Thats what my friend said even though iv been picking her up for the past two days. Everyone else tells me to keep picking her up so she wont bite me (wich she is doing) So is it true?Is it true that if you pick your hamster up before the first week that you get it, it can get wet tail?
Handling a hamster won't give it wet tail. Humans can't get wet tail and thus can't pass it on to anyone or thing. If the hamster gets it, it was from one of it's cage mates. Handling the hamster early is good so that it can get used to you being it's owner and being handled.Is it true that if you pick your hamster up before the first week that you get it, it can get wet tail?
yes and no......and depends on the hamster. Wet tail is diareha (sp?) and stress can cause it.....wet tail can cause dehydration and can kill your hammie. So if you pick her up to much you can stress her out, and she can get wet tail from it.
While some hamsters can tolerate it more......you *should* leave your hamster alone for the first week-week an a half to let it acclimate to it's surrounding and the noises in it...
she will bite for a while, but just try letting her know that you won't hurt her, remember most hamster cages are top opening so when you come in from the top, you look like a giant predator that is going to eat her! So just put your hand down in the cage, let her sniff you maybe place a treat on your finger (slowly inch it towards your palm over a couple of days), she will eventually learn that you aren't going to eat her....
it's called trust training...and goodluck.....keep many bandaids and neosporin handy, lol
Not that I have ever heard. But keep picking him up gently so he will get trust from you.
I'm not sure what ';wet tail'; is, doesn't really make sense. Playing with your new pet will make it more human-friendly over time! The best thing to do is keep playing with your hamster! Playing with the hamster in the daytime might also help keep it awake through the day so that it sleeps better through the night--and doesn't keep you up all night. Hamsters are nocturnal!!
No, it doesn't hurt them if you pick one up. Just dont let it bite you hard.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Is it true that after 7 years your negative credit is erased?
Does it just go away automatically, or do you have to call the credit bureaus to have them erased? Is everything clean slate?Is it true that after 7 years your negative credit is erased?
No.. Your credit is never ';erased '; Now, things can start to drop off the report after so many years, typically around 7 years, but sometimes it may take 10 years to actually drop of the report. Bankruptcies remain on your report for a full 10 years. Also, if a company sells your debt to another company (collection), it can show up another 7-10 years for the new company.
Your credit score is based on your past credit history. So even if those bad things drop off after years 7-10, your score will still show that there was once some negative activity on there. As you establish new credit lines and keep them current the score will gradually increase.
Hope that helps.Is it true that after 7 years your negative credit is erased?
The answer to your question is not as easy or as complex as some people make it out to be. The State where you you live, the policies and practices of original creditors and your own behavior make this answer vary.
In my opinion the 7 years is from the date of last activity on the account not necessarily your last payment. This can be affected by many things: Did the creditor sell the outstanding balance to a third party. Is there a judgment?
Also what are the actual practices of the credit bureaus? I am not an attorney but I believe that bankruptcies can actually stay on your credit report longer than 7 years from the file date.
In any event you need a qualified person to answer your question. I hope the following web sites are helpful.
Unpaid bills NEVER fall off your record. When you have a bill sent to collections, paid bills fall off your record after certain periods of time. Bankrupts will fall off after seven to ten years depending upon how many you have files and what state you are living in. Paid bills usually fall off your record around three years. Late payments on revolving credit lines which are kept open will always show up on your credit report. If you circumstances which stopped you from being timely with credit card payments, I suggest you pay them off and close them. After three years they will no longer show on your credit. Conversely though, any timely payments will no longer show either. You would have to decide which is the best scenario, and a lay person would have difficulty knowing how many late payments verses how many timely payments should affect your decision of keeping or closing the account. I suggest you consult with a credit professional. Not a credit counseling cooperation but an actual credit professional.
Mortgages never fall off credit, unless you had so many late payments or foreclosure and you request it be taken off after so many years. again, I suggest you educate yourself separate from Yahoo! Answers and/or consult a professional.
Good luck with your credit.
p.s. Don't be taken in by those sites listed above. If it sounds too good to be true it is. Listen to your gut and don't get taken by these internet scams. Look up a professional in the phone book and if they tell you they have a website all well and good, but just check with the better business buraeu before giving anybody money.
Bad credit never goes away. Ever.
Man! So many crappy answers! After posting dozens of messages here you would think they had read just ONE of them!
Yes, your credit will get erased. By law (see the links below for the Fair Credit Reporting Act), credit reporting agencies can only report items for 7 years, beginning on the date of the delinquency. After that it must be removed.
They will do this automatically. If you were to look at your credit report, it even states very clearly that it's scheduled to be removed at a certain date.
Now, the bad news (sort of). Just because it's removed from your credit report doesn't mean the debt itself goes away.
Every state has a Statute of Limitation law (see the link below). After that time, you longer have a legal obligation to pay the debt. That means that the creditor can not sue you in court. The can, however, continue to try and collect it, but they just can't sue you. The only way left to them is to harrass you into paying.
Read the links below, it explains it all.
If any of you collection agents reading this plan to dispute this, please supply a source for your information and quit Emailing me! I'm sorry if I'm spilling all of your secrets here!
Not everything can be erased. Some things like car repossessions or bankruptcy can be eligible for removal after a certain number of years. But, you need to write the credit reporting companies (all of them) and instruct them to remove the negative info. The websites for each of these credit reporting agencies can give you more info. about time frames for trying to remove negative or incorrect credit info., forms requesting removal, etc.
Bad credit does go away after a set amount of time.
Every state has their own time frame of statutes of limitations.
Do a search online and you can find a bunch of free information that will help.
Most is 7 years, some items are 10 years and all time frames are renewable if you admit to the debt or make an offer to repay or settle.
If it doesn't just dissappear from your credit, you can send the credit bureaus a request to remove it after the statute of limitations expire.
If the bill collectors call, deny everything and make no addmittance to the fact that you owe the money.
It will be a rough 7 years, but time heals all wounds.
IRS is a different story all together.
Your credit never gets erased.
Unless you do a bankruptcy.
Which you can only do one time in your life.
But then you have a bankruptcy mark on your credit for about 7 years, which makes it hard to finnance anything. (Car, Motorcycle ect...ect...) After it may be considered a ';clean slate';.
i think thats just with bankruptcies
Late payments stop negatively affecting your credit after 2 years. I'm not sure about bankruptcies or foreclosures.
it takes seven years for a negative thing, say like a 90 day late note on your credit report, to drop off. My husband has a stupid 90 day late on a card he got when he was younger that will finally come off next year. But, yea. it takes a long time.....
If you file bankruptcy, everything is cleared in 7 years.
Wow, why do people answer questions when they have no idea. Anyway, the last answerer, and a couple of the others toward the end are basically right. Just wanted to confirm that for you in the midst of all the wrong answers out there first.
Never a 'clean slate'. After a certain amount of time (10 years?)some may drop off, though. Good luck with that. Keep your credit good. It is hard to fix once it is ruined. Best time to start is now, and it's never too late.
Your negative credit is erased with bankrupty, as a reminder you should check your credit report with the credit bureaus every year for accurate information, making sure there are no mistakes, there are three major credit reporting bureaus to check with, sometimes it takes time to correct a error on your credit report. I would suggest consumer credit counseling, which can point you in the right diredtion. Having a foreclosure on your credit report is the most negative credit, one should do all you can to avoid a foreclosure.
No.. Your credit is never ';erased '; Now, things can start to drop off the report after so many years, typically around 7 years, but sometimes it may take 10 years to actually drop of the report. Bankruptcies remain on your report for a full 10 years. Also, if a company sells your debt to another company (collection), it can show up another 7-10 years for the new company.
Your credit score is based on your past credit history. So even if those bad things drop off after years 7-10, your score will still show that there was once some negative activity on there. As you establish new credit lines and keep them current the score will gradually increase.
Hope that helps.Is it true that after 7 years your negative credit is erased?
The answer to your question is not as easy or as complex as some people make it out to be. The State where you you live, the policies and practices of original creditors and your own behavior make this answer vary.
In my opinion the 7 years is from the date of last activity on the account not necessarily your last payment. This can be affected by many things: Did the creditor sell the outstanding balance to a third party. Is there a judgment?
Also what are the actual practices of the credit bureaus? I am not an attorney but I believe that bankruptcies can actually stay on your credit report longer than 7 years from the file date.
In any event you need a qualified person to answer your question. I hope the following web sites are helpful.
Unpaid bills NEVER fall off your record. When you have a bill sent to collections, paid bills fall off your record after certain periods of time. Bankrupts will fall off after seven to ten years depending upon how many you have files and what state you are living in. Paid bills usually fall off your record around three years. Late payments on revolving credit lines which are kept open will always show up on your credit report. If you circumstances which stopped you from being timely with credit card payments, I suggest you pay them off and close them. After three years they will no longer show on your credit. Conversely though, any timely payments will no longer show either. You would have to decide which is the best scenario, and a lay person would have difficulty knowing how many late payments verses how many timely payments should affect your decision of keeping or closing the account. I suggest you consult with a credit professional. Not a credit counseling cooperation but an actual credit professional.
Mortgages never fall off credit, unless you had so many late payments or foreclosure and you request it be taken off after so many years. again, I suggest you educate yourself separate from Yahoo! Answers and/or consult a professional.
Good luck with your credit.
p.s. Don't be taken in by those sites listed above. If it sounds too good to be true it is. Listen to your gut and don't get taken by these internet scams. Look up a professional in the phone book and if they tell you they have a website all well and good, but just check with the better business buraeu before giving anybody money.
Bad credit never goes away. Ever.
Man! So many crappy answers! After posting dozens of messages here you would think they had read just ONE of them!
Yes, your credit will get erased. By law (see the links below for the Fair Credit Reporting Act), credit reporting agencies can only report items for 7 years, beginning on the date of the delinquency. After that it must be removed.
They will do this automatically. If you were to look at your credit report, it even states very clearly that it's scheduled to be removed at a certain date.
Now, the bad news (sort of). Just because it's removed from your credit report doesn't mean the debt itself goes away.
Every state has a Statute of Limitation law (see the link below). After that time, you longer have a legal obligation to pay the debt. That means that the creditor can not sue you in court. The can, however, continue to try and collect it, but they just can't sue you. The only way left to them is to harrass you into paying.
Read the links below, it explains it all.
If any of you collection agents reading this plan to dispute this, please supply a source for your information and quit Emailing me! I'm sorry if I'm spilling all of your secrets here!
Not everything can be erased. Some things like car repossessions or bankruptcy can be eligible for removal after a certain number of years. But, you need to write the credit reporting companies (all of them) and instruct them to remove the negative info. The websites for each of these credit reporting agencies can give you more info. about time frames for trying to remove negative or incorrect credit info., forms requesting removal, etc.
Bad credit does go away after a set amount of time.
Every state has their own time frame of statutes of limitations.
Do a search online and you can find a bunch of free information that will help.
Most is 7 years, some items are 10 years and all time frames are renewable if you admit to the debt or make an offer to repay or settle.
If it doesn't just dissappear from your credit, you can send the credit bureaus a request to remove it after the statute of limitations expire.
If the bill collectors call, deny everything and make no addmittance to the fact that you owe the money.
It will be a rough 7 years, but time heals all wounds.
IRS is a different story all together.
Your credit never gets erased.
Unless you do a bankruptcy.
Which you can only do one time in your life.
But then you have a bankruptcy mark on your credit for about 7 years, which makes it hard to finnance anything. (Car, Motorcycle ect...ect...) After it may be considered a ';clean slate';.
i think thats just with bankruptcies
Late payments stop negatively affecting your credit after 2 years. I'm not sure about bankruptcies or foreclosures.
it takes seven years for a negative thing, say like a 90 day late note on your credit report, to drop off. My husband has a stupid 90 day late on a card he got when he was younger that will finally come off next year. But, yea. it takes a long time.....
If you file bankruptcy, everything is cleared in 7 years.
Wow, why do people answer questions when they have no idea. Anyway, the last answerer, and a couple of the others toward the end are basically right. Just wanted to confirm that for you in the midst of all the wrong answers out there first.
Never a 'clean slate'. After a certain amount of time (10 years?)some may drop off, though. Good luck with that. Keep your credit good. It is hard to fix once it is ruined. Best time to start is now, and it's never too late.
Your negative credit is erased with bankrupty, as a reminder you should check your credit report with the credit bureaus every year for accurate information, making sure there are no mistakes, there are three major credit reporting bureaus to check with, sometimes it takes time to correct a error on your credit report. I would suggest consumer credit counseling, which can point you in the right diredtion. Having a foreclosure on your credit report is the most negative credit, one should do all you can to avoid a foreclosure.
Is it true masturbation can reduce a mans penis size? Or even stop it from growing?
Now, I don't believe this, but someone told me that it did, I don't believe them... I still masturbate as much as always... but it doesn't look much bigger, even though every time I measure it's always a bit bigger... any ideas?Is it true masturbation can reduce a mans penis size? Or even stop it from growing?
Nearly all guys masturbate, and as teens most do it a whole lot. Don't see anyone quiting, do you. Masturbation is no different physically than having sexual intercourse, just using a hand instead of a vagina. Everything else is the same. But you never see a question asking if having sex with a girl would cause a penis to shrink or not grow enough, do you-- because there is so much misconception about what masturbation is. It is simply solo sex. So natural and normal and nothing magical or mystical about it.Is it true masturbation can reduce a mans penis size? Or even stop it from growing?
No, it is not true that masturbation can reduce a man's penis size. There are many myths about this all around the world and it is not true.
Masturbation can, however, affect male sexual performance. If the male body is used to achieving orgasm quickly, it will decrease the time that the male is able to engage in intercourse without having an orgasm.
Hope this helps!
No that is not true.
Masterbation does not have any cons to your body.
some people choose to do it and other just decide not to.
Nonsense
masturbation will convert ur bodyinto museum of dieses.
No, it is not true. Someone's pulling your leg telling you that.
No it's excise
Nope. That's a load of crap.
um no offence but i dont want 2 ant u anywayz no ur friend just wanted 2 see how thick u r
all lies
that is not true. It may grow some. I don't know
Nearly all guys masturbate, and as teens most do it a whole lot. Don't see anyone quiting, do you. Masturbation is no different physically than having sexual intercourse, just using a hand instead of a vagina. Everything else is the same. But you never see a question asking if having sex with a girl would cause a penis to shrink or not grow enough, do you-- because there is so much misconception about what masturbation is. It is simply solo sex. So natural and normal and nothing magical or mystical about it.Is it true masturbation can reduce a mans penis size? Or even stop it from growing?
No, it is not true that masturbation can reduce a man's penis size. There are many myths about this all around the world and it is not true.
Masturbation can, however, affect male sexual performance. If the male body is used to achieving orgasm quickly, it will decrease the time that the male is able to engage in intercourse without having an orgasm.
Hope this helps!
No that is not true.
Masterbation does not have any cons to your body.
some people choose to do it and other just decide not to.
Nonsense
masturbation will convert ur bodyinto museum of dieses.
No, it is not true. Someone's pulling your leg telling you that.
No it's excise
Nope. That's a load of crap.
um no offence but i dont want 2 ant u anywayz no ur friend just wanted 2 see how thick u r
all lies
that is not true. It may grow some. I don't know
Is it true that it’s the Mormons who are behind the attempt to get Californians to vote no on gay marriage?
What’s the deal with that? I heard it cost $25 million to have the ballot papers printed up and distributed to polling booths and the Mormons and the ‘Knights of Columbus’ (I’ve never heard of them either) are mainly responsible for raising the funds. Do the Mormons think of themselves as moral guardians of the west coast or something? Is it true that it’s the Mormons who are behind the attempt to get Californians to vote no on gay marriage?
Even Obama and Biden have stated they oppose gay marriage. This is not just about marriage, it is also about judicial tyranny. 4 judges overruled a vote of the people and 2,000 years of legal precedence. Is it true that it’s the Mormons who are behind the attempt to get Californians to vote no on gay marriage?
No... the Mormons are just one of the many groups that have been taking up the cause.
I think they think of themselves as Christians, and Americans.
A lot of people are concerned about the way things went down in CA. The people had already voted against it. The judges overturned and rewrote the law. That's not what the court is supposed to do... they are supposed to interpret the law.
I support same-sex marriage, but not the way the issue was handled in CA.
A lot of conservatives and religious people are afraid that if we end up with a liberal president and a supermajority of liberals in the house, there will be more liberals appointed to the court and this might happen again in more conservative states. I think it's a reasonable concern, the court overstepped their boundaries.
Most fundamentalists think they are the moral guardians of whatever. Of course they are wrong, but it is a waste of time to argue the point. The Mormons are fundamentalists in that they accept the Bible as literal and their dogma is that the world was created some 6,000 years ago. They are scientifically challenged.
The Knights of Columbus is a Roman Catholic Church organization that is socially active.
It is a real pity that this church has chosen to interfere with a matter that should be handled State by State!
Religion is the party who has made the stand that a marital union is a man and a woman!
BUT, that does not cover the fact that there are other partners that want the same concession! They are in love, and want to be together. I know many couples who are married! I know many couple who are NOT married! and the ones who are not married, outnumber the ones who are!
Why? Because relationships, and commitment are not defined by a damned piece of paper!
Mormons are not the moral guardians of anything, except their own salvation, and they should just stick to that!! And they should keep their religious opinions to themselves, and stay out of politics!
What this comes down to?, is that they are persecuting Homosexuals, by attempting to deny them the right to be legally joined with the partner of their choice! Something that the Mormons enjoy, whenever they decide to get married!
Persecution is something that they are very familiar with,%26gt;%26gt; even today!
Perhaps they should remember what that feels like, and back off, and mind their own religious business!
You watched Bill Maher last night, huh??
Got to love that guy! He calls them as he sees them%26gt;%26gt; Ethically, and politically!
