30 Aug 2010
by in Sculpture Tags: doubt, fruits, juices, marco polo
At this time of year, ice cream seems to be a much more sought out dessert/snack than ever. Perhaps it’s the idea of indulging in something cool on a hot day, or maybe it’s due the opening of the many seasonal ice cream shops around town. whatever it is there’s nothing like an ice cream treat now and again.
But did you ever wonder where ice cream came from, originally?It seems that the early history of ice cream is widely in doubt. There are many different stories and accounts. although chilled or iced drinks were known in the biblical world, the Chinese most likely were the “inventors” of iced desserts.
Emperor Nero of Rome is recorded as being the first to serve a frozen dessert to his guests. as the story goes, teams of runners ran from the mountains carrying fresh snow, which was flavored with honey, juices and fruits.
After Marco Polo visited the far East, he returned with a recipe for a flavored ice to which milk was added. the Italians adopted the dish and it spread throughout Europe. Later, cream was substituted for the milk. Charles I of England was very fond of this unique dish, and had a French chef who made it for him. His son, James II, paid one pound apiece for “A dozen dishes of ice cream” in 1686.
When the colonists came to America, they brought recipes for frozen desserts with them. the first known mention of ice cream in America was in a 1700 letter written by a guest of William Bladen, Governor of the Maryland Colony: “A great Variety of Dishes, all serv’d up in the most elegant way, after which came a Dessert no less curious; among the Rareties of which it was Compos’ed was some fine Ice Cream which, with the Strawberries and Milk, eat most Deliciously.” as time went on, and technology advanced, ice cream became more and more popular.
What’s your favorite ice cream flavor?
Where did ice cream come from?
13 Aug 2010
by in Uncategorized Tags: doubt, hall of famer, homers, hunt squirrel, imo, legs
I know there was some talk about him retiring after the season is over and he's a HOFer no doubt about it, but do you think he will stay long enough to reach 500 hr for his career? He is just 69 homers away.
BQ: Does 500 HR still automatically make you a Hall Of Famer?
No way, at the pace he's going he needs at least 4-5 seasons to get 69 more.
BQ: IMO, yes.
Nope. He will slump like he usually does when he has nagging injuries like he always does.
I don't think he will. even if he stays more years after this year who knows if he will even reach 15 homeruns a year so yeah.
BQ: no, I don't think Gary Sheffield will be a hall of famer but he hit 500. same with Manny.
I don't know why you said there is some talk of retirement, he publicly stated that after this season he will retire. He doesn't plan to come back. no 500 HR's.
Sorry Larry, I don't see it happening.
BQ : Nope.
It's time for him to go away, 1 ring in 14 straight playoff appearances he leaves with his tail between his legs, poor chipper…maybe he can go hunt squirrel like a good red neck that he is.
I don't think he is going to play after this season, so no he won't get to 500 home runs.
BQ: yes I think so.
i wish, i probably would if it wasnt for all those injuries
& personally, i believe 500HR is enough to qualify for the HOF, just my personal opinion, sucks he wont likely come back, but i think he's a hall of famer, idk about first ballot though
as much as i would like to see him hit 500 HR, i don't think he'll do it (realistically). regardless if he does or not, he's a sure hall of famer, and is one of the best switch-hitters of all-time. and not many guys can turn on a Joel Zumaya fastball.
Do you think Chipper Jones will be around until he has 500 HR?
06 Aug 2010
by in Uncategorized Tags: 80s, doubt, hair metal, hot rocket, scary lady, tastes
Off the wall question…just for fun. would you go out on a date with Tawny Kitaen now? if you don't remember she was in several Whitesnake videos as well as one Ratt video.
Well, I don't like 80s hair metal..& Tawny wouldn't be my 1st choice. fake boobs do nothing for me…. lol!
She's the one that beat the heck out of her professional baseball player husband in the car right. One scary lady, but would be an exciting time I guess…
If she looks anything like she did back then without a doubt. Even if she gained a few pounds.
Well no, but that's because I'm married…LOL
I thought she was quite a hot rocket back in the day though.
Can't say I would, since I am not Lesbian…
If I get my wife to agree, and if she still looked similar (meaning that she is not now a fat @$$), then I would be all over that.
I wouldn't now. I did used to fancy her when i was a teenager, but that was almost 20 years ago. Times and tastes have changed since then.
No….
Back then… yes.
