but the bid form was not complete and the district decided to reject it as non responsive.
Dovali's bid was significantly lower than the original estimates for tearing down the building. The district at one point was planning to spend around $500,000 for the demolition, which includes some asbestos removal.
Board President Eric Cooper said competition brought the price down.
Eleven firms sent in bid packages, although two were considered non responsive.
Dovali will have 70 days to completely demolish the main hospital building once the contract is signed.
The bids ranged from $164,998 in a bid considered non responsive to $468,000.
The old administration building and a building currently used by Taft Senior Living, both located on Adkisson Way on the north side of the hospital grounds, will remain standing as will a garage on the east side.
The district is planning to construct a new medical campus on the grounds.
Planning is still in the very early stages, and the district is considering an offer from San Joaquin Hospital to conduct a feasibility study to see what kind of medical infrastructure the community can support.
As the old building comes down, the district is preparing to move into new offices in a modular building on the eastern end of the hospital property on Adkisson Way.
The two halves of the building are on site and the district should soon be moving from the current rented office at 218 Sixth Street to the new location.


text:
- Premier League
Pellegrini: Lampard an important player for City
Former Chelsea midfielder Frank Lampard will be an "important" player for Manchester City after joining the Premier League champions on loan, according to manager Manuel Pellegrini.
Lampard signed for City's sister outfit New York City FC this summer, ending 13 trophy-laden years at Chelsea.
With the 2015 Major League Soccer season not starting until the spring, there was speculation that Lampard would head to Melbourne City, the third club owned by the City Football Group, on a short-term deal.
Following City's friendly against Olympiakos in Minneapolis on Saturday, Pellegrini confirmed the 36 year old will now move to the Etihad before the next American season begins in March.
"As you know, Frank has signed a contract with New York City and will start working here [the United States] in January as the season starts in March," Pellegrini said.
"From next Wednesday he will start working with our team and will play for us until then. At the moment he will work with the squad and be a member of the squad. He will fight for a position.
"He knows we have a very good team, we have a lot of players in his position. He is one player more. We have a lot of games, particularly with the Champions League - so he's very important for our team."
Manchester City are scheduled to face Chelsea on September 21 in the Premier League. Asked about Lampard facing his former club, Pellegrini said, "I will talk about those things with him."
Lampard will join Fernando, Bacary Sagna and Willy Caballero as new arrivals at the Etihad over the summer as City attempt to defend the title they narrowly won ahead of Liverpool last term. A successful defence could hand Lampard a fourth Premier League crown to go with the Champions League, Europa League, four FA Cups and two League Cups he won at Stamford Bridge.
Spaniard David Villa has been New York City FC's other high-profile signing ahead of their MLS debut next year and he has also been loaned out within the City system, moving to Melbourne City to maintain his fitness ahead of the American season. Short-term loan deals from the MLS have become relatively commonplace with Thierry Henry rejoining Arsenal, Landon Donovan having spells at Everton, Clint Dempsey returning to Fulham and David Beckham turning out for AC Milan in recent seasons.
Pellegrini weighed up City's pre-season tour of the US, in which they beat Sporting Kansas City and AC Milan but lost to both Liverpool and Olympiakos on penalties, while flying back and forth from the East Coast to the Midwest.
"It's been extremely useful and the team's been very professional, like in the first half against Liverpool," Pellegrini said. "The positives will be the quality of these games and the level that was achieved in each of these games.
"The negatives will be the travelling distances, and that obviously stops the team from training more."