Mormons are definately contributing to the vote yes on Prop 8 campaign. They have had letters read by their bishops in their weekly meetings. They have organized email and phone campaigns and they are currently behind the ';WAVE'; campaign as well. Apparently 77% of all the money raised for this campaign has come from Mormon families and not all of them from CA.
They were even organizing a phone campaign with the volunteers based in Orem Utah.
I do not know what level the Knights of Columbus' has gone to but you can be assure that one of the main contribuiters to this campaign is the LDS church.
SUPPORTERS have raised $27.7 million, including $1.4 million from the Connecticut-based Knights of Columbus (Catholic Men's Club); $1.1 million from Irvine-based Fieldstead and Co. owned by financier Howard Ahmanson; $900,000 from retired pediatric surgeon John Templeton Jr. of Bryn Mawr, Pa.; and $500,000 from the Mississippi-based American Family Association.
(Genesis 2:22-24) . . .And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man. 23 Then the man said: “This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man this one was taken.” 24 That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh. . .
(Jude 7) . . .So too Sod′om and Go·mor′rah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.
Any religion who actually understands and obeys gods laws in the bible is against gay marriage ...
What are you talking about? The Mormons and Knights of Columbus paid for the ballots? Those are provided by the government, and no campaigning materials are allowed in voting places. It's illegal. You can't distribute Vote for this or Vote against that at a polling place. So if they did, they wasted a lot of money.
A Vote for 8 is a Vote for Hate
Please vote No on Proposition 8
wanna outlaw religious liberty in America just to be able to marry your unnatural union? why don't you look at what Palestinian muslims do to them, and why their unnatural ones escape into the Jewish state to not be persecuted for their perversion, and go protest them. Don't interfere with religious liberty, unless you want religion to be dictated to you.
It's true that they have contributed a significant amount of money to support Prop. 8, as well as telling their members to donate time and money to support it.
They think they're the moral guardians of the world, frankly.
Contrary to what Yahuwceph thinks freedom of religion means, it means that he CAN'T force his religious beliefs on others, not that he can. You don't believe in same sex marriage? Then you're free to not marry someone of the same sex.
We're only one of the religions and groups that are promoting Prop. 8. There is nothing wrong with what we're doing either. While religions aren't allowed to support particular candidates they can support ballot issues.
I don't know. I don't care. Christ is my King, so the man-made government of California, (where I live), doesn't matter to me.
The whole world is climbing into the hand basket, and all I care is that I'm no part of it.
Mormons are part of it. The KOC are a Catholic fraternal service organization. However, we have very many people here in Cali who aren't Mormons or Catholics yet they vote yes on Prop 8 too.
The Mormons are among those who are in favor of a normal, traditional marriage.
Are the Mormons supporting prop. 8?
Yes.
Are they the only ones?
No.
:]
If you are going to say that maybe you should list all the groups who are doing that I know you hate Mormons but you need to stop generalizing just one group like you always do
idk
All I know is I support the living tradition of family and a couple in love... thus I support gay marriage!!!
them and many other morally upright people(Amen!!!!).cost is no object if its right.God will provide if we honor him.thin hair
Even Obama and Biden have stated they oppose gay marriage. This is not just about marriage, it is also about judicial tyranny. 4 judges overruled a vote of the people and 2,000 years of legal precedence. Is it true that it’s the Mormons who are behind the attempt to get Californians to vote no on gay marriage?
No... the Mormons are just one of the many groups that have been taking up the cause.
I think they think of themselves as Christians, and Americans.
A lot of people are concerned about the way things went down in CA. The people had already voted against it. The judges overturned and rewrote the law. That's not what the court is supposed to do... they are supposed to interpret the law.
I support same-sex marriage, but not the way the issue was handled in CA.
A lot of conservatives and religious people are afraid that if we end up with a liberal president and a supermajority of liberals in the house, there will be more liberals appointed to the court and this might happen again in more conservative states. I think it's a reasonable concern, the court overstepped their boundaries.
Most fundamentalists think they are the moral guardians of whatever. Of course they are wrong, but it is a waste of time to argue the point. The Mormons are fundamentalists in that they accept the Bible as literal and their dogma is that the world was created some 6,000 years ago. They are scientifically challenged.
The Knights of Columbus is a Roman Catholic Church organization that is socially active.
It is a real pity that this church has chosen to interfere with a matter that should be handled State by State!
Religion is the party who has made the stand that a marital union is a man and a woman!
BUT, that does not cover the fact that there are other partners that want the same concession! They are in love, and want to be together. I know many couples who are married! I know many couple who are NOT married! and the ones who are not married, outnumber the ones who are!
Why? Because relationships, and commitment are not defined by a damned piece of paper!
Mormons are not the moral guardians of anything, except their own salvation, and they should just stick to that!! And they should keep their religious opinions to themselves, and stay out of politics!
What this comes down to?, is that they are persecuting Homosexuals, by attempting to deny them the right to be legally joined with the partner of their choice! Something that the Mormons enjoy, whenever they decide to get married!
Persecution is something that they are very familiar with,%26gt;%26gt; even today!
Perhaps they should remember what that feels like, and back off, and mind their own religious business!
You watched Bill Maher last night, huh??
Got to love that guy! He calls them as he sees them%26gt;%26gt; Ethically, and politically!
Mormons are definately contributing to the vote yes on Prop 8 campaign. They have had letters read by their bishops in their weekly meetings. They have organized email and phone campaigns and they are currently behind the ';WAVE'; campaign as well. Apparently 77% of all the money raised for this campaign has come from Mormon families and not all of them from CA.
They were even organizing a phone campaign with the volunteers based in Orem Utah.
I do not know what level the Knights of Columbus' has gone to but you can be assure that one of the main contribuiters to this campaign is the LDS church.
SUPPORTERS have raised $27.7 million, including $1.4 million from the Connecticut-based Knights of Columbus (Catholic Men's Club); $1.1 million from Irvine-based Fieldstead and Co. owned by financier Howard Ahmanson; $900,000 from retired pediatric surgeon John Templeton Jr. of Bryn Mawr, Pa.; and $500,000 from the Mississippi-based American Family Association.
(Genesis 2:22-24) . . .And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man. 23 Then the man said: “This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man this one was taken.” 24 That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh. . .
(Jude 7) . . .So too Sod′om and Go·mor′rah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.
Any religion who actually understands and obeys gods laws in the bible is against gay marriage ...
What are you talking about? The Mormons and Knights of Columbus paid for the ballots? Those are provided by the government, and no campaigning materials are allowed in voting places. It's illegal. You can't distribute Vote for this or Vote against that at a polling place. So if they did, they wasted a lot of money.
A Vote for 8 is a Vote for Hate
Please vote No on Proposition 8
wanna outlaw religious liberty in America just to be able to marry your unnatural union? why don't you look at what Palestinian muslims do to them, and why their unnatural ones escape into the Jewish state to not be persecuted for their perversion, and go protest them. Don't interfere with religious liberty, unless you want religion to be dictated to you.
It's true that they have contributed a significant amount of money to support Prop. 8, as well as telling their members to donate time and money to support it.
They think they're the moral guardians of the world, frankly.
Contrary to what Yahuwceph thinks freedom of religion means, it means that he CAN'T force his religious beliefs on others, not that he can. You don't believe in same sex marriage? Then you're free to not marry someone of the same sex.
We're only one of the religions and groups that are promoting Prop. 8. There is nothing wrong with what we're doing either. While religions aren't allowed to support particular candidates they can support ballot issues.
I don't know. I don't care. Christ is my King, so the man-made government of California, (where I live), doesn't matter to me.
The whole world is climbing into the hand basket, and all I care is that I'm no part of it.
Mormons are part of it. The KOC are a Catholic fraternal service organization. However, we have very many people here in Cali who aren't Mormons or Catholics yet they vote yes on Prop 8 too.
The Mormons are among those who are in favor of a normal, traditional marriage.
Are the Mormons supporting prop. 8?
Yes.
Are they the only ones?
No.
:]
If you are going to say that maybe you should list all the groups who are doing that I know you hate Mormons but you need to stop generalizing just one group like you always do
idk
All I know is I support the living tradition of family and a couple in love... thus I support gay marriage!!!
them and many other morally upright people(Amen!!!!).cost is no object if its right.God will provide if we honor him.
Is It True The Green Jobs Will Cause Double The Unemployment?
A economist said it would, and all the economists I have seen on TV have said all this spending will only work short term, in a year of two we will worse off than now! If we get double the unemployment - we will be in a depression! This is scary!Is It True The Green Jobs Will Cause Double The Unemployment?
No, it is not.
I noticed your lack of any source, either valid or fox, which of course contributes to the invalidity of your supposed point.
Please do some research before posting misleading questions.Is It True The Green Jobs Will Cause Double The Unemployment?
If you want anyone to take you seriously you would provide links to these economists saying these things.
It would appear your statement is a gross distortion of a highly dubious Spanish study.
The study found that government spending on green electricity in its infancy was half as productive in creating jobs as private sector spending within established energy markets.
In 1900 driving a car was less efficient than riding a horse. But with new technology things change.
As such to extrapolate the figures from the Spanish study to all green energy investment in the future is baseless.
To then read ';half as efficient at creating jobs'; means ';double the unemployment'; is simply wrong.
I heard an economist from Spain who are using a lot of green technology say something to the effect that for every 4 jobs created by green tech about 10 other jobs will be lost. The numbers may be off a bit, but that's about right according to him. He also said that the green jobs are not very long term- I didn't quite get why they are short term.
It sounds to me like that's a bad trade off and will definitely increase unemployment.
So-called ';green jobs'; are largely blue-collar jobs building and installing facilities that then require virtually no staffing. Therefore, the jobs end.
Even the manufacture of things like solar panels and turbines for wind are highly mechanized and the assembly is high-tech, largely done by robotic assembly lines. These jobs require technical skills and are not the types of jobs that laid-off workers can move into without substantial retraining.
The biggest problem as far as jobs are concerned is that these energy sources will require fewer workers than the current sources of energy, so there will be far fewer people employed to generate the same amount of power resulting in net unemployment at lower wage scales.
Additionally, marketable and economical ';alternative energy'; is still years away. It's still in the research and development stages and far from providing any significant number of jobs.
The best source of immediate energy and employment would be the construction and staffing of new nuclear facilities.
The US currently gets about 20% of its power from nuclear as opposed to France for instance which gets more than 70% of its power for clean safe nuclear.
Why aren't we doing this???????
Also, we could explore and drill new natural gas and oil wells which would provide more than 500,000 new jobs and end our dependence on foreign oil and stop sending our money overseas.
This is a national security issue as well as a jobs and economic issue.
Why aren't we doing this?????
You are correct.
It is scary that nobody in Congress is using simple common sense.
bash should listen to the news more often. The recent study from Spain stated those ';temporary'; positions, boiled down to one permanent position for every ten; the unemployment rate actually increasing and the operations costly to maintain.
Going ';Green'; could put us further in the ';Red';.
Are these all those GREEN JOBS, that Obama is supposedly going to create... or is this a few that he is now saving.
notice how his promise of creating 3 million new jobs has simply disappeared.... along with a whole lot of his other promises.
Again, you made a statement without any facts to back it up.
Yes what will all the coal miners and oil rig workers do when they ban everything.
Green usually turns to brown around summer time in these parts. So maybe that`s the way we are headed economically too!
Let's just get all the oil now.
Repubes Tea Bag Repubes.
No, it is not.
I noticed your lack of any source, either valid or fox, which of course contributes to the invalidity of your supposed point.
Please do some research before posting misleading questions.Is It True The Green Jobs Will Cause Double The Unemployment?
If you want anyone to take you seriously you would provide links to these economists saying these things.
It would appear your statement is a gross distortion of a highly dubious Spanish study.
The study found that government spending on green electricity in its infancy was half as productive in creating jobs as private sector spending within established energy markets.
In 1900 driving a car was less efficient than riding a horse. But with new technology things change.
As such to extrapolate the figures from the Spanish study to all green energy investment in the future is baseless.
To then read ';half as efficient at creating jobs'; means ';double the unemployment'; is simply wrong.
I heard an economist from Spain who are using a lot of green technology say something to the effect that for every 4 jobs created by green tech about 10 other jobs will be lost. The numbers may be off a bit, but that's about right according to him. He also said that the green jobs are not very long term- I didn't quite get why they are short term.
It sounds to me like that's a bad trade off and will definitely increase unemployment.
So-called ';green jobs'; are largely blue-collar jobs building and installing facilities that then require virtually no staffing. Therefore, the jobs end.
Even the manufacture of things like solar panels and turbines for wind are highly mechanized and the assembly is high-tech, largely done by robotic assembly lines. These jobs require technical skills and are not the types of jobs that laid-off workers can move into without substantial retraining.
The biggest problem as far as jobs are concerned is that these energy sources will require fewer workers than the current sources of energy, so there will be far fewer people employed to generate the same amount of power resulting in net unemployment at lower wage scales.
Additionally, marketable and economical ';alternative energy'; is still years away. It's still in the research and development stages and far from providing any significant number of jobs.
The best source of immediate energy and employment would be the construction and staffing of new nuclear facilities.
The US currently gets about 20% of its power from nuclear as opposed to France for instance which gets more than 70% of its power for clean safe nuclear.
Why aren't we doing this???????
Also, we could explore and drill new natural gas and oil wells which would provide more than 500,000 new jobs and end our dependence on foreign oil and stop sending our money overseas.
This is a national security issue as well as a jobs and economic issue.
Why aren't we doing this?????
You are correct.
It is scary that nobody in Congress is using simple common sense.
bash should listen to the news more often. The recent study from Spain stated those ';temporary'; positions, boiled down to one permanent position for every ten; the unemployment rate actually increasing and the operations costly to maintain.
Going ';Green'; could put us further in the ';Red';.
Are these all those GREEN JOBS, that Obama is supposedly going to create... or is this a few that he is now saving.
notice how his promise of creating 3 million new jobs has simply disappeared.... along with a whole lot of his other promises.
Again, you made a statement without any facts to back it up.
Yes what will all the coal miners and oil rig workers do when they ban everything.
Green usually turns to brown around summer time in these parts. So maybe that`s the way we are headed economically too!
Let's just get all the oil now.
Repubes Tea Bag Repubes.
Is it true that shaving your face Makes the hair grow faster?
I was just wondering. Has anybody ever done a experiment or something????Is it true that shaving your face Makes the hair grow faster?
Old wives tale, It does not!Is it true that shaving your face Makes the hair grow faster?
I'm a nurse. Yes, and it also it worked for my brother.
NO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT.
It is false that shaving your face makes the hair grow faster. Shaving does create hair with uneven edges and that gives the effect of faster growth.
NO! MTV used to have a show called (myth of fact) or something like that anyway they had the same question and it was a myth.
yes faster and thicker
well it's not true for my legs
nope.
I shave my legs and they do and also they grow in darker and a lot thinker it gets really sick so dont shave if u really dont have to..-- Happy New Year-- 2007!!
yes my b/f did it and he got pimples where he did that %26amp; his skin was always clear.!
yes and it also sometimes make it grow longer!!!!!!!
shaving anywhere makes the hair grow faster and darker.
Nope. It's an old wives tale.
No, your body does not even know the hair has been cut, so how can it respond by growing faster? The part you cut is dead. Hair grows at the predetermined rate set by your genes at conception, unless you are sick or undernourished.
No. Period. Its just a myth.
YEPPers it does make your hair grow faster and faster as you get older too!
Old wives tale, It does not!Is it true that shaving your face Makes the hair grow faster?
I'm a nurse. Yes, and it also it worked for my brother.
NO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT.
It is false that shaving your face makes the hair grow faster. Shaving does create hair with uneven edges and that gives the effect of faster growth.
NO! MTV used to have a show called (myth of fact) or something like that anyway they had the same question and it was a myth.
yes faster and thicker
well it's not true for my legs
nope.
I shave my legs and they do and also they grow in darker and a lot thinker it gets really sick so dont shave if u really dont have to..-- Happy New Year-- 2007!!
yes my b/f did it and he got pimples where he did that %26amp; his skin was always clear.!
yes and it also sometimes make it grow longer!!!!!!!
shaving anywhere makes the hair grow faster and darker.
Nope. It's an old wives tale.
No, your body does not even know the hair has been cut, so how can it respond by growing faster? The part you cut is dead. Hair grows at the predetermined rate set by your genes at conception, unless you are sick or undernourished.
No. Period. Its just a myth.
YEPPers it does make your hair grow faster and faster as you get older too!
Is it true that post demolision of the Babri Masjid, a number of temples in India were pulled down?
I am not aware of this matter. Can someone who knows about it explain for the benefit of the readers? Let not one side alone be highlighted.
TRY TO BE FACTUALY CORRECT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~鈥?br>
POSTED ON YA! INDIA. OTHERS PLEASE EXCUSE.Is it true that post demolision of the Babri Masjid, a number of temples in India were pulled down?
Temples means what ?? Term demolition can only be used when the big structure like babri masjid is razed down. See you find in every nook and corner in every city with a';SMALL STONE EGRAVED WITH ITS GOD OR GODESS';and you.can not say these as temples and if it is damaged or demolished for other civic reasons cannot be termed AS ';TEMPLE DEMOLITION';.since these are not templesIs it true that post demolision of the Babri Masjid, a number of temples in India were pulled down?
No voice is raised when masjids are demolished to widen the roads in Muslim Countries.
This freedom is given in our country only. Here the Muslims are hyper-sensitive or they pretend to be. Daily Fatwas are announced on baseless issues. In some cities they don't hesitate to put Pakistani flag on roof tops but but but...... we too have Muslims like Dr. APJ KALAM and there are so many like him. They feel proud to be Indian and India feels proud of them.
Demolition of Babri Masjid was an enacted play for political gains and will remain alive till the present communal breed of politicians is alive. None of them is secular.
Our temples were demolished, divine statues of our Gods were broken into pieces, statues of Budha blasted in Afghanistan but no one cried except Hindus. We also have sentiments but we do not make an issue. We want to live in peace so let us live in peace. Those who feel uncomfortable here may leave any time.
YES. NOT ANY MAJOR TEMPLES HOWEVER. MOST WERE EITHER STONED OR DESECRATED AND NOT FULLY RAZED DOWN. SAME WITH MANY MOSQUES AND DARGAHS ALL OVER INDIA. THESE TEMPLE/ MOSQUE ATTACKS WERE NOT REPORTED THEN BECAUSE OF GOVT.'S MEDIA CENSORSHIP.
JUST WENT OVER THIS REDIFF REPORT WHICH SAYS: ';On December 8, the rioting spread alarmingly and attacks on places of worship continued: ';Eleven temples in different jurisdictions were damaged, demolished or set on fire.'; (Police records show 42 temples and 4 mosques destroyed.)......';
ACCORDING TO ANOTHER SOURCE: IN KASHMIR, POST BABRI DEMOLITION -
^ MANY DHARAMSHALAS IN Uma Nagari (Bari Aghan) %26amp; Vethwatroo (Vetastha) WHICH WERE BURNT.
^ A SHIVA TEMPLE IN Verinag WAS DAMAGED.
^ Tirth Raj Asthapan in Anantanag WAS DAMAGED.
^ Durga Temple at Kakran WAS COMPLETELY BURNT.
^ Shiva Bhagwati At Akingam WAS BURNT ALONG WITH DHARAMSHALA.
^ Kulwagishiri Asthapan Kulgam IN KULGAM WAS BURNT.
....AND SO ON.....
Count the total number of temples attacked looted and broken in India, Pakistan and B'desh.
Mehdi finds small statues as nothing
What about the Babri structure where no namaz was offered for dozens of years (perhaps from during british times).
I just wish to know Muslim want to be recognised with BABAR or with APJ Kalaam ?
If they have more sympathy with babar let them go to pakistan.
BTW CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ONly Krishna temple in Lahore ????
The greatest genocide in history was perpetrated by muslims upon the peaceful hindus / buddhists at the turn of the first millenia. Upwards to 1 billion hindus / buddhists were butched over several hundred years of Jihad. I wouldnt blame the non-muslims of India for leveling every single Mosque on their soil. In fact, Im suprised they havent.
Unfortunately it is true.One of the main example was restoration of Somnath temple By None other then Prime minister Pt. Nehru.
and for facts go google and type temples destroyed by Muslims in India, you will find videos, blogs,historic facts wikipedia details, dedicated websites.
Edit-1 TO mehdi who supports jihad against gujarat public, just because they democraticaly elected Modi ,again shows his true communal face.Just look out his question below
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind鈥?/a>
no masjid was demolished only a dilapitaded and abandoned place.
If a sadistic pleasure of wrting the sentence 'a number of temples in India were pulled down' is derived, one cannot help it.
TRY TO BE FACTUALY CORRECT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~鈥?br>
POSTED ON YA! INDIA. OTHERS PLEASE EXCUSE.Is it true that post demolision of the Babri Masjid, a number of temples in India were pulled down?
Temples means what ?? Term demolition can only be used when the big structure like babri masjid is razed down. See you find in every nook and corner in every city with a';SMALL STONE EGRAVED WITH ITS GOD OR GODESS';and you.can not say these as temples and if it is damaged or demolished for other civic reasons cannot be termed AS ';TEMPLE DEMOLITION';.since these are not templesIs it true that post demolision of the Babri Masjid, a number of temples in India were pulled down?
No voice is raised when masjids are demolished to widen the roads in Muslim Countries.
This freedom is given in our country only. Here the Muslims are hyper-sensitive or they pretend to be. Daily Fatwas are announced on baseless issues. In some cities they don't hesitate to put Pakistani flag on roof tops but but but...... we too have Muslims like Dr. APJ KALAM and there are so many like him. They feel proud to be Indian and India feels proud of them.
Demolition of Babri Masjid was an enacted play for political gains and will remain alive till the present communal breed of politicians is alive. None of them is secular.
Our temples were demolished, divine statues of our Gods were broken into pieces, statues of Budha blasted in Afghanistan but no one cried except Hindus. We also have sentiments but we do not make an issue. We want to live in peace so let us live in peace. Those who feel uncomfortable here may leave any time.
YES. NOT ANY MAJOR TEMPLES HOWEVER. MOST WERE EITHER STONED OR DESECRATED AND NOT FULLY RAZED DOWN. SAME WITH MANY MOSQUES AND DARGAHS ALL OVER INDIA. THESE TEMPLE/ MOSQUE ATTACKS WERE NOT REPORTED THEN BECAUSE OF GOVT.'S MEDIA CENSORSHIP.
JUST WENT OVER THIS REDIFF REPORT WHICH SAYS: ';On December 8, the rioting spread alarmingly and attacks on places of worship continued: ';Eleven temples in different jurisdictions were damaged, demolished or set on fire.'; (Police records show 42 temples and 4 mosques destroyed.)......';
ACCORDING TO ANOTHER SOURCE: IN KASHMIR, POST BABRI DEMOLITION -
^ MANY DHARAMSHALAS IN Uma Nagari (Bari Aghan) %26amp; Vethwatroo (Vetastha) WHICH WERE BURNT.
^ A SHIVA TEMPLE IN Verinag WAS DAMAGED.
^ Tirth Raj Asthapan in Anantanag WAS DAMAGED.
^ Durga Temple at Kakran WAS COMPLETELY BURNT.
^ Shiva Bhagwati At Akingam WAS BURNT ALONG WITH DHARAMSHALA.
^ Kulwagishiri Asthapan Kulgam IN KULGAM WAS BURNT.
....AND SO ON.....
Count the total number of temples attacked looted and broken in India, Pakistan and B'desh.
Mehdi finds small statues as nothing
What about the Babri structure where no namaz was offered for dozens of years (perhaps from during british times).
I just wish to know Muslim want to be recognised with BABAR or with APJ Kalaam ?
If they have more sympathy with babar let them go to pakistan.
BTW CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ONly Krishna temple in Lahore ????
The greatest genocide in history was perpetrated by muslims upon the peaceful hindus / buddhists at the turn of the first millenia. Upwards to 1 billion hindus / buddhists were butched over several hundred years of Jihad. I wouldnt blame the non-muslims of India for leveling every single Mosque on their soil. In fact, Im suprised they havent.
Unfortunately it is true.One of the main example was restoration of Somnath temple By None other then Prime minister Pt. Nehru.
and for facts go google and type temples destroyed by Muslims in India, you will find videos, blogs,historic facts wikipedia details, dedicated websites.
Edit-1 TO mehdi who supports jihad against gujarat public, just because they democraticaly elected Modi ,again shows his true communal face.Just look out his question below
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind鈥?/a>
no masjid was demolished only a dilapitaded and abandoned place.
If a sadistic pleasure of wrting the sentence 'a number of temples in India were pulled down' is derived, one cannot help it.
Is it true that dog flea medication can kill cats?
My dogs have fleas and I bought dog flea medication, but I haven't used it 'cause I'm concerned about my cats. It's a flea med called 'advantage'. Help???Is it true that dog flea medication can kill cats?
Yes, it's true...for some products. It's the permethrin in the dog flea product that's the problem. It can be especially toxic to cats. Even more confusing is that it is sometimes found in products labeled safe for cats. (???)
Advantage, though, should be just fine. Just be sure not to give the dog's dose to the cat. Get the feline version for the cat, since all animals in the home need to be treated, for effective flea control.Is it true that dog flea medication can kill cats?
A few years ago when products like Advantage and Frontline were getting popular it was actually on the news. Quite a few cats had died from using the dog version on cats. The dog version is deadly in cats. Even the over the counter stuff you can get at a drug store or local walmart will have a warning label on the back that you cannot use the dog version on cat's. It will cause a cat to have seisures and die. It should be fine to use the dog version on your dogs as long as you don't actually apply the medicine directly to your cat. For that buy it it's own cat version and you should be fine.
Read the package and the inserts. Generally speaking, it depends on the chemical used. Permethrin (sp?) WILL kill cats but I do not think advantage or the other 'name brand' flea topicals contain it.
Advantage is very good on cats with fleas, but ADVANTIX can kill cats. Of course, they don't make a cat formula, but you might want to be careful using it on dogs that your cat gets exposed to.
I dont think it would KILL them, but the concern is the dosage,, there is usually a lot more for a dog, esp. if it is bigger.
Yes, it is. There is a chemical that i forgot the name of but I believe it starts with a P. Talk with your vet about flea medicine that is OK for your cat
Better to stick with Advantage or one like it. They also have the same for cats. If your dogs has flees your cat will too.
yes, my sister put frontline top spot on her cat and it killed the cat and her kittens, always read the label! if not sure do not use!!!
Yes, it's true...for some products. It's the permethrin in the dog flea product that's the problem. It can be especially toxic to cats. Even more confusing is that it is sometimes found in products labeled safe for cats. (???)
Advantage, though, should be just fine. Just be sure not to give the dog's dose to the cat. Get the feline version for the cat, since all animals in the home need to be treated, for effective flea control.Is it true that dog flea medication can kill cats?
A few years ago when products like Advantage and Frontline were getting popular it was actually on the news. Quite a few cats had died from using the dog version on cats. The dog version is deadly in cats. Even the over the counter stuff you can get at a drug store or local walmart will have a warning label on the back that you cannot use the dog version on cat's. It will cause a cat to have seisures and die. It should be fine to use the dog version on your dogs as long as you don't actually apply the medicine directly to your cat. For that buy it it's own cat version and you should be fine.
Read the package and the inserts. Generally speaking, it depends on the chemical used. Permethrin (sp?) WILL kill cats but I do not think advantage or the other 'name brand' flea topicals contain it.
Advantage is very good on cats with fleas, but ADVANTIX can kill cats. Of course, they don't make a cat formula, but you might want to be careful using it on dogs that your cat gets exposed to.
I dont think it would KILL them, but the concern is the dosage,, there is usually a lot more for a dog, esp. if it is bigger.
Yes, it is. There is a chemical that i forgot the name of but I believe it starts with a P. Talk with your vet about flea medicine that is OK for your cat
Better to stick with Advantage or one like it. They also have the same for cats. If your dogs has flees your cat will too.
yes, my sister put frontline top spot on her cat and it killed the cat and her kittens, always read the label! if not sure do not use!!!
Is it true that in the Old Testament that God tells the Israelites that they can rape Canaanite women?
I've been reading through the New Testament, and I haven't had time to go through the whole Old Testament. Is there a section in there where God tells the Israelite men that they can rape Canaanite women? If so, please give me specific passages from the Bible. Thanks. I know that things are different now. They don't defend rape at my church or at any other church that I know of.Is it true that in the Old Testament that God tells the Israelites that they can rape Canaanite women?
yes its true, because canaanite women had big hootersIs it true that in the Old Testament that God tells the Israelites that they can rape Canaanite women?
I don't think this speaks of the Canaanites specifically but it does speak toward raping women being ok
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
No. The Canaanite women could be taken as WIVES, if they CHOSE to be taken as wives. An Israelite male was commanded to take her into his house, and give her several months (I think 3, but its been a while since I learned this, it might be more). During those months he is not to touch her. These months are for her to grieve any family she lost in the battle, any husband who might have been killed, etc.
After that amount of time, the Israelite may marry her IF SHE AGREES to the marriage.
There is no rape.
No. Actually if the people of a city were taken over when the Israelite armies conquered them they could marry a woman if they found they liked them but they could not treat them with disrespect. That is probably in Deuteronomy because I just finished reading it a few weeks ago.
I remember years ago reading a passage that contributed (old testement or not) to giving up my christian faith.
A man seeks shelter in the home of one of God's men. When the sinful town-folks hear that the man of god is in-town, the try to break down the door and tell the home owner to send out his guest so they can defile him (butt rape him). As the visitor is a man of God, the homeowner instead sends out his daughter and tells the hostile crowd instead of harming a man of god, to take his daughter instead (as women are useless in the old testement anyway right). So the daughter goes out, and is RAPED TO DEATH by the crowd.
God? WTF?
YEP. IT'S ALL THERE. THIGH SAID, ';ISRAELITES, GO GET YOURSELF SOME CANAANITE ASS.';';
DID THOU KNOW THAT A VADGE CAN PUSH OUT A BEANUS?
bible had been changed and after that it changed people to crazy
I have NEVER read such a thing.
GOD bless
No, of course not. It's all in the context.
I don't recall exactly, but I think it's probably even worse than that.
There are some places -- Book of Joshua, I think -- where God demands that the invading Israelites simply kill all of the Canaanites %26amp; destroy their entire culture, even to the point of slaughtering their animals.
God supposedly gets angry at Joshua and his followers because rather than carry out the total genocide that's been ordered, some victorious Israelites have been enslaving Canaanite men and raping the women, turning them into concubines. God supposedly hates this, because he wants all of the Canaanites annihilated without mercy instead.
God says to Joshua (If I remember correctly) that keeping even a few Canaanites alive will lead to the pollution of Israelite religion by Canaanite ';abominations.';
This probably reflects the fiercely anti-idolatry position of some Jewish priest or scribe who wrote the Book of Joshua long after the invasion of Canaan supposedly occurred.
Historically, Israelite society continued to engage in the worship of foreign gods %26amp; idols until long after the reign of King Solomon, as reflected in some of the religous civil wars fought over this issue in the time of the prophet Elijah.
In the Book of Joshua, I think some scribe is looking back hundreds of years to the founding of Israel and Judah and saying, ';We should have killed them all when we first took this land from them; by letting the women survive as concubines, we've allowed idolatry to flourish.';
It's a nasty idea, has no good place in the Bible, I think. But it reflects the mentality of the times..
What you're asking about rape of defeated enemies by Israelite men could also be asked of many different ancient cultures, though.
War in ancient times -- and until very recently, in some places -- was often an excuse for mass rape, along with the looting %26amp; enslavement of a defeated city or defeated culture.
The Roman historian Livy mentions this practice several times in his history of Republican Rome. I think it's also implicit in the Greek tale of the Illiad; after the fall of Troy, the vast majority of Trojan women who survive are probably fated to be raped and turned into concubines by the Greek men. I believe some of the Greek playrights later addressed this subject in tragedies centered around the fate of the Trojan women.
I beleive that during the Christian Middle Ages in Europe, too, the ';sacking'; of a defeated city by a victorious army could involve a lot of rape. The Vikings certainly were farmous for this when they attacked Christian cities and farms at the end of the Dark Ages.
And much too often, we also see mass rapes still occurring in a war-time context in modern times.
Noted examples include the horrifying Japanese rape of Nanking in 1937; the mass rapes that accompanied wars of Serbs against Muslims in Bosnia in the 1990s, and the mass rapes that accompany tribal wars in the Congo today.
See Susan Brownmiller, ';Against Our Will';
http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/susanbro…
Judges 21:10-24 (New King James Version)
10 So the congregation sent out there twelve thousand of their most valiant men, and commanded them, saying, “Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead with the edge of the sword, including the women and children. 11 And this is the thing that you shall do: You shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman who has known a man intimately.” 12 So they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known a man intimately; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
13 Then the whole congregation sent word to the children of Benjamin who were at the rock of Rimmon, and announced peace to them. 14 So Benjamin came back at that time, and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh Gilead; and yet they had not found enough for them.
15 And the people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a void in the tribes of Israel.
16 Then the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who remain, since the women of Benjamin have been destroyed?” 17 And they said, “There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe may not be destroyed from Israel. 18 However, we cannot give them wives from our daughters, for the children of Israel have sworn an oath, saying, ‘Cursed be the one who gives a wife to Benjamin.’” 19 Then they said, “In fact, there is a yearly feast of the LORD in Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”
20 Therefore they instructed the children of Benjamin, saying, “Go, lie in wait in the vineyards, 21 and watch; and just when the daughters of Shiloh come out to perform their dances, then come out from the vineyards, and every man catch a wife for himself from the daughters of Shiloh; then go to the land of Benjamin. 22 Then it shall be, when their fathers or their brothers come to us to complain, that we will say to them, ‘Be kind to them for our sakes, because we did not take a wife for any of them in the war; for it is not as though you have given the women to them at this time, making yourselves guilty of your oath.’”
23 And the children of Benjamin did so; they took enough wives for their number from those who danced, whom they caught. Then they went and returned to their inheritance, and they rebuilt the cities and dwelt in them. 24 So the children of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family; they went out from there, every man to his inheritance.
If the men lie in wait for the women, ';catch'; them, and take them, it doesn't sound like the women are being given any say in becoming the men's ';wives';. That's rape. But of course that's only the virgin women, seeing as all the non-virgins were already slaughtered, ya know.
yes its true, because canaanite women had big hootersIs it true that in the Old Testament that God tells the Israelites that they can rape Canaanite women?
I don't think this speaks of the Canaanites specifically but it does speak toward raping women being ok
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
No. The Canaanite women could be taken as WIVES, if they CHOSE to be taken as wives. An Israelite male was commanded to take her into his house, and give her several months (I think 3, but its been a while since I learned this, it might be more). During those months he is not to touch her. These months are for her to grieve any family she lost in the battle, any husband who might have been killed, etc.
After that amount of time, the Israelite may marry her IF SHE AGREES to the marriage.
There is no rape.
No. Actually if the people of a city were taken over when the Israelite armies conquered them they could marry a woman if they found they liked them but they could not treat them with disrespect. That is probably in Deuteronomy because I just finished reading it a few weeks ago.
I remember years ago reading a passage that contributed (old testement or not) to giving up my christian faith.