text:
Geneva, Latimer results are final but Hansell has all the drama
The elections in three Franklin County communities are now in.
In Geneva, incumbent Mayor Sean Porter won re-election over challenger Raymond Silver by a 46-28 margin. On the Geneva City Council, Stephen Love, Todd Olmstead, Todd Pilchard, and Jesse Viet were elected. Write-in candidate Andrew Graff nabbed the fifth seat up for grabs in Geneva.
Over in Latimer, three unchallenged candidates were joined by a write-in. Incumbent Mayor Kent Morton was re-elected. On the city council, Cathy Crooks and Randy DeBour were elected along with write-in candidate Lawrence Meyer.
The Hansell election may be the most unusual and exciting of all the races in Franklin County.
The Hansell mayor's race did not have any official candidates and was between two write-in candidates. Write-in Jason Harper - who also was running for re-election as a Hansell city council member - defeated fellow write-in candidate Doug Symens by a 15-9 margin.
On the Hansell City Council, the drama deepened as four candidates were elected for the five seats. However, two candidates were tied for the fifth and final seat.
Elected to the city council were incumbents Joe Hanna, Jess Harlan, and Michael Norman. Joining those three is Colton Harper. The fifth seat was a tie between Deloris Cunningham and Jason Harper - whom both had 17 votes. However, Harper cannot hold both the mayor's seat and a city council seat, so a resolution will have to be reached when the Franklin County Supervisors canvas the vote on Nov. 12.
Franklin County Auditor Michelle Giddings said the Hansell situation is something she's never encountered.
"What happens is when the supervisors canvas," Giddings said "They will put their names in a hat, then they will draw a name out and that name will be the winner of that position. That's what the Code of Iowa states."
"If Deloris wins the draw, then she has that position. If Jason wins the draw, then he is given the choice of what position he wants (mayor or council member). He has to put that in writing, which position he prefers."
Giddings said things could become more complicated if Jason Harpers wins the draw for a council seat and opts to not take the mayor's chair. In that event, Giddings admitted she was not sure what outcome would result.
"This is kind of an odd situation, this doesn't happen very often," Giddings said.


text:
Mon. Feb. 11, 2013: Three Stocks to Watch Today
Markets Hub Host Paul Vigna joins the News Hub to tell investors why he's watching stock from Google, Dell, American Airlines and U.S. Airways in the markets today. Photo: Getty Images.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.
... the the ... what three stocks on the U K stocks like ... to call was one ... Friday's Miss L P P to history ... don't know how the knoll at the start but Global has been surging stock is very very high can see it yet I mean close he and two dollars ... as of the number ... will people just decide is a good good time to book profits and get out of there ... but analysts say audio and Dell their age and diligent as his Deal to Go Private of the shareholder came out and said we think the stock is worth a lot more than this deal is still top fourteen and change they want twenty four dollars a share ... if they can convince other shareholders that they're they're right that the giving tree change ... that to be a spanner in the works there and the other one is USA with Airways AMR's the merger ... Creek Wells largest airline and looking pretty smooth Brunelle US Airways pilot Association ... they ... approved of ... a new labor deal that would clear the way ... to break loose I can get involved yourself that one is right and go for ... it by a penny for every airliner said ... his ally for bankruptcy to get back into


text:
Harry Styles Says Dating Taylor Swift Was a Pain in the You-Know-What in 'This Is Us'
Harry Styles may have requested that footage of Taylor Swift be removed from One Direction's 3D movie, 'This Is Us,' but that doesn't mean he doesn't spill a tiny bit about her in the film.
Styles has been gentlemanly and very quiet since their high profile relationship and split, but he's got some telling commentary about the country crossover on the big screen if rumor is to be believed.
Apparently Styles, in the movie, says that not Swift -- but rather his relationship with her -- was a "pain in the a--." While on the surface is may seem sort of catty (sort of like the myriad hints and digs she's taken at him in the press), it may also be more of a commentary on the media scrutiny of their romance than about Swift as a person.
Styles expounds on his relationship woes elsewhere in the movie. "I haven't met a girl yet who I'd want to even think of getting serious with," The Daily Star (via The Daily Mail) reports. "I think I've been unlucky in love so far. But then, I haven't really met anyone who's made the earth move for me." We bet his exes are cringing!
Still, Hazza has romance in him. He confessed, "I'm longing to meet someone who really inspires me and makes me really want to spend time with them." Aww! There's hope for us after all.
You Think You Know Taylor Swift?


text:
The Traveling Penguin [VIDEO]
Although this originally aired a while ago, it's the first time I have seen it. This video is about a penguin named Lala who lives in Japan. Lala likes to travel the town wearing a backpack. The penguin visits local shops to get some fish while traveling around. Then, after a long day, Lala comes back home to a special room outfitted with a powerful air conditioner. Whether you have seen the video before, or you're like me and this is your first viewing, it is defiantly worth watching.