A man seeks shelter in the home of one of God's men. When the sinful town-folks hear that the man of god is in-town, the try to break down the door and tell the home owner to send out his guest so they can defile him (butt rape him). As the visitor is a man of God, the homeowner instead sends out his daughter and tells the hostile crowd instead of harming a man of god, to take his daughter instead (as women are useless in the old testement anyway right). So the daughter goes out, and is RAPED TO DEATH by the crowd.
God? WTF?
YEP. IT'S ALL THERE. THIGH SAID, ';ISRAELITES, GO GET YOURSELF SOME CANAANITE ASS.';';
DID THOU KNOW THAT A VADGE CAN PUSH OUT A BEANUS?
bible had been changed and after that it changed people to crazy
I have NEVER read such a thing.
GOD bless
No, of course not. It's all in the context.
I don't recall exactly, but I think it's probably even worse than that.
There are some places -- Book of Joshua, I think -- where God demands that the invading Israelites simply kill all of the Canaanites %26amp; destroy their entire culture, even to the point of slaughtering their animals.
God supposedly gets angry at Joshua and his followers because rather than carry out the total genocide that's been ordered, some victorious Israelites have been enslaving Canaanite men and raping the women, turning them into concubines. God supposedly hates this, because he wants all of the Canaanites annihilated without mercy instead.
God says to Joshua (If I remember correctly) that keeping even a few Canaanites alive will lead to the pollution of Israelite religion by Canaanite ';abominations.';
This probably reflects the fiercely anti-idolatry position of some Jewish priest or scribe who wrote the Book of Joshua long after the invasion of Canaan supposedly occurred.
Historically, Israelite society continued to engage in the worship of foreign gods %26amp; idols until long after the reign of King Solomon, as reflected in some of the religous civil wars fought over this issue in the time of the prophet Elijah.
In the Book of Joshua, I think some scribe is looking back hundreds of years to the founding of Israel and Judah and saying, ';We should have killed them all when we first took this land from them; by letting the women survive as concubines, we've allowed idolatry to flourish.';
It's a nasty idea, has no good place in the Bible, I think. But it reflects the mentality of the times..
What you're asking about rape of defeated enemies by Israelite men could also be asked of many different ancient cultures, though.
War in ancient times -- and until very recently, in some places -- was often an excuse for mass rape, along with the looting %26amp; enslavement of a defeated city or defeated culture.
The Roman historian Livy mentions this practice several times in his history of Republican Rome. I think it's also implicit in the Greek tale of the Illiad; after the fall of Troy, the vast majority of Trojan women who survive are probably fated to be raped and turned into concubines by the Greek men. I believe some of the Greek playrights later addressed this subject in tragedies centered around the fate of the Trojan women.
I beleive that during the Christian Middle Ages in Europe, too, the ';sacking'; of a defeated city by a victorious army could involve a lot of rape. The Vikings certainly were farmous for this when they attacked Christian cities and farms at the end of the Dark Ages.
And much too often, we also see mass rapes still occurring in a war-time context in modern times.
Noted examples include the horrifying Japanese rape of Nanking in 1937; the mass rapes that accompanied wars of Serbs against Muslims in Bosnia in the 1990s, and the mass rapes that accompany tribal wars in the Congo today.
See Susan Brownmiller, ';Against Our Will';
http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/susanbro…
Judges 21:10-24 (New King James Version)
10 So the congregation sent out there twelve thousand of their most valiant men, and commanded them, saying, “Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead with the edge of the sword, including the women and children. 11 And this is the thing that you shall do: You shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman who has known a man intimately.” 12 So they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known a man intimately; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
13 Then the whole congregation sent word to the children of Benjamin who were at the rock of Rimmon, and announced peace to them. 14 So Benjamin came back at that time, and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh Gilead; and yet they had not found enough for them.
15 And the people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a void in the tribes of Israel.
16 Then the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who remain, since the women of Benjamin have been destroyed?” 17 And they said, “There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe may not be destroyed from Israel. 18 However, we cannot give them wives from our daughters, for the children of Israel have sworn an oath, saying, ‘Cursed be the one who gives a wife to Benjamin.’” 19 Then they said, “In fact, there is a yearly feast of the LORD in Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”
20 Therefore they instructed the children of Benjamin, saying, “Go, lie in wait in the vineyards, 21 and watch; and just when the daughters of Shiloh come out to perform their dances, then come out from the vineyards, and every man catch a wife for himself from the daughters of Shiloh; then go to the land of Benjamin. 22 Then it shall be, when their fathers or their brothers come to us to complain, that we will say to them, ‘Be kind to them for our sakes, because we did not take a wife for any of them in the war; for it is not as though you have given the women to them at this time, making yourselves guilty of your oath.’”
23 And the children of Benjamin did so; they took enough wives for their number from those who danced, whom they caught. Then they went and returned to their inheritance, and they rebuilt the cities and dwelt in them. 24 So the children of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family; they went out from there, every man to his inheritance.
If the men lie in wait for the women, ';catch'; them, and take them, it doesn't sound like the women are being given any say in becoming the men's ';wives';. That's rape. But of course that's only the virgin women, seeing as all the non-virgins were already slaughtered, ya know.
Is it true that Taylor Swift's daddy paid her way through fame?
I saw some people talking about it and I just wanted to know what's up with that I mean she is a fantastic singer.Is it true that Taylor Swift's daddy paid her way through fame?
Ignore them
I'm not a Swift fan or hater,
but the haters will make up a lot of stories
she is having fun
and apparently she connects to a lot of young kids
hopefully some of them will stick around to discover the rest of the country artists
edit
any one familiar with the business knows,
money can open a couple doors early,
but it can't make you a star by itself.Is it true that Taylor Swift's daddy paid her way through fame?
NO.... Taylor was discovered singing at a cafe, her dad didn't pay for her. Plus, her dad is a financial adviser or something like that, Taylor said he's always given her tips for spending money. Do you think that includes paying your daughters way through fame?
Her daddy can't pay her fans off bc I haven't recieved a check in the mail from any Swifts
As my Daddy always says: ';It takes money to make money.'; But no, in order to be a successful singer you must have a talent people like, and you can't buy talent. Her dad may have bought her guitars and moved her to nashville but it's not like he bribed anyone to give her a chance.
I think they confused her with Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks.
no that's miley cyrus taylor swift she had to work for it
No Taylor Swift worked very hard to get where she is today! She's amazing!
I don't think so. Maybe you should state your source so we can discuss it.
I'm not a Swift fan either,but that's just plain dumb.
no! she went around in nashville herself giving out demos and saying ';Hi, Im Taylor and I want a record deal.'; shes awsome!thin hair
Ignore them
I'm not a Swift fan or hater,
but the haters will make up a lot of stories
she is having fun
and apparently she connects to a lot of young kids
hopefully some of them will stick around to discover the rest of the country artists
edit
any one familiar with the business knows,
money can open a couple doors early,
but it can't make you a star by itself.Is it true that Taylor Swift's daddy paid her way through fame?
NO.... Taylor was discovered singing at a cafe, her dad didn't pay for her. Plus, her dad is a financial adviser or something like that, Taylor said he's always given her tips for spending money. Do you think that includes paying your daughters way through fame?
Her daddy can't pay her fans off bc I haven't recieved a check in the mail from any Swifts
As my Daddy always says: ';It takes money to make money.'; But no, in order to be a successful singer you must have a talent people like, and you can't buy talent. Her dad may have bought her guitars and moved her to nashville but it's not like he bribed anyone to give her a chance.
I think they confused her with Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks.
no that's miley cyrus taylor swift she had to work for it
No Taylor Swift worked very hard to get where she is today! She's amazing!
I don't think so. Maybe you should state your source so we can discuss it.
I'm not a Swift fan either,but that's just plain dumb.
no! she went around in nashville herself giving out demos and saying ';Hi, Im Taylor and I want a record deal.'; shes awsome!
Is it true that women are lighter sleepers than men?
I keep hearing that women were thought to be lighter sleepers than men. Take for instance, I heard a different rumor that a girl below her 20's may be a heavier sleeper than a woman who is already a mother.
If any of these rumors are true, by how much are they lighter sleepers?Is it true that women are lighter sleepers than men?
I don't make a habit of deliberately waking people up from their sleep just to satisfy my own curiosity.
If you really want to know, perhaps you should carry out the experiment yourself and see how long it takes for them to knock you the f*ck out for waking them up repeatedly.Is it true that women are lighter sleepers than men?
I have Ninja like reflexes that wake me if disturbed by the slightest sound.
I had a girlfriend who could sleep through anything.
I even recorded her extremely loud snoring as proof.
Our relationship was never the same after I played that recording back to her.
Definitely, yes!!
Before I became a mother, I slept DEEP -- no problem at all, nothing could wake me up! And I would sleep for 10-12 hours per day!
Now I only sleep 6-7 hours per day (if I'm lucky!!!) and its VERY LIGHT sleep at that..
Every man I've ever known sleeps WAY deeper..
Not after they feel my trombone.
They sleep like logs after I give them a big orgasm.
If any of these rumors are true, by how much are they lighter sleepers?Is it true that women are lighter sleepers than men?
I don't make a habit of deliberately waking people up from their sleep just to satisfy my own curiosity.
If you really want to know, perhaps you should carry out the experiment yourself and see how long it takes for them to knock you the f*ck out for waking them up repeatedly.Is it true that women are lighter sleepers than men?
I have Ninja like reflexes that wake me if disturbed by the slightest sound.
I had a girlfriend who could sleep through anything.
I even recorded her extremely loud snoring as proof.
Our relationship was never the same after I played that recording back to her.
Definitely, yes!!
Before I became a mother, I slept DEEP -- no problem at all, nothing could wake me up! And I would sleep for 10-12 hours per day!
Now I only sleep 6-7 hours per day (if I'm lucky!!!) and its VERY LIGHT sleep at that..
Every man I've ever known sleeps WAY deeper..
Not after they feel my trombone.
They sleep like logs after I give them a big orgasm.
Is it true that registry cleaning programs can harm your computer?
Recently I sent my computer in reparation and the guy who repaired it for me said that programs such as cc-cleaner, registry booster, etc... can harm a computer because it starts playing in registry files.
Now. my computer has problems and as I repaired about 6 weeks ago and obviously don't want to return where I repaired it, Is it a good idea to use a registry cleaner type of program? or will that make things worse? Thanks.Is it true that registry cleaning programs can harm your computer?
It depends, CCleaner doesn't touch the registry unless you use the registry tab. Generally, you should only have to clean up the registry if an experienced tech tells you to.
In my experience, I've never had a problem using CCleaner's registry cleaner function regularly (about every month or so).Is it true that registry cleaning programs can harm your computer?
Well yes messing with your registry can make your computer unstable, But it is not true all the time programs like ccleaner only clean the basics and important stuff so it is unlikely to mess up your PC. I myself use ccleaner registry cleaner all the time it did not harm my PC. if your PC gets mes up a lot why don't you install a anti virus use windows update, defragment your PC auslogic disk defragment is good, use ccleaner. Also go and check out iobit.com it has great PC utilities software's.
';Is it true that registry cleaning programs can harm your computer?';
No, it's not true, it's a generalization. Like any other class of software, 'registry cleaners' range from Awesome to El Toro CaCa. And, cCleaner is one of the best out there, in my personal experience. Cleaning the Registry is a ';last resort';, and rarely makes any significant difference in reliability or performance. And, ensuring that your PC is (1) fully patched, and (2) Malware free, are the first things to do.
But, I suspect you are making the erroneous assumption that your computer problems are directly related to bad Registry Entries.
So, please re-post and describe your EXACT problem, with full word for word Error Messages, and then maybe, we can help you figure out what is REALLY wrong. Start by telling us what the Technician repaired last time.
A registry cleaner is a type of software utility designed for the Microsoft Windows operating system whose purpose is to remove redundant or unwanted items from the Windows registry. However the necessity and usefulness of registry cleaners is a controversial topic, with experts not agreeing on their benefit. The problem is further clouded by the fact that malware and scareware is often associated with utilities of this type.
Clean your Registry can make your computer faster
%26lt;--http://registry-checking.com
There are top 5 registry cleaners softwares' reviews in 2009.
Which can fix your computer error.
Clean your Registry can make your computer faster
%26lt;--http://registry-computer-cleaner.com/
Now. my computer has problems and as I repaired about 6 weeks ago and obviously don't want to return where I repaired it, Is it a good idea to use a registry cleaner type of program? or will that make things worse? Thanks.Is it true that registry cleaning programs can harm your computer?
It depends, CCleaner doesn't touch the registry unless you use the registry tab. Generally, you should only have to clean up the registry if an experienced tech tells you to.
In my experience, I've never had a problem using CCleaner's registry cleaner function regularly (about every month or so).Is it true that registry cleaning programs can harm your computer?
Well yes messing with your registry can make your computer unstable, But it is not true all the time programs like ccleaner only clean the basics and important stuff so it is unlikely to mess up your PC. I myself use ccleaner registry cleaner all the time it did not harm my PC. if your PC gets mes up a lot why don't you install a anti virus use windows update, defragment your PC auslogic disk defragment is good, use ccleaner. Also go and check out iobit.com it has great PC utilities software's.
';Is it true that registry cleaning programs can harm your computer?';
No, it's not true, it's a generalization. Like any other class of software, 'registry cleaners' range from Awesome to El Toro CaCa. And, cCleaner is one of the best out there, in my personal experience. Cleaning the Registry is a ';last resort';, and rarely makes any significant difference in reliability or performance. And, ensuring that your PC is (1) fully patched, and (2) Malware free, are the first things to do.
But, I suspect you are making the erroneous assumption that your computer problems are directly related to bad Registry Entries.
So, please re-post and describe your EXACT problem, with full word for word Error Messages, and then maybe, we can help you figure out what is REALLY wrong. Start by telling us what the Technician repaired last time.
A registry cleaner is a type of software utility designed for the Microsoft Windows operating system whose purpose is to remove redundant or unwanted items from the Windows registry. However the necessity and usefulness of registry cleaners is a controversial topic, with experts not agreeing on their benefit. The problem is further clouded by the fact that malware and scareware is often associated with utilities of this type.
Clean your Registry can make your computer faster
%26lt;--http://registry-checking.com
There are top 5 registry cleaners softwares' reviews in 2009.
Which can fix your computer error.
Clean your Registry can make your computer faster
%26lt;--http://registry-computer-cleaner.com/
Is it true that Muslims do not consume alcohol?
It is against their religion? I would then imagine there are no liquor stores in the country the live the most in.Is it true that Muslims do not consume alcohol?
You are right about the lack of liquor stores in muslim countries. And you are right that muslims are not ';supposed'; to consume alcohol. However, like many ';christians';, many muslims do not always follow the rule book. The wealthier ones, especially, that have very private homes, have satellite TV dishes and a liquor cabinet. I shared a boardinghouse some years ago with an exchange student from Iran that told me about some of this stuff and I have also read about it in some other places.
Blessings on your Journey!Is it true that Muslims do not consume alcohol?
Mohammad himself drank wine:
Narrated by Gaber bin Abdullah:
We were with the messenger of Allah %26amp; he asked for a drink. One of his men said: ';Oh Messenger of Allah, Can we offer you wine to drink?'; He said Yes. He (Gaber) went out looking for the drink and came back with a cup of wine....
The messenger (Peace Be Upon him) asked: ”Have you fermented it, even with one piece of ferment?” He (Gaber) said ';yes'; and he (Muhammad) drank. Sahih Muslim - Hadith #3753
Muhammad Performed Ablution With Wine:
Narrated by Abdullah bin Masoud (May God be pleased with him): ...
He was with the Messenger of Allah pbuh on the night of the jinn when he asked him if he had water. He answered that he had wine in a pot. Mohammed said: Pour me some to do ablution %26amp; he did. [The] Prophet pbuh [said]: ';O Abdullah bin Masood it is a purified drink.';Hadith #3594
Muslims take homeopathic medicines and these medicines HAVE alcohol. But muslims pretend to be holier than thou and claim that they don't consume alcohol.
It is true that their religion forbids them to do so.
It does actually forbid them to get drunk, but it's a technicality.
It is NOT true, however, that all muslims abide by that rule.
And it depends on the country. Turkey is a muslim country, albeit secular, and alcohol is legal there.
If there is not a variant of fundamentalist Islam in power and/or the country has significant non-Muslim population, odds are there will be liquor stores around.
Islam goals is to cosnserve; soul, so killing is forbidden;brain, so alcohol is forbidden; good reputation, so rape is forbidden; money, so stealing is forbidden; and religion, so no compulsion in religion.
Clear that when you drinks you loose your brain and self control and can do harm to yourself or to others!
Alcohol is haram (forbidden) in Islam, but that doesn't mean that all Muslims abstain. (Much like birth control is forbidden in Catholicism, but many Catholics practice birth control.) Some Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, prohibit alcohol outright. Others, like Pakistan, don't.
They are not supposed to drink alcohol or do drugs of ANY KIND...
But most of them drop that the second they get off the airplane in a non-Muslim country...
There are MANY documentaries on this...
The women get on in their scarves and burka... They get off in belly shirts, mini skirts, and ';Fu*k Me'; heals.
The men chain smoke cigarettes... Don't always drink... But LOVE that loop hole in their religion about ';Heathen Women and Slave Girls'; and bang their way across the country...
They are not supposed to gambol either...
I, personally, am non-muslim yet anti-alcohol. Alcohol is a TOXIN that destroys all cells it comes in contact with when drunk.
I drink in moderation because I watch my health...
But when people do it to make their imaginary sky-daddy happy... That is just pathetic.
how strange the prophet Isa would be considered perfect despite his enabling others to become drunk on the best of all wine of his first miracle.
how strange the prophet Isa would be considered perfect in light of his own admission that he came both eating and drinking.
the righteousness of the muslim must be great indeed.
Yeah, just like Christians teens don't have sex or get abortions:
“Unwed pregnant teens and 20-somethings who attend or have graduated from private religious schools are more likely to obtain abortions than their peers from public schools”
http://www.livescience.com/culture/09060…
Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States
http://www.livescience.com/culture/09091…
Some will even not consume vinegar or alcohol-free beer or wine because it once contained alcohol.
If they could drink alcohol they wouldn't blow themselves up don't you think?
Catma of Eris
All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.
They really aren't supposed to, but I had a Muslim friend who drank just about anything you can imagine.
Probably not. Mohammed (may he burn in hell) was a drunk.
muslims prefer to be drunk on the blood of Christians %26amp; Jews.
As if all their other beliefs aren't bad enough?!? Who the hell would actually follow this religion?
No it is not rue for the ones who want to ';blend in more'; to focus there cowardly attacks in the innocent by blowing themselves up. What loser pig cowards!!!
some do some don't
i feel its a personal choice
They are not supposed to.
i pity religious fools
yes, it is considered a sin.
Yes.
True. Just more for us.
yes
one might think that
Peace be unto you,
ALCOHOL IN ISLAM (A deep look from everysight)
THE PROHIBITION:
';They ask you (O Muhammad ) concerning alcoholic drink and gambling. Say: ';In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit.'; And they ask you what they ought to spend. Say: ';That which is beyond your needs.'; Thus Allâh makes clear to you His Laws in order that you may give thought.'; [Qur'an 2:219]
SELLING %26amp; BUYING:
Prophet Muhammad cursed ten people in connection with wine: the wine-presser, the one who has it pressed, the one who drinks it, the one who conveys it, the one to whom it is conveyed, the one who serves it, the one who sells it, the one who benefits from the price paid for it, the one who buys it, and the one for whom it is bought.
Prophet Muhammad said: ';Every intoxicant is Khamr and every intoxicant is forbidden. He who drinks wine in this world and dies while he is addicted to it, not having repented, will not be given a drink in the Hereafter.';
BEAT FOR DRUNKEDNESS:
Abu Huraira said, ';A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet . The Prophet said, 'Beat him!' '; Abu Huraira added, ';So some of us beat him with our hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (by twisting it) like a lash, and then when we finished, someone said to him, 'May Allah disgrace you!' On that the Prophet said, 'Do not say so, for you are helping Satan to overpower him.' ';
SATAN'S USE OF INTOXICANTS:
';Shaitân (Satan) wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with intoxicants (alcoholic drinks) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allâh and from As-Salât (the prayer). So, will you not then abstain?'; [Qur'an 5:91]
PRAYER NOT ACCEPTED:
Prophet Muhammad said, ';If anyone drinks wine Allah (God) will not accept prayer from him for forty days, but if he repents Allah will forgive him. If he repeats the offence Allah will not accept prayer from him for forty days, but if he repents Allah will forgive him. If he again repeats the offence Allah will not accept prayer from him for forty days, but if he repents Allah will forgive him. If he repeats it a fourth time Allah will not accept prayer from him for forty days, and if he repents Allah will not forgive him, but will give him to drink of the river of the fluid flowing from the inhabitants of Hell.';
MEDICINE:
Wa'il said: A man asked the Prophet about wine, but he forbade it. He again asked him, but he forbade him. He said to him: Prophet of Allah, it is a medicine. The Prophet said: No it is a disease.
Umme Salamah, the wife of the Prophet reports that he once said: ';Allah has not placed a cure for your diseases in things that He has forbidden for you.''
Abu ad-Darda reported that the Prophet said: ';Allah has sent down both the malady and its remedy. For every disease He has created a cure. So seek medical treatment, but never with something the use of which Allah has prohibited.''
Well there are some Muslim countries and in some places where they don't consider drunkards as bad. 10% of Muslims population ambide it but most of them (which are 90%) avoide from it because it harms our body. There are some people who take all these staffs as legal now adays and this is the fullfillment of Muhammads prophecy because he said:
';There will be people (in future) of my Nation who will seek to make lawful; fornication, wine-drinking and the use of ma`aazif (musical instruments).';
Thanks,
Mr. Khan
You are right about the lack of liquor stores in muslim countries. And you are right that muslims are not ';supposed'; to consume alcohol. However, like many ';christians';, many muslims do not always follow the rule book. The wealthier ones, especially, that have very private homes, have satellite TV dishes and a liquor cabinet. I shared a boardinghouse some years ago with an exchange student from Iran that told me about some of this stuff and I have also read about it in some other places.
Blessings on your Journey!Is it true that Muslims do not consume alcohol?
Mohammad himself drank wine:
Narrated by Gaber bin Abdullah:
We were with the messenger of Allah %26amp; he asked for a drink. One of his men said: ';Oh Messenger of Allah, Can we offer you wine to drink?'; He said Yes. He (Gaber) went out looking for the drink and came back with a cup of wine....
Report Abuse
The messenger (Peace Be Upon him) asked: ”Have you fermented it, even with one piece of ferment?” He (Gaber) said ';yes'; and he (Muhammad) drank. Sahih Muslim - Hadith #3753
Muhammad Performed Ablution With Wine:
Narrated by Abdullah bin Masoud (May God be pleased with him): ...
Report Abuse
He was with the Messenger of Allah pbuh on the night of the jinn when he asked him if he had water. He answered that he had wine in a pot. Mohammed said: Pour me some to do ablution %26amp; he did. [The] Prophet pbuh [said]: ';O Abdullah bin Masood it is a purified drink.';Hadith #3594
Report Abuse
Muslims take homeopathic medicines and these medicines HAVE alcohol. But muslims pretend to be holier than thou and claim that they don't consume alcohol.
Report Abuse
It is true that their religion forbids them to do so.
It does actually forbid them to get drunk, but it's a technicality.
It is NOT true, however, that all muslims abide by that rule.
And it depends on the country. Turkey is a muslim country, albeit secular, and alcohol is legal there.
If there is not a variant of fundamentalist Islam in power and/or the country has significant non-Muslim population, odds are there will be liquor stores around.
Islam goals is to cosnserve; soul, so killing is forbidden;brain, so alcohol is forbidden; good reputation, so rape is forbidden; money, so stealing is forbidden; and religion, so no compulsion in religion.
Clear that when you drinks you loose your brain and self control and can do harm to yourself or to others!
Alcohol is haram (forbidden) in Islam, but that doesn't mean that all Muslims abstain. (Much like birth control is forbidden in Catholicism, but many Catholics practice birth control.) Some Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, prohibit alcohol outright. Others, like Pakistan, don't.
They are not supposed to drink alcohol or do drugs of ANY KIND...
But most of them drop that the second they get off the airplane in a non-Muslim country...
There are MANY documentaries on this...
The women get on in their scarves and burka... They get off in belly shirts, mini skirts, and ';Fu*k Me'; heals.
The men chain smoke cigarettes... Don't always drink... But LOVE that loop hole in their religion about ';Heathen Women and Slave Girls'; and bang their way across the country...
They are not supposed to gambol either...
I, personally, am non-muslim yet anti-alcohol. Alcohol is a TOXIN that destroys all cells it comes in contact with when drunk.
I drink in moderation because I watch my health...
But when people do it to make their imaginary sky-daddy happy... That is just pathetic.
how strange the prophet Isa would be considered perfect despite his enabling others to become drunk on the best of all wine of his first miracle.
how strange the prophet Isa would be considered perfect in light of his own admission that he came both eating and drinking.
the righteousness of the muslim must be great indeed.
Yeah, just like Christians teens don't have sex or get abortions:
“Unwed pregnant teens and 20-somethings who attend or have graduated from private religious schools are more likely to obtain abortions than their peers from public schools”
http://www.livescience.com/culture/09060…
Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States
http://www.livescience.com/culture/09091…
Some will even not consume vinegar or alcohol-free beer or wine because it once contained alcohol.
If they could drink alcohol they wouldn't blow themselves up don't you think?
Catma of Eris
All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.
They really aren't supposed to, but I had a Muslim friend who drank just about anything you can imagine.
Probably not. Mohammed (may he burn in hell) was a drunk.
muslims prefer to be drunk on the blood of Christians %26amp; Jews.
As if all their other beliefs aren't bad enough?!? Who the hell would actually follow this religion?
No it is not rue for the ones who want to ';blend in more'; to focus there cowardly attacks in the innocent by blowing themselves up. What loser pig cowards!!!
some do some don't
i feel its a personal choice
They are not supposed to.
i pity religious fools
yes, it is considered a sin.
Yes.
True. Just more for us.
yes
one might think that
Peace be unto you,
ALCOHOL IN ISLAM (A deep look from everysight)
THE PROHIBITION:
';They ask you (O Muhammad ) concerning alcoholic drink and gambling. Say: ';In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit.'; And they ask you what they ought to spend. Say: ';That which is beyond your needs.'; Thus Allâh makes clear to you His Laws in order that you may give thought.'; [Qur'an 2:219]
SELLING %26amp; BUYING:
Prophet Muhammad cursed ten people in connection with wine: the wine-presser, the one who has it pressed, the one who drinks it, the one who conveys it, the one to whom it is conveyed, the one who serves it, the one who sells it, the one who benefits from the price paid for it, the one who buys it, and the one for whom it is bought.
Prophet Muhammad said: ';Every intoxicant is Khamr and every intoxicant is forbidden. He who drinks wine in this world and dies while he is addicted to it, not having repented, will not be given a drink in the Hereafter.';
BEAT FOR DRUNKEDNESS:
Abu Huraira said, ';A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet . The Prophet said, 'Beat him!' '; Abu Huraira added, ';So some of us beat him with our hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (by twisting it) like a lash, and then when we finished, someone said to him, 'May Allah disgrace you!' On that the Prophet said, 'Do not say so, for you are helping Satan to overpower him.' ';
SATAN'S USE OF INTOXICANTS:
';Shaitân (Satan) wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with intoxicants (alcoholic drinks) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allâh and from As-Salât (the prayer). So, will you not then abstain?'; [Qur'an 5:91]
PRAYER NOT ACCEPTED:
Prophet Muhammad said, ';If anyone drinks wine Allah (God) will not accept prayer from him for forty days, but if he repents Allah will forgive him. If he repeats the offence Allah will not accept prayer from him for forty days, but if he repents Allah will forgive him. If he again repeats the offence Allah will not accept prayer from him for forty days, but if he repents Allah will forgive him. If he repeats it a fourth time Allah will not accept prayer from him for forty days, and if he repents Allah will not forgive him, but will give him to drink of the river of the fluid flowing from the inhabitants of Hell.';
MEDICINE:
Wa'il said: A man asked the Prophet about wine, but he forbade it. He again asked him, but he forbade him. He said to him: Prophet of Allah, it is a medicine. The Prophet said: No it is a disease.
Umme Salamah, the wife of the Prophet reports that he once said: ';Allah has not placed a cure for your diseases in things that He has forbidden for you.''
Abu ad-Darda reported that the Prophet said: ';Allah has sent down both the malady and its remedy. For every disease He has created a cure. So seek medical treatment, but never with something the use of which Allah has prohibited.''
Well there are some Muslim countries and in some places where they don't consider drunkards as bad. 10% of Muslims population ambide it but most of them (which are 90%) avoide from it because it harms our body. There are some people who take all these staffs as legal now adays and this is the fullfillment of Muhammads prophecy because he said:
';There will be people (in future) of my Nation who will seek to make lawful; fornication, wine-drinking and the use of ma`aazif (musical instruments).';
Thanks,
Mr. Khan
Is it true that people who were abused in the past wind up liking pain?
I was watching the Tyra show and Sasha Grey, a porn star who's more into bondage and whatnot, was on there. Tyra said there's a study that says a big percent of people who have been abused end up enjoying pain later on in life. Is that true?
I was abused for 12 years of my life and am a bit fond of pain. I always thought it was weird considering my past.Is it true that people who were abused in the past wind up liking pain?
Some pewople who were abused end up liking pain, yes.
And some people who were abused end up NOT liking pain.
And some people who were not abused end up liking pain.
And there are even people who were not abused who end up not liking pain.
We have no decent statistics. We have very little statistics on kinky people, and we are getting very little more because universities grantmakers and others who control what is researched at a professional level don't want to be associated with it.
Sadly, in many countries, consensual adult play involving sado masocism is criminalized as well as defined as illness. There ARE efforts to remove cultural (often religious) rather than science based ';diagnoses'; from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual and the European equivilent f65.Is it true that people who were abused in the past wind up liking pain?
From what little I've read about it, there seems to be a connection, a statistical significant relationship, between being abused as a child and sexual attraction to pain, humiliation, bondage and similar activities. My own experiences seem to confirm this, but that's anecdotal evidence, and it may simply seem that way for me because someone open enough to discuss their sexual urges with a friend is also more open to discussing the more difficult parts of their life story.
For the record, this does not mean that a person that was abused develop such kinks, or that someone with such kinks were abused. It simply means that someone abused is more likely to enjoy such sexual behaviours than others.
Also, I do not know what kind of definition of abuse the research done have used, but for my anecdotal evidence I've used a very broad definition, which includes such things as bullying at school and overly strict parents who may or may not give out physical punishment, but who wouldn't really be considered abusive parents.
';People have a hard time letting go of their suffering.
Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.';
鈥揟hich Nhat Hanh
It makes sense. The cycle of abuse...some turn that pain inward, others take it out on others. So, causing pain to ourselves or causing pain to others. I think more than ';liking'; pain, it's a means of escaping the real feelings that some people who were abused run away from. Reality is sometimes the harshest and hardest thing for people to face. Actually, the denial of reality is what makes life miserable.
I've never been and I am
I was abused for 12 years of my life and am a bit fond of pain. I always thought it was weird considering my past.Is it true that people who were abused in the past wind up liking pain?
Some pewople who were abused end up liking pain, yes.
And some people who were abused end up NOT liking pain.
And some people who were not abused end up liking pain.
And there are even people who were not abused who end up not liking pain.
We have no decent statistics. We have very little statistics on kinky people, and we are getting very little more because universities grantmakers and others who control what is researched at a professional level don't want to be associated with it.
Sadly, in many countries, consensual adult play involving sado masocism is criminalized as well as defined as illness. There ARE efforts to remove cultural (often religious) rather than science based ';diagnoses'; from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual and the European equivilent f65.Is it true that people who were abused in the past wind up liking pain?
From what little I've read about it, there seems to be a connection, a statistical significant relationship, between being abused as a child and sexual attraction to pain, humiliation, bondage and similar activities. My own experiences seem to confirm this, but that's anecdotal evidence, and it may simply seem that way for me because someone open enough to discuss their sexual urges with a friend is also more open to discussing the more difficult parts of their life story.
For the record, this does not mean that a person that was abused develop such kinks, or that someone with such kinks were abused. It simply means that someone abused is more likely to enjoy such sexual behaviours than others.
Also, I do not know what kind of definition of abuse the research done have used, but for my anecdotal evidence I've used a very broad definition, which includes such things as bullying at school and overly strict parents who may or may not give out physical punishment, but who wouldn't really be considered abusive parents.
';People have a hard time letting go of their suffering.
Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.';
鈥揟hich Nhat Hanh
It makes sense. The cycle of abuse...some turn that pain inward, others take it out on others. So, causing pain to ourselves or causing pain to others. I think more than ';liking'; pain, it's a means of escaping the real feelings that some people who were abused run away from. Reality is sometimes the harshest and hardest thing for people to face. Actually, the denial of reality is what makes life miserable.
I've never been and I am
Is it true everytime you ask for your credit report your score goes down?
And if it does go down how many points does it go down?
Also does anyone know a good website to learn about credit?Is it true everytime you ask for your credit report your score goes down?
When you ask for copies of YOUR credit score, these inquiries are never counted against you, and no one knows how many tiems you made a request for YOUR report.
Also keep in mind if you do several inquiries over a short period, say a week or so, such as looknig for a mortgage or car loan, they will only count as one inquiry as lenders will figure you are comparison shopping around. I did this when I was looking for a home.
To learn about credit, you can look at the major credit bureas web sites (equifax.com, transunion.com %26amp; experian.com). Also try sites such as Motley Fool, myfico.com and Yahoo! Good luck!Is it true everytime you ask for your credit report your score goes down?
Hi Liera,
Your credit score will not go down every time you ask for your credit report to check your credit profile. The score can only be lowered if creditors make inquiries when you apply for new credit and those inquiries are displayed on your credit report.
There are other kinds of inquiries made by creditors but these do not affect your score. Often creditors and insurers may review your report in order to see if you qualify for an offer. Such reviews do not have a negative impact on your score. Your employer may also order your credit report when you apply for a job. But this does not affect your score negatively.
Thanks,
Mortgage Mentor
MortgageFit Community
It goes down when you have a flood of inquiries. Not when you have a few. This is a big myth.
This myth came around because morgage brokers did not want you to go to another broker and undercut them with the loan they were doing for you. They tell you don't do anything with your credit our your credit score will go down. It has now snowballed into a big thing that has everyone freaked out.
If YOU ask for your credit report it doesn't go down. If a lender, or credit company accesses it, then it does. I am not sure how much. I use mycreditkeeper.com - they are awesome and for $10 a month you can check your score and report and they give you tips on what is hurting and helping your score.
It doesn't go down when you ask for a credit report...
Credit Score Myths Explained
http://www.debt-loan-refinance-mortgage-鈥?/a>
I agree with the answer given by Kenteman. When you check your OWN credit, no effect on score.
If you are shopping (comparatively) for a car or home mortgage, those ';hits'; as they are termed, count as one inquiry. Score is adjusted accordingly.
If you are applying for credit at the gas station, department store,visa and mastercard, then you will get 4 hits, and score is adjusted accordingly.
Too many hits are negative factors on your score, but I've never been able to equate a ';hit'; with a number
No, your score is not impacted when YOU request the credit report directly from Transunion, Equifax, and Experian.