text:
|By PR Newswire
Article Rating:
|November 18, 2012 02:01 AM EST
RADNOR, Pa., Nov. 18, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Michael G. O'Neill, Founder and CEO of Preferred Sands, has been named the Ernst & Young National Entrepreneur Of The Year® 2012 Energy, Cleantech and Natural Resources Category Award winner. The Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year Award is the country's most prestigious business award for entrepreneurs. The award encourages entrepreneurial activity and recognizes leaders and visionaries who demonstrate innovation, financial success and personal commitment as they create and build world-class businesses.
O'Neill's business strategy – combined with his team's collective core competencies and expertise in engineering, finance and environmental compliance – catapulted Preferred Sands first to market with innovative and environmentally sensitive clean fracturing sand. He was honored at the Entrepreneur Of The Year gala, the culminating event of the Ernst & Young Strategic Growth Forum® in Palm Springs, Calif. The Forum is the nation's premier gathering of high-growth, market-leading companies. Awards were given in nine additional categories. All Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year Award winners were selected by an independent panel of judges from 244 regional Award recipients.
"In an industry that is often scrutinized over environmental issues, O'Neill and his team have found a way to enter as market innovators, bringing many new developments into the supply of sands into this industry that is so important for our energy needs," said Bryan Pearce, Americas Director, Entrepreneur Of The Year, Ernst & Young LLP. "O'Neill's leadership ability, as well as the investment he's made in his people and community, has allowed him to create a highly efficient and motivated team that is poised for continued future growth."
From banking to real estate to start-up
Before becoming a mining entrepreneur, O'Neill was both a Philadelphia banker and a redevelopment-focused real estate pioneer. In 1984, he began his career with First Pennsylvania Bank as a lender to aggregate and mining companies. Little did O'Neill know just how impactful the mining network and skill set he developed at the bank would be just a decade later.
After leaving the bank, he leveraged his ever growing business acumen to start his own company, O'Neill Properties, with his brother Bryan, which helped spawn the birth of Preferred Real Estate Investments in 1992. The company bought old industrial buildings and repurposed them into high-end corporate office buildings. O'Neill became a transformational force in renovating industrial properties, and from 1992 until 2005, he grew Preferred Real Estate Investments into a market leader in adaptive reusable real estate. However, O'Neill, just like many great entrepreneurs, was already looking around the corner and anticipating the next hurdle. He recognized the cyclical and macroeconomic risk of the real estate industry and the high potential for a significant downturn. In 2005, during the peak of the real estate boom, he capitalized on the inflated market and divested the majority of the company's portfolio. O'Neill and his management team then found themselves with capital and a clean canvas to paint the next company's future.
In December 2007, during the onset of what has become one of the largest recessions in our country's history, O'Neill led his team to create Preferred Sands, an owner-operated frac sand and proppant company, providing the widest array of proppants to the oil and gas industry.
O'Neill's insight and vision has led Preferred Sands to dramatically increase its revenue in just over three years.
Community philanthropist
O'Neill believes that every business is a people business. His people philosophy is hire good people, invest in them and empower them. As an avid supporter of the Philadelphia community, he is active in education-focused charitable organizations, and the company matches employee charitable donations dollar-for-dollar.
Preferred Sands' national footprint and strategically developed reserves have given the company a competitive advantage over its rivals, and O'Neill continues to position the company for innovative growth.
Entrepreneur Of The Year 2012 Energy, Cleantech and Natural Resources Category finalists
In addition to O'Neill, the Ernst & Young National Entrepreneur Of The Year Energy, Cleantech and Natural Resources finalists were: Lynn Jurich, President & Co-founder, and Edward Fenster, CEO and Co-founder, Sunrun, based in San Francisco, Calif., the nation's leading solar power company; Sidney Hinton, CEO, PowerSecure International, Inc., based in Wake Forest, N.C., providers of energy technologies and services to electric utilities and their large industrial, commercial, institutional and municipal customers; and Cindy Taylor, President and CEO, Oil States International, Inc., based in Houston, Texas, designer, manufacturer, distributer and servicer of highly engineered products for sub-sea pipelines and offshore production platforms.
National Entrepreneur Of The Year® 2012 Overall Award winner
Hamdi Ulukaya, Founder of Chobani, was named the Ernst & Young National Entrepreneur Of The Year® 2012 Overall Award winner.
Video and photos
To view video clips of all of the Entrepreneur Of The Year winners, please visit ey.com/us/eoy. Photos of the winners are also available by request.
Founded and produced by Ernst & Young LLP, the Entrepreneur Of The Year Awards are nationally sponsored in the United States by SAP America and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
About Ernst & Young's Entrepreneur Of The Year
Ernst & Young's Entrepreneur Of The Year is the world's most prestigious business award for entrepreneurs. The unique award makes a difference through the way it encourages entrepreneurial activity among those with potential and recognizes the contribution of people who inspire others with their vision, leadership and achievement. As the first and only truly global award of its kind, Entrepreneur Of The Year celebrates those who are building and leading successful, growing and dynamic businesses, recognizing them through regional, national and global awards programs in more than 140 cities in 50 countries.
About Ernst & Young LLP's Strategic Growth Markets practice
Ernst & Young LLP's Strategic Growth Markets (SGM) practice guides leading high-growth companies. Our multidisciplinary team of elite professionals provides perspective and advice to help our clients accelerate market leadership. SGM delivers assurance, tax, transactions and advisory services to thousands of companies spanning all industries. Ernst & Young is the undisputed leader in taking companies public, advising key government agencies on the issues impacting high-growth companies and convening the experts who shape the business climate. For more information, please visit us at ey.com/us/strategicgrowthmarkets, or follow news on Twitter at EY_Growth.
About Ernst & Young
Ernst & Young is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. Worldwide, our 167,000 people are united by our shared values and an unwavering commitment to quality. We make a difference by helping our people, our clients and our wider communities achieve their potential.
For more information, please visit ey.com.
This news release has been issued by Ernst & Young LLP, a client-serving member firm of Ernst Young Global Limited operating in the US.
SOURCE Ernst & Young
- InsideView(R) Relationship Manager Reduces Account Churn by 25% With New People Alerts
- In 2014 Big Data Investments Will Account for Nearly $30 Billion - Eventually Accounting for $76 Billion by 2020 End
- NewSQL – What is It?
- SAP and Big Data
- VCE Revisited, Now and Zen
- Part II: EMC announces XtremIO General Availability, speeds and feeds
- Pioneer of Environmental Sustainability in the Hydraulic Fracturing Sand Industry: Michael G. O'Neill, Founder and CEO of Preferred Sands, Named Ernst & Young National Entrepreneur Of The Year® 2012 Energy, Cleantech and Natural Resources Category Award w
- SAP Deepens Value to Midsize Companies by Adding 60 Offerings to Its Family of SAP(R) Best Practices
- The Hadoop Business Case By @JGlesner | @BigDataExpo [#BigData]
- Leader in Interactive Entertainment: Michael Morhaime, President, CEO and Co-founder of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., named Ernst & Young National Entrepreneur Of The Year® 2012 Technology Category Award Winner