If you use these 3 websites, you should be well on your way.
It doesn't go down when you ask for a credit report, however, I know it goes down whenever you apply for credit cards, loans, etc and you get rejected
It does go down so don't go around town and apply for credit. That's all I know.
Also does anyone know a good website to learn about credit?Is it true everytime you ask for your credit report your score goes down?
When you ask for copies of YOUR credit score, these inquiries are never counted against you, and no one knows how many tiems you made a request for YOUR report.
Also keep in mind if you do several inquiries over a short period, say a week or so, such as looknig for a mortgage or car loan, they will only count as one inquiry as lenders will figure you are comparison shopping around. I did this when I was looking for a home.
To learn about credit, you can look at the major credit bureas web sites (equifax.com, transunion.com %26amp; experian.com). Also try sites such as Motley Fool, myfico.com and Yahoo! Good luck!Is it true everytime you ask for your credit report your score goes down?
Hi Liera,
Your credit score will not go down every time you ask for your credit report to check your credit profile. The score can only be lowered if creditors make inquiries when you apply for new credit and those inquiries are displayed on your credit report.
There are other kinds of inquiries made by creditors but these do not affect your score. Often creditors and insurers may review your report in order to see if you qualify for an offer. Such reviews do not have a negative impact on your score. Your employer may also order your credit report when you apply for a job. But this does not affect your score negatively.
Thanks,
Mortgage Mentor
MortgageFit Community
It goes down when you have a flood of inquiries. Not when you have a few. This is a big myth.
This myth came around because morgage brokers did not want you to go to another broker and undercut them with the loan they were doing for you. They tell you don't do anything with your credit our your credit score will go down. It has now snowballed into a big thing that has everyone freaked out.
If YOU ask for your credit report it doesn't go down. If a lender, or credit company accesses it, then it does. I am not sure how much. I use mycreditkeeper.com - they are awesome and for $10 a month you can check your score and report and they give you tips on what is hurting and helping your score.
It doesn't go down when you ask for a credit report...
Credit Score Myths Explained
http://www.debt-loan-refinance-mortgage-鈥?/a>
I agree with the answer given by Kenteman. When you check your OWN credit, no effect on score.
If you are shopping (comparatively) for a car or home mortgage, those ';hits'; as they are termed, count as one inquiry. Score is adjusted accordingly.
If you are applying for credit at the gas station, department store,visa and mastercard, then you will get 4 hits, and score is adjusted accordingly.
Too many hits are negative factors on your score, but I've never been able to equate a ';hit'; with a number
No, your score is not impacted when YOU request the credit report directly from Transunion, Equifax, and Experian.
If you use these 3 websites, you should be well on your way.
It doesn't go down when you ask for a credit report, however, I know it goes down whenever you apply for credit cards, loans, etc and you get rejected
It does go down so don't go around town and apply for credit. That's all I know.
Is it true that the 1969 Moon landing is actually a hoax and never happened?
Is there evidence out there to just prove it was real or evidence that proves it was fake?Is it true that the 1969 Moon landing is actually a hoax and never happened?
Russians say it happened. They tracked something that took off in Florida, and landed on the moon. They can't tell if there were humans in the craft, but they are certain the craft took off in Florida, and landed on the Moon, in July of 1969. Took off again, and landed on Earth. That is the biggest proof I can come up with.Is it true that the 1969 Moon landing is actually a hoax and never happened?
There were actually two Moon landings in 1969, Apollo 11 in July and Apollo 12 in November. These landings were real and so were the four subsequent landings. There's plenty of information available about the Apollo missions if you know where to look.
Moon landings are real. I met astronauts, inspected a moon rock up close. Plenty of evidence about all of it exists. No explanations supporting a hoax stand up to inspection. See the Mythbusters show on Discovery channel about that.
Tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Santa (oops, better not go there, you might be less than 9 years old) are not real.
People who like to believe in hoaxes (as opposed to harmless fantasy) are delusional, and opposed to reality.
We went to the Moon six times between 1969 and 1972. There is copious evidence to support this fact (Moon rocks we brought back, reflectors left behind you can bounce a laser off of, thousands of hours of video and photographic footage that couldn't be faked at that time, we were tracked all the way there and back by the Soviet Union) and nothing against it - all the conspiracy theories against landing on the Moon can be debunked by a high school physics student. They represent a poor understanding of basic science.
There is plenty of evidence that the landing was real. The evidence I like to use comes from outside NASA and even outside USA.
The Soviet Union were, at the time, our adversaries in the space race, and our enemies in the political world (the world was being polarized by the two ';super-powers';, in order to gain control).
They were ahead of us in ALL aspects of the space race up to that point (first in orbit, first man in space, first woman in space, first soft-landing on the Moon with an unmanned probe, and so on). They also had no reason to make life easy for us (we were building enough weapons of mass destruction to eliminate them ten times over, forcing them to build enough weapons to destroy us ten times over).
They had spies in all aspects of our lives (including in the space program). They had spy ships (disguised as fishing boats) near the launch areas for every rocket launch (Cuba is very close to Florida).
They could use their radio-telescopes to pick up our radio (and TV) communications from space.
When Neil took the ';small step for [a] Man';, the Moon was over the Pacific Ocean. This meant that the TV signal we got (the slow-scan signal) had to come through a radiotelescope in Australia.
This means that the TV signal was also visible to the Soviet radiotelescopes (they are on the same longitudes, roughly).
After the lunar landing, they congratulated us. Maybe not very loudly, but still.
If they had had any hint that the thing had been faked, they would have told the whole world right away. Given their record in space up to that point, the world would have believed them, not us. The ';cover-up'; would not have lasted one hour, never mind 40 years.
Even the Soviets knew (and accepted) that the 1969 Moon Landing was real.
---
The TV image we saw was ';manipulated';... But not the way conspirators describe.
The signal that came from the Moon was ';SSTV'; -- slow scan TV at 10 frames per second, 320 lines per frame.
When it arrived at the radiotelescopes (three were used to produce the images we saw on TV), the signal had to be cleaned up -- it was ';noisy'; from interference -- and turned into images suitable for North American TV (30 frames per second, 525 lines per frame)**. Contrast and brilliance kept changing and someone had to try and keep up, leading to moments when the image appeared too black, too white or even reversed (including a few ';upside-down'; seconds near the beginning).
Most of the images we saw on TV were the ones that came in through the Parkes radiotelescope in Australia, where the ';manipulation'; was done by a radiotelescope technician, not a TV broadcast specialist.
---
** It was actually even more complicated than that. Because color TV was already in existence, and it required more info to be sent, the North American standard was to send two ';half-images'; instead of one image at a time, and the rate was actually 29.97 full frames (or 59.94 half-frames) per second, in order to reduce interference.
The ';manipulation'; done in Australia was being done in a country using a system of 25 frames per second and a different number of lines per frame.
It's a wonder we got anything at all. And it certainly explains why some of it looked... weird.
Of course, the US TV networks would add ';simulations'; at time to show what was really going on (because the real images were not always that clear).
It was real.
The six Apollo Moon landings are among the best documented events in human history: thousands of pictures, hours of video, nearly half a ton of Moon rocks, and millions of eye witnesses, including myself. There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts that they took place. To deny them is to discredit the magnificent achievement of the team which went to the Moon, and to reveal abysmal scientific ignorance.
The proofs of the Moon landings have been documented in detail on web sites like these:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxap鈥?/a>
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.clavius.org/
If further proof is needed, NASA today released images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter showing 5 of the 6 Apollo landers, still on the surface of the Moon:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/mu鈥?/a>
We went.
Anyone who has told you otherwise, has probably given you a lame excuse about flag movement, shadow issues, ';no stars'; inthe photos, and other nonsense that can easily be debunked at Calvius Moon Base:
http://www.clavius.org
It really saddens me that so many of these questions come up, when a two week understanding in simple physics and photography seal the deal.
No. The TV images projected were a mix of real shots and stagework, leading to speculation that it was faked.
Satellite images from multiple nations have recording images of equipment left behind by the Apollo missions, including nations not friendly to the US, such as the USSR when it existed.
Believe what you want, I cannot help you. However for ONE PIECE of hardware on the moon every conspiracy theory hoax person needs to explain ';how it got on the surface of the moon';.
';How did this mirror get on the surface of the moon pointed straight at Earth?';
We still use it to bounce laser beams off of and determine the moon's distance to a high degree of accuracy.
Ask them all to explain how it got there!
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/鈥?/a>
Don't forget there were SIX landings not just one, AND we now have PICTURES!
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/mu鈥?/a>
All this ';evidence'; when examined eventually breaks down. Here are a few studies.
When the astronauts landed on the moon they left man made ';spectrometers'; on its surface. These spectromoters have been identified via reflective lazer since the landing. Mythbusters did an excellent story on proving/disproving the moon landing.
The 1969 landings (Apollo 12 was also in 1969) were not fake. See the sources for proof.
There is a LOT of data out there, but most people don't look for it or even really care if it is fake or not.
No, we definitely went to the moon. If you would ever actually look at real scientific sources that completely refute the hoaxes, you might see the truth.
There was a documentary that i watched that showed evidence supposedly disproving it.
BUT im sorry i cant remember the name of the documentary.
we watched a video in school proving that it was real, all the debating questions like why was the american flag waving in the video was backed by scientific explanations.
Yes. Also the earth is flat and all the stuff NASA puts out is government hogwash.
They make phony movies of it all, don't believe any of it.
no, we really went to the moon you crazy conspirator.
No, we were there
The only way to find out is to work for the government and be quite high up.
Personlly, I think it hapenned.
Yours truly
Niel Armstrong
you earthlings really did land on your moon in your year 1969. we watched it from our ship. we saw the whole landing.
Oh god, how long are we going to have to deal with this now? At least it seems to have replaced the ';2012'; BS on here.
yes it is, didnt you know , it was just one big joke taken to far
Yeah, alot of people believe it is fake because they say the flag should not be swaying because there should not be wind in space.thin hair
Russians say it happened. They tracked something that took off in Florida, and landed on the moon. They can't tell if there were humans in the craft, but they are certain the craft took off in Florida, and landed on the Moon, in July of 1969. Took off again, and landed on Earth. That is the biggest proof I can come up with.Is it true that the 1969 Moon landing is actually a hoax and never happened?
There were actually two Moon landings in 1969, Apollo 11 in July and Apollo 12 in November. These landings were real and so were the four subsequent landings. There's plenty of information available about the Apollo missions if you know where to look.
Moon landings are real. I met astronauts, inspected a moon rock up close. Plenty of evidence about all of it exists. No explanations supporting a hoax stand up to inspection. See the Mythbusters show on Discovery channel about that.
Tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Santa (oops, better not go there, you might be less than 9 years old) are not real.
People who like to believe in hoaxes (as opposed to harmless fantasy) are delusional, and opposed to reality.
We went to the Moon six times between 1969 and 1972. There is copious evidence to support this fact (Moon rocks we brought back, reflectors left behind you can bounce a laser off of, thousands of hours of video and photographic footage that couldn't be faked at that time, we were tracked all the way there and back by the Soviet Union) and nothing against it - all the conspiracy theories against landing on the Moon can be debunked by a high school physics student. They represent a poor understanding of basic science.
There is plenty of evidence that the landing was real. The evidence I like to use comes from outside NASA and even outside USA.
The Soviet Union were, at the time, our adversaries in the space race, and our enemies in the political world (the world was being polarized by the two ';super-powers';, in order to gain control).
They were ahead of us in ALL aspects of the space race up to that point (first in orbit, first man in space, first woman in space, first soft-landing on the Moon with an unmanned probe, and so on). They also had no reason to make life easy for us (we were building enough weapons of mass destruction to eliminate them ten times over, forcing them to build enough weapons to destroy us ten times over).
They had spies in all aspects of our lives (including in the space program). They had spy ships (disguised as fishing boats) near the launch areas for every rocket launch (Cuba is very close to Florida).
They could use their radio-telescopes to pick up our radio (and TV) communications from space.
When Neil took the ';small step for [a] Man';, the Moon was over the Pacific Ocean. This meant that the TV signal we got (the slow-scan signal) had to come through a radiotelescope in Australia.
This means that the TV signal was also visible to the Soviet radiotelescopes (they are on the same longitudes, roughly).
After the lunar landing, they congratulated us. Maybe not very loudly, but still.
If they had had any hint that the thing had been faked, they would have told the whole world right away. Given their record in space up to that point, the world would have believed them, not us. The ';cover-up'; would not have lasted one hour, never mind 40 years.
Even the Soviets knew (and accepted) that the 1969 Moon Landing was real.
---
The TV image we saw was ';manipulated';... But not the way conspirators describe.
The signal that came from the Moon was ';SSTV'; -- slow scan TV at 10 frames per second, 320 lines per frame.
When it arrived at the radiotelescopes (three were used to produce the images we saw on TV), the signal had to be cleaned up -- it was ';noisy'; from interference -- and turned into images suitable for North American TV (30 frames per second, 525 lines per frame)**. Contrast and brilliance kept changing and someone had to try and keep up, leading to moments when the image appeared too black, too white or even reversed (including a few ';upside-down'; seconds near the beginning).
Most of the images we saw on TV were the ones that came in through the Parkes radiotelescope in Australia, where the ';manipulation'; was done by a radiotelescope technician, not a TV broadcast specialist.
---
** It was actually even more complicated than that. Because color TV was already in existence, and it required more info to be sent, the North American standard was to send two ';half-images'; instead of one image at a time, and the rate was actually 29.97 full frames (or 59.94 half-frames) per second, in order to reduce interference.
The ';manipulation'; done in Australia was being done in a country using a system of 25 frames per second and a different number of lines per frame.
It's a wonder we got anything at all. And it certainly explains why some of it looked... weird.
Of course, the US TV networks would add ';simulations'; at time to show what was really going on (because the real images were not always that clear).
It was real.
The six Apollo Moon landings are among the best documented events in human history: thousands of pictures, hours of video, nearly half a ton of Moon rocks, and millions of eye witnesses, including myself. There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts that they took place. To deny them is to discredit the magnificent achievement of the team which went to the Moon, and to reveal abysmal scientific ignorance.
The proofs of the Moon landings have been documented in detail on web sites like these:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxap鈥?/a>
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.clavius.org/
If further proof is needed, NASA today released images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter showing 5 of the 6 Apollo landers, still on the surface of the Moon:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/mu鈥?/a>
We went.
Anyone who has told you otherwise, has probably given you a lame excuse about flag movement, shadow issues, ';no stars'; inthe photos, and other nonsense that can easily be debunked at Calvius Moon Base:
http://www.clavius.org
It really saddens me that so many of these questions come up, when a two week understanding in simple physics and photography seal the deal.
No. The TV images projected were a mix of real shots and stagework, leading to speculation that it was faked.
Satellite images from multiple nations have recording images of equipment left behind by the Apollo missions, including nations not friendly to the US, such as the USSR when it existed.
Believe what you want, I cannot help you. However for ONE PIECE of hardware on the moon every conspiracy theory hoax person needs to explain ';how it got on the surface of the moon';.
';How did this mirror get on the surface of the moon pointed straight at Earth?';
We still use it to bounce laser beams off of and determine the moon's distance to a high degree of accuracy.
Ask them all to explain how it got there!
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/鈥?/a>
Don't forget there were SIX landings not just one, AND we now have PICTURES!
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/mu鈥?/a>
All this ';evidence'; when examined eventually breaks down. Here are a few studies.
When the astronauts landed on the moon they left man made ';spectrometers'; on its surface. These spectromoters have been identified via reflective lazer since the landing. Mythbusters did an excellent story on proving/disproving the moon landing.
The 1969 landings (Apollo 12 was also in 1969) were not fake. See the sources for proof.
There is a LOT of data out there, but most people don't look for it or even really care if it is fake or not.
No, we definitely went to the moon. If you would ever actually look at real scientific sources that completely refute the hoaxes, you might see the truth.
There was a documentary that i watched that showed evidence supposedly disproving it.
BUT im sorry i cant remember the name of the documentary.
we watched a video in school proving that it was real, all the debating questions like why was the american flag waving in the video was backed by scientific explanations.
Yes. Also the earth is flat and all the stuff NASA puts out is government hogwash.
They make phony movies of it all, don't believe any of it.
no, we really went to the moon you crazy conspirator.
No, we were there
The only way to find out is to work for the government and be quite high up.
Personlly, I think it hapenned.
Yours truly
Niel Armstrong
you earthlings really did land on your moon in your year 1969. we watched it from our ship. we saw the whole landing.
Oh god, how long are we going to have to deal with this now? At least it seems to have replaced the ';2012'; BS on here.
yes it is, didnt you know , it was just one big joke taken to far
Yeah, alot of people believe it is fake because they say the flag should not be swaying because there should not be wind in space.
Is it true Jamaica is so small everyone on the island is related?
I heard in Australia people saying everyone there look alike so they must be related.Is it true Jamaica is so small everyone on the island is related?
Almost 3 Million Jamaicans in Jamaica. So no we are not all related.
As of July 2997 Population 2,780,138
Jamaica is the largest English speaking island in the Caribbean
No we can't all look alike we are so mixed up.
We have alot of Chinese, some Indians, white, brown and black Jamaicans.
But we are all Jamaicans
';Out of Many One';
I don't think anyone can say all Australians look alike eitherIs it true Jamaica is so small everyone on the island is related?
Well, Jamaica is not that small you have about 3 million people living on the Island. But, the answer to your question is absolutely no!
You have descendants from African slaves, Old English Plantation families, Middle eastern descent, Jews, Indian and allot of second generation Chinese living on the island. These different groups have not
really mixed allot during the years except for English men who marry
Jamaican women and produce mulatto (mixed race children) which is
very rare. Hope this answers your question!!
FALSE ! FALSE ! FALSE ! FALSE ! FALSE !
Jamaica is a mixed race country. There are Chinese Jamaicans, Indian Jamaicans, White Jamaicans, Spanish Jamaicans, Japanese Jamaicans..etc but are still Jamaicans and Jamaicans come in all different shades ( black, brown, yellow, white, tan..etc ) so whoever told you that dosen't know anything about Jamaica and have never been there. Don't listen to what you don't know and haven't experienced. I hate when people try to diss countries they've never been to. Jamaica is not the smallest country in the Caribbean and it's not the poorest either ! Go to Jamaica and you'll see what I'm talking about. Japan is much in love with Jamaica , the culture, people, food, dancing and everything. So is so many other countries in the world. They love the Jamaican culture and how in Jamaica people are just laid back and easy going not worrying about a thing even if they don't have that much money wise. So many people want to move and live in Jamaica it's crazy ! Everyone dosen't know everyone in Jamaica. It's not that small ! So don't judge or listen go to Jamaica learn about the culture and get your facts straight !
P.S. Jamaica is the 3rd largest country in the Caribbean.
鈽?Mixed Curly Fries 鈽?br>
(\__/)
(='.'=) 鈾?br>
(';)_(';)
roflmao!!!!! loooooooooool, thats like saying that because we cant distinguise between Asian people, cause to us they all look alike, then obviously thy are related. so there is several million/billion people living in china, japan, hongkong etc who are related to each other.
What? that logic dont work, you say???
Why? because there are soo many more people living there?? hmmmmm.
This is not true..There are 2.5 million people in the island, and they come from all over, the motto is ';Out Of Many, one People';.
check out my website for more information on Jamaica,
http://www.idreamjamaica.net
hell no
well maybe yes because one day my mom went to go do her nails and the person that was doing her nails was my cousin that we never knew so yea ..... it's preety small but not dat small if that was true i would be relaited to Serani
That is not true. Jamaica is far bigger that Barbados and I am not related to everyone. You should take a trip and see for yourself what it is like. This time the people that say that never even went there.
and which moron told u that. why dont u come and find out for yourself or google Jamaica. oh and didnt that person tell u the good part of visiting Jamaica. oh my. thats a shame.
IGNORAMUS
i'm sure there's more inbreeding in your race than in Jamaica stupid
who the hell even goes to Australia???
well for one ppl from AUSTRALIA don't like black ppl and for twon who ever told you that is a stupid! F**K! and for you to be asking i really think your one too!
Oh blame it on the Australians! If they are retarded then retards must be exceptionally good at track and field at the Olympic level.
People are just ignorant why is it that white people think all black people look alike ohh maybe because their fore fathers raped many blacks.
Jamaica is the third largest Caribbean island so anyone who told you that is dumb and ignorant.
Come see for yourself.
Having worked with Australians for about 8 years, such ';reasoning'; coming from them does not surprise me one bit.
LOL....hotta....if they saying that everyone knows everyone in Jamaica...imagine..what they will say about trinidad!
Since Adam and Eve is the mother and father of the world, we are all related in a very small way.
That is so not true!
Jamaica is a big island and no one is related and we don't look alike!
Its completely true...I know everyone on here who is from Jamaica....';Hi Guys!!!';
Dont believe everything you hear!
Untrue.
come on man, thats just ignorant
questions like that just makes us americans seem stupid
What? No! They're just all black. Well mostly.
Almost 3 Million Jamaicans in Jamaica. So no we are not all related.
As of July 2997 Population 2,780,138
Jamaica is the largest English speaking island in the Caribbean
No we can't all look alike we are so mixed up.
We have alot of Chinese, some Indians, white, brown and black Jamaicans.
But we are all Jamaicans
';Out of Many One';
I don't think anyone can say all Australians look alike eitherIs it true Jamaica is so small everyone on the island is related?
Well, Jamaica is not that small you have about 3 million people living on the Island. But, the answer to your question is absolutely no!
You have descendants from African slaves, Old English Plantation families, Middle eastern descent, Jews, Indian and allot of second generation Chinese living on the island. These different groups have not
really mixed allot during the years except for English men who marry
Jamaican women and produce mulatto (mixed race children) which is
very rare. Hope this answers your question!!
FALSE ! FALSE ! FALSE ! FALSE ! FALSE !
Jamaica is a mixed race country. There are Chinese Jamaicans, Indian Jamaicans, White Jamaicans, Spanish Jamaicans, Japanese Jamaicans..etc but are still Jamaicans and Jamaicans come in all different shades ( black, brown, yellow, white, tan..etc ) so whoever told you that dosen't know anything about Jamaica and have never been there. Don't listen to what you don't know and haven't experienced. I hate when people try to diss countries they've never been to. Jamaica is not the smallest country in the Caribbean and it's not the poorest either ! Go to Jamaica and you'll see what I'm talking about. Japan is much in love with Jamaica , the culture, people, food, dancing and everything. So is so many other countries in the world. They love the Jamaican culture and how in Jamaica people are just laid back and easy going not worrying about a thing even if they don't have that much money wise. So many people want to move and live in Jamaica it's crazy ! Everyone dosen't know everyone in Jamaica. It's not that small ! So don't judge or listen go to Jamaica learn about the culture and get your facts straight !
P.S. Jamaica is the 3rd largest country in the Caribbean.
鈽?Mixed Curly Fries 鈽?br>
(\__/)
(='.'=) 鈾?br>
(';)_(';)
roflmao!!!!! loooooooooool, thats like saying that because we cant distinguise between Asian people, cause to us they all look alike, then obviously thy are related. so there is several million/billion people living in china, japan, hongkong etc who are related to each other.
What? that logic dont work, you say???
Why? because there are soo many more people living there?? hmmmmm.
This is not true..There are 2.5 million people in the island, and they come from all over, the motto is ';Out Of Many, one People';.
check out my website for more information on Jamaica,
http://www.idreamjamaica.net
hell no
well maybe yes because one day my mom went to go do her nails and the person that was doing her nails was my cousin that we never knew so yea ..... it's preety small but not dat small if that was true i would be relaited to Serani
That is not true. Jamaica is far bigger that Barbados and I am not related to everyone. You should take a trip and see for yourself what it is like. This time the people that say that never even went there.
and which moron told u that. why dont u come and find out for yourself or google Jamaica. oh and didnt that person tell u the good part of visiting Jamaica. oh my. thats a shame.
IGNORAMUS
i'm sure there's more inbreeding in your race than in Jamaica stupid
who the hell even goes to Australia???
well for one ppl from AUSTRALIA don't like black ppl and for twon who ever told you that is a stupid! F**K! and for you to be asking i really think your one too!
Oh blame it on the Australians! If they are retarded then retards must be exceptionally good at track and field at the Olympic level.
People are just ignorant why is it that white people think all black people look alike ohh maybe because their fore fathers raped many blacks.
Jamaica is the third largest Caribbean island so anyone who told you that is dumb and ignorant.
Come see for yourself.
Having worked with Australians for about 8 years, such ';reasoning'; coming from them does not surprise me one bit.
LOL....hotta....if they saying that everyone knows everyone in Jamaica...imagine..what they will say about trinidad!
Since Adam and Eve is the mother and father of the world, we are all related in a very small way.
That is so not true!
Jamaica is a big island and no one is related and we don't look alike!
Its completely true...I know everyone on here who is from Jamaica....';Hi Guys!!!';
Dont believe everything you hear!
Untrue.
come on man, thats just ignorant
questions like that just makes us americans seem stupid
What? No! They're just all black. Well mostly.
Is it true that Congress would be exempt from the new health plan?
There's a Louisiana Senator (and I honestly don't know if he's an R or a D) who wants to make it mandatory for Congress if they approve it. Do you think it should be mandatory for Congress?Is it true that Congress would be exempt from the new health plan?
yes.Is it true that Congress would be exempt from the new health plan?
It is written in the House Version that they all, along with Gov't workers and Union people, are exempt from having to sign on. BTW, our Politicians do NOT have the same type of plan. They in fact have the ';cadillac of all healthcare'; paid by the taxpayer for their lifetime.
I agree that they should be mandated to sign up for any one of the several Gov't Health Care Plans. That is the ONLY way they would write a decent bill.
of course they would be exempt-nancy ';the b*tch supreme'; pelosi- was the one who made it that way, i believe. and F*CK YES IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY. it's time that congress stops living the f*cking life of reilly ( off taxpayer money, no less) and starts living more like the typical american...who they're *supposed* to be representing
If there is a public insurance plan nobody will be forced into it, nor should they be. It will just be another option. The Congress will stay in the plans they currently chose from, as will many others.
The health plan doesn't include Gov. or unions. It should be for everyone including obamas kids!
Yes,and it was republicans who proposed that Congress be part of Obama's health care. The dems voted it down.
Yep, if you're willing to vote for it, you should be willing to live (or die) with it.
I reiterate; the Obama Health Care Plan WILL NOT BE MANDATORY for anyone
Congress is on a government paid heath care program paid by our taxes already... so it has already happend.
yes
yes.Is it true that Congress would be exempt from the new health plan?
It is written in the House Version that they all, along with Gov't workers and Union people, are exempt from having to sign on. BTW, our Politicians do NOT have the same type of plan. They in fact have the ';cadillac of all healthcare'; paid by the taxpayer for their lifetime.
I agree that they should be mandated to sign up for any one of the several Gov't Health Care Plans. That is the ONLY way they would write a decent bill.
of course they would be exempt-nancy ';the b*tch supreme'; pelosi- was the one who made it that way, i believe. and F*CK YES IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY. it's time that congress stops living the f*cking life of reilly ( off taxpayer money, no less) and starts living more like the typical american...who they're *supposed* to be representing
If there is a public insurance plan nobody will be forced into it, nor should they be. It will just be another option. The Congress will stay in the plans they currently chose from, as will many others.
The health plan doesn't include Gov. or unions. It should be for everyone including obamas kids!
Yes,and it was republicans who proposed that Congress be part of Obama's health care. The dems voted it down.
Yep, if you're willing to vote for it, you should be willing to live (or die) with it.
I reiterate; the Obama Health Care Plan WILL NOT BE MANDATORY for anyone
Congress is on a government paid heath care program paid by our taxes already... so it has already happend.
yes
Is it true that sleeping on your left side causes heart problems?
I heard that it's true, is it?Is it true that sleeping on your left side causes heart problems?
no.
if it was true why would they have you lay on your left side in the hospital when you feel like you're gonna puke.
btw it really works. if you feel like throwing up lay on your left side and you will feel better.
but anyways yeah i think if it wasn't good for your heart they wouldn't suggest laying that way.
and where the heck did you hear that? cuz thats just weird. Is it true that sleeping on your left side causes heart problems?
No. It actually lets the arteries flow more freely. It is a great way to sleep. Pregnant women in labour are often asked to lay on their left side to bring oxygen to the baby.
no.
if it was true why would they have you lay on your left side in the hospital when you feel like you're gonna puke.
btw it really works. if you feel like throwing up lay on your left side and you will feel better.
but anyways yeah i think if it wasn't good for your heart they wouldn't suggest laying that way.
and where the heck did you hear that? cuz thats just weird. Is it true that sleeping on your left side causes heart problems?
No. It actually lets the arteries flow more freely. It is a great way to sleep. Pregnant women in labour are often asked to lay on their left side to bring oxygen to the baby.
Is it true that over $100m is bet on each cricket test match?
I understand that this mostly happens in India. Are there websites that explain the situation? Is this related to the new rebel Indian cricket competition thats just launched?Is it true that over $100m is bet on each cricket test match?
Yes it's true. You never know, it may be even more than that.Is it true that over $100m is bet on each cricket test match?
huge possibility, cuz whole lot of money involving cricket betting
Talk about billion. 100m is not even the shadow of actual amount. Sub-continent is cricket crazy and they bet on every cricket game.
yeah people are crazy
Yes it's true. You never know, it may be even more than that.Is it true that over $100m is bet on each cricket test match?
huge possibility, cuz whole lot of money involving cricket betting
Talk about billion. 100m is not even the shadow of actual amount. Sub-continent is cricket crazy and they bet on every cricket game.
yeah people are crazy
If introducing true competition into the health insurance industry was an honest goal?
Of this government health care reform, why has the suggestion to remove the state barriers that would allow insurance companys to offer coverage accross state lines been shot down by the left?If introducing true competition into the health insurance industry was an honest goal?
Liberals and the lobbyists don't really want this. Insurance companies are not the ';bad guys'; in this discussion.If introducing true competition into the health insurance industry was an honest goal?
Since your a 9-12er you should already be informed enough to know that competition is not the goal. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Obama's goal is a single payer system. He has said it several times. He isn't talking about it now because he knows that it is not what the people want. But he needs to get the government on the field so that they can root out private companies and get to his goal.
We can fix the problems with health care by just a few simple things. Like you mentioned, competition across state lines, make it portable so that if you leave a job you can take your plan with you, tort reform to stop the massive lawsuits and drive costs down, and make it where you can't be denied because of pre-existing conditions. Those things there would drive the cost of insurance down, drive the cost of health care down, and make it easier for everyone to get coverage without letting the government get ahold of any more any more tax dollars that they would waste.
You nailed it on the head... it's not an honest goal. We would not have to write 1 line of a new bill if our politicians just enforced the rules written in Article 1 Section 8 clause 3 of the Constitution. That gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. The individual states have put up detrimental barriers to trade, which our gov't must step in and correct, but would rather waste 6 months trying to ram through a gov't takeover of the healthcare industry.
Competition is the great equalizer and the great innovator. You want to see improved quality of service and reduced costs? Get private companies to compete for your business. Only where gov't regulation has stifled competition have costs gone up and service gone down.
I've heard some libs say too much competition (including across state lines) would create a ';race to the bottom';. Insurers would have to fight so hard to win business that they would cut corners on service in order to offer the best prices.
I've also heard arguments against it related to existing laws, like ERISA, but I'm no attorney.
Because they are one minded. They have decided that health care is a government issue and they are standing by it regardless of the majority of AMERICAN'S and those that will vote on this are against it.
it is a waste of our money and time to continue on this. It is spending billions of our money to keep this in the limelight. It will not pass....all across America there are primaries...and they are losing incumbents...including here where I LIVE!
2010 is going to be very different from now......and you can bet 2012 will have even a bigger change....and a TRUE CHANGE..not the liar that is in office now!
The GOP is asking EVERY DAY..even on TV...WHY won't the democrats meet with us...they havent' talked to us since APRIL! So when the dems will talk and read what has been handed them instead of getting up and walking out and turning off the lights as the last one goes out the door....we might have progress. BUT STILL..this is NOT a government issue....Government has no business being into insurance!
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked several times on Monday about the GOP's lack of a specific healthcare reform plan.
I love how Democrats define competition.
It's the government, which can make all the rules and use taxpayers money, competing with private industry which is subject to all the rules the government makes.
1 it was never the obama administrations goal #2 nothing about the obama administration is honest.(no tort reform ,malpractice insurance is outrageously expensive and those costs are passed down to us)
Because that isn't the honest goal. Government control over 1/6 of the economy and your personal health care is the goal..
I would like to know the same thing! They must be afraid to p/o certain States who want to control insurance within their own boundaries.
Ops it sounds as if Obama hasn't read the dang thing carefully
You know your question made 20 liberals' heads explode.
Boy the IF at the beginning of this questions was a good one.
That would increase competition among existing private insurance companies, but they are the problem. That would cause them to raise their rates even more. There needs to be competition for them, as in an alternative to private insurance.
Wow...you just eat up anything they feed you...huh???
You want even LESS choice then you have now...then go ahead and open it up to sell across state lines. The three biggest insurance companies will push out the others...then we are all screwed.
Liberals and the lobbyists don't really want this. Insurance companies are not the ';bad guys'; in this discussion.If introducing true competition into the health insurance industry was an honest goal?
Since your a 9-12er you should already be informed enough to know that competition is not the goal. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Obama's goal is a single payer system. He has said it several times. He isn't talking about it now because he knows that it is not what the people want. But he needs to get the government on the field so that they can root out private companies and get to his goal.
We can fix the problems with health care by just a few simple things. Like you mentioned, competition across state lines, make it portable so that if you leave a job you can take your plan with you, tort reform to stop the massive lawsuits and drive costs down, and make it where you can't be denied because of pre-existing conditions. Those things there would drive the cost of insurance down, drive the cost of health care down, and make it easier for everyone to get coverage without letting the government get ahold of any more any more tax dollars that they would waste.
You nailed it on the head... it's not an honest goal. We would not have to write 1 line of a new bill if our politicians just enforced the rules written in Article 1 Section 8 clause 3 of the Constitution. That gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. The individual states have put up detrimental barriers to trade, which our gov't must step in and correct, but would rather waste 6 months trying to ram through a gov't takeover of the healthcare industry.
Competition is the great equalizer and the great innovator. You want to see improved quality of service and reduced costs? Get private companies to compete for your business. Only where gov't regulation has stifled competition have costs gone up and service gone down.
I've heard some libs say too much competition (including across state lines) would create a ';race to the bottom';. Insurers would have to fight so hard to win business that they would cut corners on service in order to offer the best prices.
I've also heard arguments against it related to existing laws, like ERISA, but I'm no attorney.
Because they are one minded. They have decided that health care is a government issue and they are standing by it regardless of the majority of AMERICAN'S and those that will vote on this are against it.
it is a waste of our money and time to continue on this. It is spending billions of our money to keep this in the limelight. It will not pass....all across America there are primaries...and they are losing incumbents...including here where I LIVE!
2010 is going to be very different from now......and you can bet 2012 will have even a bigger change....and a TRUE CHANGE..not the liar that is in office now!
The GOP is asking EVERY DAY..even on TV...WHY won't the democrats meet with us...they havent' talked to us since APRIL! So when the dems will talk and read what has been handed them instead of getting up and walking out and turning off the lights as the last one goes out the door....we might have progress. BUT STILL..this is NOT a government issue....Government has no business being into insurance!