text:
ADALAT FOR SALE, IOWA CITY — Jarryd Cole is the only member of the Class of 2007 left with the Iowa basketball team.
The other two players, guards Jake Kelly and Jeff Peterson, rx free ADALAT, decided to transfer in March after the Hawkeyes concluded a 15-17 season. Purchase ADALAT for sale, Kelly wanted to play closer to home and headed to Indiana State. Peterson, who didn't like the fit with Todd Lickliter's system, order ADALAT online c.o.d, decided to transfer to Arkansas. ADALAT overnight, Cole, though, decided to stay, australia, uk, us, usa.
"It's never easy to lose a classmate," Cole said, ADALAT FOR SALE. "But they made a decision to go."
Cole stayed, ADALAT cost, and will begin his second season as team captain.
Iowa coach Todd Lickliter is glad Cole is sticking around., because Cole is expected to be one of the building blocks of the Hawkeyes' new foundation, effects of ADALAT.
"I remember when we first met, Fast shipping ADALAT, we talked about building a team and winning," Lickliter said. "We want it to happen in his junior year."
It hasn't been an easy two seasons for Cole, ADALAT pharmacy. ADALAT FOR SALE, He suffered a season-ending knee injury in Iowa's nonconference finale in his first season, missing the entire Big Ten schedule. Then last season, ADALAT schedule, Cole struggled early as he recovered from the knee surgery that kept him off the court until right before fall practice began.
Only in the final weeks of the season, when the Hawkeyes needed an inside presence after senior Cyrus Tate suffered a sprained ankle, canada, mexico, india, did Cole finally respond. Purchase ADALAT online no prescription, The Hawkeyes' European trip, which begins Friday, is a chance for Cole to build on that momentum, is ADALAT safe.
"He's doing terrific, ADALAT over the counter, " Lickliter said. "I wish I was that healthy, ADALAT FOR SALE. He's got great strength, and he's a terrific leader."
"It wasn't easy, ADALAT canada, mexico, india, for sure, No prescription ADALAT online, " Cole said as he described his comeback. "I've had to deal with it, God willing."
Asked how his knee was doing, ADALAT maximum dosage, and if he was back to being as healthy as he was when he arrived as a freshman, Buy ADALAT without prescription, Cole smiled.
"Close," he said, purchase ADALAT online. "Getting there, ADALAT samples, for sure."
Cole knows he has to be one of the team leaders. ADALAT FOR SALE, "I haven't been told to do so, but I know," he said. "I've said it time and time again, I'm not really an authoritative figure, what is ADALAT. I don't mind talking about it. ADALAT duration, But if people need to hear something, I make sure they hear it."
Cole has played 45 games in his career, second-most on the team behind senior Devan Bawinkel, ADALAT images. Not surprisingly, Ordering ADALAT online, the two are the team captains.
Cole thinks the Hawkeyes are heading in the right direction, ADALAT FOR SALE. Something he heard recently from guard Anthony Tucker helped reinforce that opinion.
"The other day, doses ADALAT work, Tuck made a comment, Online buying ADALAT, saying, 'It's a lot easier this year.,'" Cole said, taking ADALAT. "Coming from a freshman like that, ADALAT reviews, it's really comforting. We know the system. ADALAT FOR SALE, And when everyone comes in, it will be easier to transfer that. Hopefully it will go a lot smoother, ADALAT dosage, a lot quicker."
Cole knows, ADALAT samples, though, that the guys he came in with in that Class of 2007 are gone.
"They moved on, and now the Hawkeyes have to move on," he said. "And we will. ".
Similar posts: BUY PROVERA NO PRESCRIPTION. MOTOFEN FOR SALE. BUY NORPLANT-72 OVER THE COUNTER. BUY DILANTIN NO PRESCRIPTION. REGLAN from canadian pharmacy. ILOSONE reviews. DULOXETINE gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release. MEFENOREX description.
Trackbacks from: ADALAT FOR SALE. ADALAT FOR SALE. ADALAT FOR SALE. ADALAT FOR SALE. ADALAT duration. ADALAT wiki. ADALAT steet value. Order ADALAT from United States pharmacy.