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked several times on Monday about the GOP's lack of a specific healthcare reform plan.
I love how Democrats define competition.
It's the government, which can make all the rules and use taxpayers money, competing with private industry which is subject to all the rules the government makes.
1 it was never the obama administrations goal #2 nothing about the obama administration is honest.(no tort reform ,malpractice insurance is outrageously expensive and those costs are passed down to us)
Because that isn't the honest goal. Government control over 1/6 of the economy and your personal health care is the goal..
I would like to know the same thing! They must be afraid to p/o certain States who want to control insurance within their own boundaries.
Ops it sounds as if Obama hasn't read the dang thing carefully
You know your question made 20 liberals' heads explode.
Boy the IF at the beginning of this questions was a good one.
That would increase competition among existing private insurance companies, but they are the problem. That would cause them to raise their rates even more. There needs to be competition for them, as in an alternative to private insurance.
Wow...you just eat up anything they feed you...huh???
You want even LESS choice then you have now...then go ahead and open it up to sell across state lines. The three biggest insurance companies will push out the others...then we are all screwed.
Is it true that when Obama loses the blacks and muslims are planning on burning America to the ground?
what do you white Obama supporters think of this? are some of you white Obama sheep going to join in ?Is it true that when Obama loses the blacks and muslims are planning on burning America to the ground?
HEY ! WHO TOLD !!Is it true that when Obama loses the blacks and muslims are planning on burning America to the ground?
We'll become a colony of British Columbia %26amp; kneel to Her Excellency; Queen of Mean -- U tax the Tea %26amp; we'll smoke it !
How do a group of people burn a whole country?? Also, how do a group of people burn a country to the ground that is itself? So, your saying African-Americans are not going to burn America? Because America IS the ground your on at the moment.
City of Chicago is on alert. Either way, they might riot. Fireman and police were told to bring riot home gear home with them. What a nice thought. Incredible that people are actually voting for this man.
Hey, nice appearance on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBklo鈥?/a>
I am sure that the military will be on call at a moments notice for Marshall Law should it be needed. Though i am sure there will be riots either way.
False. Race baiting won't help McCain.
I'm guessing they finally deleted your other account, huh?
That's a bit low...even for me. But if it does happen...then kudos to you.
wow you are stupid and ignorant
wearing your sick robes we see,only cowards hide so that they can't be seen,***holelosing hair
HEY ! WHO TOLD !!Is it true that when Obama loses the blacks and muslims are planning on burning America to the ground?
We'll become a colony of British Columbia %26amp; kneel to Her Excellency; Queen of Mean -- U tax the Tea %26amp; we'll smoke it !
Report Abuse
How do a group of people burn a whole country?? Also, how do a group of people burn a country to the ground that is itself? So, your saying African-Americans are not going to burn America? Because America IS the ground your on at the moment.
City of Chicago is on alert. Either way, they might riot. Fireman and police were told to bring riot home gear home with them. What a nice thought. Incredible that people are actually voting for this man.
Hey, nice appearance on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBklo鈥?/a>
I am sure that the military will be on call at a moments notice for Marshall Law should it be needed. Though i am sure there will be riots either way.
False. Race baiting won't help McCain.
I'm guessing they finally deleted your other account, huh?
That's a bit low...even for me. But if it does happen...then kudos to you.
wow you are stupid and ignorant
wearing your sick robes we see,only cowards hide so that they can't be seen,***hole
Is it true if I go to college out of state I pay more money?
I plan on going out of state to college and my efc (estmaied family income) is 2400 is it true I only get like 200 per semester?Is it true if I go to college out of state I pay more money?
Yes, you will have to pay more. Depending on where you go, however, you might not have to pay as much. Where I live, most of the colleges offer ';Metro'; tuition, and one even offers in-state if you live in certain counties.
The college that offers ';Metro'; tuition has a policy that if you live within 50 miles of the campus, you can commute to college, therefore not having to stay on campus (which is mandatory for the first two years at this college if you live outside of the 50 mile radius) and not having to pay full out-of-state tuition. This college's out-of-state tuition is double that of in state tuition, and the ';Metro'; tuition is straight down the middle.
The college that offers in-state tuition for some out-of-state residents is located RIGHT on the boarder of two states (the bridge crossing the river is located literally on the edge of campus). Because of this, there are a few bordering counties that the university has made eligible for in-state tuition.
As for the person who said that after a year you're considered in-state, that is not true. In order to be considered in-state, you have to attend the college for one year as out-of-state then declare residency in that state. I've looked into this myself as I attend college out of state, and this would also require me to hold a job (I can't remember off the top of my head if I would had to have a full-time or part-time job), change over all of my insurances (car insurance to the new state and registering it under my name, going off of my parent's health, dental, vision...insurances), and - yes, this really is a requirement - not leave the state for at least one year (for example, I couldn't go home for winter or summer break). How they would police this I do not know, but hey - everyone's entitled to take an out-of-state ';vacation,'; right?
Basically, if you attend an out-of-state college, plan on paying more than an in-state resident. If you really want to stay away from home, try looking into colleges far from where you live (For example, I'm located on the southern border of my state, so pretty much anywhere toward the middle of the state and more north would require me to live on-campus or around campus)!Is it true if I go to college out of state I pay more money?
Out of state tuition is almost universally higher than in state tuition.
It is true, if you go out of state for college you will pay out of state tuition. After a year then you will be considered a resident and will pay in state tuition. Your EFC takes into consideration family size as well, your pell grant should stay the same no matter where you go. You just wont be considered for any state grants. You should talk to your financial aid office to see if you can get any institutional money. You could get some student loans to help cover the expense too.
You will pay up to 10 times more if you go to an out of state school for the duration of your college time there. It won't go down after you have lived there for a few years. Note: your EFC number is NOT the amount you will actually have to pay for school. This number is simply a code the school uses to determine what kinds and how much financial aid to give you. What you end up paying (especially at an out of state school) may be more.... CONSIDERABLY more.
Best to list and apply for several different schools, both instate and out of state to see what kind of financial aid you get. Go for the one with the least amount of loans... (which is not necessarily the one with the biggest scholarship amount).
With an EFC of 2400, you will get considerably more than 200 a semester in a federal Pell grant. Probably around 1200 a semester. That money will go a lot farther in paying your tuition and fees at a community college that may only cost you 1500 a semester. If you go to an out of state school that will cost you 12,000 in tuition, that 1200 won't go as far.
Good luck
yes, tuition will cost more. Not to mention boarding costs. Can you stick close to home. Community colleges are good to start and cheaper.
From my experience yes. You could pay up to double the amount.
Check the different colleges but I have lived in several states and this has been the norm.
Yes, you will have to pay more. Depending on where you go, however, you might not have to pay as much. Where I live, most of the colleges offer ';Metro'; tuition, and one even offers in-state if you live in certain counties.
The college that offers ';Metro'; tuition has a policy that if you live within 50 miles of the campus, you can commute to college, therefore not having to stay on campus (which is mandatory for the first two years at this college if you live outside of the 50 mile radius) and not having to pay full out-of-state tuition. This college's out-of-state tuition is double that of in state tuition, and the ';Metro'; tuition is straight down the middle.
The college that offers in-state tuition for some out-of-state residents is located RIGHT on the boarder of two states (the bridge crossing the river is located literally on the edge of campus). Because of this, there are a few bordering counties that the university has made eligible for in-state tuition.
As for the person who said that after a year you're considered in-state, that is not true. In order to be considered in-state, you have to attend the college for one year as out-of-state then declare residency in that state. I've looked into this myself as I attend college out of state, and this would also require me to hold a job (I can't remember off the top of my head if I would had to have a full-time or part-time job), change over all of my insurances (car insurance to the new state and registering it under my name, going off of my parent's health, dental, vision...insurances), and - yes, this really is a requirement - not leave the state for at least one year (for example, I couldn't go home for winter or summer break). How they would police this I do not know, but hey - everyone's entitled to take an out-of-state ';vacation,'; right?
Basically, if you attend an out-of-state college, plan on paying more than an in-state resident. If you really want to stay away from home, try looking into colleges far from where you live (For example, I'm located on the southern border of my state, so pretty much anywhere toward the middle of the state and more north would require me to live on-campus or around campus)!Is it true if I go to college out of state I pay more money?
Out of state tuition is almost universally higher than in state tuition.
It is true, if you go out of state for college you will pay out of state tuition. After a year then you will be considered a resident and will pay in state tuition. Your EFC takes into consideration family size as well, your pell grant should stay the same no matter where you go. You just wont be considered for any state grants. You should talk to your financial aid office to see if you can get any institutional money. You could get some student loans to help cover the expense too.
You will pay up to 10 times more if you go to an out of state school for the duration of your college time there. It won't go down after you have lived there for a few years. Note: your EFC number is NOT the amount you will actually have to pay for school. This number is simply a code the school uses to determine what kinds and how much financial aid to give you. What you end up paying (especially at an out of state school) may be more.... CONSIDERABLY more.
Best to list and apply for several different schools, both instate and out of state to see what kind of financial aid you get. Go for the one with the least amount of loans... (which is not necessarily the one with the biggest scholarship amount).
With an EFC of 2400, you will get considerably more than 200 a semester in a federal Pell grant. Probably around 1200 a semester. That money will go a lot farther in paying your tuition and fees at a community college that may only cost you 1500 a semester. If you go to an out of state school that will cost you 12,000 in tuition, that 1200 won't go as far.
Good luck
yes, tuition will cost more. Not to mention boarding costs. Can you stick close to home. Community colleges are good to start and cheaper.
From my experience yes. You could pay up to double the amount.
Check the different colleges but I have lived in several states and this has been the norm.
Is it true that someone's pupils will become bigger if they are attracted to you?
Is it true that someone's pupils will become bigger (in broad daylight, not at night) if they are attracted to you?
I was taking a shower with my boyfriend and his eyes were lit up and his pupils were huge.Is it true that someone's pupils will become bigger if they are attracted to you?
yes, hence the term ';puppy eyes';Is it true that someone's pupils will become bigger if they are attracted to you?
Well if your taking a shower with your boyfriend wouldnt you think
lol well in yyour situation yea
naughty naughty!!!!
I was taking a shower with my boyfriend and his eyes were lit up and his pupils were huge.Is it true that someone's pupils will become bigger if they are attracted to you?
yes, hence the term ';puppy eyes';Is it true that someone's pupils will become bigger if they are attracted to you?
Well if your taking a shower with your boyfriend wouldnt you think
lol well in yyour situation yea
naughty naughty!!!!
Is it true that normal flu is deadlier than swine flu?
Some people say that all the hype over swine flu is over nothing and that normal flu is considered to be deadlier. I thought that normal flu doesn't really kill anymore but apparently this is not the case. What do you think? The world health organization raised the alert from 5 to 6.Is it true that normal flu is deadlier than swine flu?
Well regarding the common human flu more people have died per date but that is due to the years upon years of infection and death were as this new strain has just come about and is believed to be derived from human/bird/swine strains intermixing.
Studies have been taken and the faultily rate for normal flu infections is less then 0.05%. Where as the new strain of H1N1 fatality rate in comparison to the amount affected range is between 0.3% - 1.5%. Regarding your question if you look at the statistics so far it looks although the new strain is much more deadly and i believe will spread very rapidly similar to that of ';Kevin bacon numbers';. This strain is similar to the ';Spanish Flu'; on 1918 which caused over 150 million deaths in a period of 2 years.
Now regarding the casualty rates at the moment is it a little early to know exactly how many will die and those that have in places like Mexico/America might of had the virus for years so possibly everyone infected could die based on speculation. Not proved, just an opinion of a worst case scenario. However since this virus has killed those healthy in their 30's, 40's it is a pretty good estimation that most elder persons with weaker immune systems will have a massive chance of dieing after infection, but from the information we know at the moment all ages have a chance much higher then any normal flu.
In conclusion it seems as though this new strain is much more deadly and considering how fast it is spreading with over 36,000 world wide this will spread fast and many will die, the media always softens the news as to not create panic among society but do yourself a favor and be ready, wash hands regularly keep away from anyone that has flu symptoms, and possibility purchase a flu mask and other precautionary protection ready for when this blows totally out of control in which appears to be very soon and even though vaccines/medication are being researched and dispensed considering the large volume of persons that will become infected who knows if everyone will be treated correctly.Is it true that normal flu is deadlier than swine flu?
The regular flue virus is far deadlier than swine flu. The swine flu is a mild strain, which is why it isn't dangerous.
People are not worried about swine flu per se, they are worried about the possibility of mutation, and the swine flu virus becoming something dangerous.
because the population infected by normal flu is huge, while government control tightly on swine flu.
If you have 1 million normal flu patients, eventually 100 dies. The death rate is 1/10,000.
Compared with you only have 100 swine flu patients, and 1 dies. The death rate is 1/100.
So people die more does really mean this flu is more deadly.
Yes a normal flu is deadlier than Swine Flu, more people die every year from it.
The reason Swine Flu was such a big deal, is because it was a new Flu and was spreading fast. Since we didn't know so much about it, as humans we freaked out. Although now it's calmed down, and the Swine Flu is actually pretty much a common cold.
In terms of number of death, common flu is more dangerous because it kills more people every year. However this H1N1 strain doesn't have a certain medication that addresses it. In fact, it is resistant to common flu diseases.
I notice that pretty much everyone here is saying the normal flu, however, It is still too early in the game to be making that decision. Yes, many people die from the regular flu each year, but what happens when flu season starts back up? As you have all said, this is a new sickness that we don't know a lot about. Mixed with the regular flu it could in fact be very bad.
Swine Flu is worse because no one is immune to it.
Have you ever seen the normal flu spread all over the world in a matter of months?
There is nothing to panic over, most people that get it have mild symptoms. Lets hope it doesn't return in the fall.
Yes. Normal flu kills about 35,000 people every year, and no one ever panics about it. Not nearly as many people have died from swine flu. It is serious, but most people are over reacting. Most cases of swine flu in the US have been minor.
Hard to say.
There are vaccines available for the regular flu where as there are none available for swine flu.
Swine Flu is currently a mild strain but scientists believe it will mutate soon and will start to become alot more serious.
Yes. The normal flu kills thousands of people yearly.
The WHO raising the alert was actually stupid because they know that they are creating too much panic and then they went and did that.
Well regarding the common human flu more people have died per date but that is due to the years upon years of infection and death were as this new strain has just come about and is believed to be derived from human/bird/swine strains intermixing.
Studies have been taken and the faultily rate for normal flu infections is less then 0.05%. Where as the new strain of H1N1 fatality rate in comparison to the amount affected range is between 0.3% - 1.5%. Regarding your question if you look at the statistics so far it looks although the new strain is much more deadly and i believe will spread very rapidly similar to that of ';Kevin bacon numbers';. This strain is similar to the ';Spanish Flu'; on 1918 which caused over 150 million deaths in a period of 2 years.
Now regarding the casualty rates at the moment is it a little early to know exactly how many will die and those that have in places like Mexico/America might of had the virus for years so possibly everyone infected could die based on speculation. Not proved, just an opinion of a worst case scenario. However since this virus has killed those healthy in their 30's, 40's it is a pretty good estimation that most elder persons with weaker immune systems will have a massive chance of dieing after infection, but from the information we know at the moment all ages have a chance much higher then any normal flu.
In conclusion it seems as though this new strain is much more deadly and considering how fast it is spreading with over 36,000 world wide this will spread fast and many will die, the media always softens the news as to not create panic among society but do yourself a favor and be ready, wash hands regularly keep away from anyone that has flu symptoms, and possibility purchase a flu mask and other precautionary protection ready for when this blows totally out of control in which appears to be very soon and even though vaccines/medication are being researched and dispensed considering the large volume of persons that will become infected who knows if everyone will be treated correctly.Is it true that normal flu is deadlier than swine flu?
The regular flue virus is far deadlier than swine flu. The swine flu is a mild strain, which is why it isn't dangerous.
People are not worried about swine flu per se, they are worried about the possibility of mutation, and the swine flu virus becoming something dangerous.
because the population infected by normal flu is huge, while government control tightly on swine flu.
If you have 1 million normal flu patients, eventually 100 dies. The death rate is 1/10,000.
Compared with you only have 100 swine flu patients, and 1 dies. The death rate is 1/100.
So people die more does really mean this flu is more deadly.
Yes a normal flu is deadlier than Swine Flu, more people die every year from it.
The reason Swine Flu was such a big deal, is because it was a new Flu and was spreading fast. Since we didn't know so much about it, as humans we freaked out. Although now it's calmed down, and the Swine Flu is actually pretty much a common cold.
In terms of number of death, common flu is more dangerous because it kills more people every year. However this H1N1 strain doesn't have a certain medication that addresses it. In fact, it is resistant to common flu diseases.
I notice that pretty much everyone here is saying the normal flu, however, It is still too early in the game to be making that decision. Yes, many people die from the regular flu each year, but what happens when flu season starts back up? As you have all said, this is a new sickness that we don't know a lot about. Mixed with the regular flu it could in fact be very bad.
Swine Flu is worse because no one is immune to it.
Have you ever seen the normal flu spread all over the world in a matter of months?
There is nothing to panic over, most people that get it have mild symptoms. Lets hope it doesn't return in the fall.
Yes. Normal flu kills about 35,000 people every year, and no one ever panics about it. Not nearly as many people have died from swine flu. It is serious, but most people are over reacting. Most cases of swine flu in the US have been minor.
Hard to say.
There are vaccines available for the regular flu where as there are none available for swine flu.
Swine Flu is currently a mild strain but scientists believe it will mutate soon and will start to become alot more serious.
Yes. The normal flu kills thousands of people yearly.
The WHO raising the alert was actually stupid because they know that they are creating too much panic and then they went and did that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)