text:
LMM wrote:Certainly, remedial socialization and training may improve a fearful/aggressive pup's disposition and behavior but without sufficient early socialization, a puppy will never become what he could have been. The socialization window has closed and the opportunity has been lost forever.
And I think that's such a wonderful point-- take a dog that's awesome without socialization... think how much MORE awesome he could have been WITH socialization.


text:
Santa Claus has already begun his Journey Around the World! NORAD Keeps us Up-to-Date on his Whereabouts! Track Santa With Us!
It's Christmas Eve, and the Jolly Old Elf, Santa Claus has already begun his trip around the world, spreading joy to good little girls & boys! Our friends at NORAD, The North American Aerospace Defense Command, have focused their efforts on St. Nick today, and you can follow his journey here!


text:
Oct 27, 2005
Oct. 27, 2005
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Will Porter, who guided Yale to it first Eastern Sprints title since 1981 last spring, has been named the 2005 Eastern Association of Women's Rowing Colleges Coach of the Year. The EAWRC consists of all eight Ivy League schools and Syracuse, Rutgers, Boston University, Northeastern, George Washington, Georgetown, MIT, Navy and Boston College. The award is voted on by the league's head coaches.
Porter, who also was named the New England Region Coach of the Year by the CRCA, led the Bulldogs varsity eight to an 11-1 regular season record and a seventh-place finish at the NCAA Championship.


text:
Toggle navigation
Kitchen Island
Kitchen Design
Kitchen Table
Kitchen Decor
Elegant and Modern Kitchen Faucets
Kitchen Decor
Elegant and Modern Kitchen Faucets
grohe modern kitchen faucets modern single handle kitchen faucets
Kitchen Decor
June 2, 2017
18 related images
The flow of water in the kitchen is needed and very significant role would be of particular concern for the sake of convenience that will be created. The above would refer to the faucet that will be able to function as a comfort in activities that were once used to wash utensils in the kitchen. certainly imagine how the furnishings would be intended for those who are now being carry out renovations in the kitchen certainly need to think this is generally much ignored by the majority of people. Modern kitchen faucets designs are now available in various sizes that will support the comfort in the
kitchen with a modern look
and qualified. Generally the kitchen is the place to be temperate humid because such nuances and the water flow is not smooth, will present the latest innovations now the faucet with high quality and durable to all air temperature. New and modern kitchen faucets will be made of pure stainless steel metal base material capable and impressive as well as high quality. Of course this will be the best alternative in order to realize the
dream kitchen clean
and orderly. Made curved design will display the number of double holes profitable. This type of faucet form will also be elastic so easily directed liking. Modern kitchen faucets will be equipped with the latest technology and advanced touch sensor that is mounted very easy so will make hygienic shades on all sides. You do not need to worry because the size will be able to be adapted to the wishes and needs. Installation models will also occur permanently so as to facilitate high security. Generally this type of faucet will also be available at the sink with a uniform size of pampering. Of course, a good kitchen is to be considered on all sides and a
modern display that lights up
Gallery of Elegant and Modern Kitchen Faucets
Write your feedback about "Elegant and Modern Kitchen Faucets" here


text: Anyone have an iPad mini? Like it? I have a MacBook and would love an iPad... but can't really justify the price when all I will probably do on it is surf the web, go on social media, or read the news. Can't use it as a reader because it gives me a headache! Let me know if you have a laptop and a tablet and if you find it helpful/useful!


text:
Funeral To Be In Minnesota For 86-Year-Old Marathoner
COLOGNE (AP) - A funeral will held in Minnesota for the oldest finisher at this year's New York City Marathon.
Eighty-six-year-old Joy Johnson died the day after finishing her 25th New York City Marathon and hours after appearing on the "Today" show. She had hit her head on the pavement during the marathon but refused to quit Sunday.
She lay down on her hotel bed and never woke up Monday. She died of complications of blunt trauma.
Her childhood home was in Cologne, Minn.
Johnson was a gym teacher in Duluth before moving to California, but kept close ties to Minnesota and returned for running events. Her last recorded finish in the Grandma's Marathon in Duluth was in 2011.
Funeral arrangements by a Waconia funeral home are pending.


text:
Strong Momentum for Cisco ASR 9000 and CRS Platforms
Momentum continues to increase for Cisco's ASR 9000 edge routing system and Carrier Routing System (CRS) core routing platform.
Recently, of course, Cisco announced major advancements to the ASR 9000. These will dramatically increase capabilities at the network edge and make it simpler for service providers to architect the next generation of the Internet to be more visual, mobile and virtual.
In addition, Cisco has announced quite a number of ASR 9000 customers throughout the world:
- US Signal (U.S.)
- Comcast (U.S.)
- China Telecom (China)
- Tata (India)
- FastWeb (Italy)
- Cox Communications (US)
- NTT Plala (Japan)
- Also, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAF_eqX6aXQ
- Main One Cable (Nigeria)
- MegaFon (Russia)
In regard to the CRS, Cisco released figures showing significant momentum for the market-leading CRS-3, as well as announcing additional capabilities for the platform. In less than a year since the product was launched, Cisco shipped CRS-3 units to more than 80 global service providers in more than 30 countries. Since 2004, Cisco CRS units have been shipped to more than 450 service providers in more than 80 countries.
There have also been several public announcements of customer deployments for the CRS platform:
- Tiscali (Italy)
- Main One Cable (Nigeria)
- Hong Kong Broadband Network
- du (United Arab Emirates)
In an effort to keep conversations fresh, Cisco Blogs closes comments after 60 days. Please visit the Cisco Blogs hub page for the latest content.


text:
Tag: how many prime members
Will The Kindle Fire Grow The Amazon Prime Base and Why is That Important
This isn't my story. This morning, Chris Green of FBA Power, shot me an email alerting me to an article in the Channel Advisor Blog about the release of the Kindle Fire I wrote about yesterday. This article was written a day or so before Amazon's release, but contains a really interesting analysis of Amazon […]
Posted: September 30th, 2011 under Amazon, Current Events, eBay Business.
Tags: Amazon, amazon fba, Amazon Prime, how many prime members, kindle fire, make money selling kindle fire
Comments: none