Now? ….no…..I've heard some stories about her with
her bitter divorce these days.
Male fans of 80's metal?
18 Jul 2010
by in Uncategorized Tags: cars, doubt, favorit, golden ticket
It seems that they have started to get his car goin in the rite direction with consistancy.
As a fan of Carl's I would like to say yes ,but I don't want to jinx him .
I feel that Carl is Roush/Fenway's golden ticket
Carl is a great racer and i think he will be the next bst thing to come in to nascar. Hes not my favorit driver jeff gorden is my favorit but if carl edwards can get jack roush to give him the right stuff he will be set. this year i dont think he will win but i see him finishing 3rd . theres no doubt that he could catch jeff gorden because the points change for the last ten races but hendricks have been running strong all year and im not say roush hasent i truley belive that rouch and hendricks are the two to teams not only because they have the most cars but they have the $$money and i am not saying that those drivers that drivers that drive for them are the best drivers but they have the money and nascar now days that seems like money is all its about money money and more money
Not this year. People's attention spans don't even last 48 hours. He and his team have run for crap most of the year.
Yes. the last ten races for the most part play good for him. He had a strong car at new hampshire in july but the jack fell. he was third at dover and third at chicago which is a sister track to kansas. He finished fourth in the pepsi 400 and has been strong on restrictor plate track this year. He just won bristol which will help him at martinsville. he won twice at atlanta and once at texas. He can take down phoenix and has always been strong at homestead. he got a real good chance. he will win it
I hope he continues winning and Jeff continues spinning LOL!
It seems like Roush has gotten a better hold on the Car of Tomorrow, and with 5 COT races in the Chase and other tracks that Carl usually runs well at (Atlanta, Texas), he's got a good chance.
But those Hendrick cars will be hard to beat week-in and week-out.
No. He will finish 4th in the points. He won the race last night because he was in clean air. the COT won him the race just like it did with the other drivers in the other events.
Not unless you dont consider #1 a big factor.
99 All the way, yesterday was a warmup. if you see Carl in the top 5 with your driver its time to start praying.
Do you think that Carl Edwards will be a big factor in the chase?
18 Jul 2010
by in Uncategorized Tags: doubt, new software, web bot
Web bot scans the I-net and picks up 'bites." It predicted 9-11, and is now picking up some major event for November 8-11 of this year. this is just the start of what it is capable of. What do you think?
I think it's fake.
If it "predicted" 9/11 how is it 9/11 was still allowed to happen?
Yes I have heard about it. I heard it uses Spiders mechanism to crawl the web to collect information, they say its very accurate but I will always have doubt because to my knowledge they never released their predictions before 9-11.
I'll look it up.
But regarding its predictions about 9/11 (which was reported after the event)
This man made a more accurate prediction
-Before the event.
,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcia9hQo…
as you will see he wasn't very popular for that.
Have u heard of 'WEB-BOT', this new software is awesome.?
17 Jul 2010
by in Uncategorized Tags: doubt, inception
Inception Ending:(Vanityfair) — The most talked-about movie of the summer is, without doubt, MI Christopher Nolan. The funny thing is that most people do not even really know what is about to Start. all I know is I want to see it. as a service, given that most moviegoers have no idea what is in store for them, we went to the red-hot rumors about the film and, very cautiously, to avoid ruining the movie for you try to answer all the questions you may have about creation.
Q: Is it me, or Warner Bros. has been extremely secretive about home?
A: It’s not just you.
Q: you do not appear to be as talkative as usual. Is there a representative of Warner Bros. in the room with you as you write this?
A. Um, no. Not at all. Nothing to see here.
Q: do you remember our keyword if you’re in trouble?
A: yes, it’s “buttercup.” Buttercup.
Q: what is creation?
A: Home is the act of invading someone’s dreams for the sole purpose of planting an idea. It is the opposite of extraction, which is the process by which the information meets important from the subconscious of the subject. Inception is considered by some to be impossible, because it tells the inceptee has an uncanny ability to track planted the idea back to the person who planted it. for example, if someone says “do not think about elephants, elephants can think of, but this fails as creation, because the author-the person who ordered him not to think about elephants” can be traced to the source too ease.
Q: Wait, you lost me to “invade the dreams of anyone.”
A: in the world of creation, invading the dreams of a person to extract information for profit is quite common.
Q: as Freddy Krueger?
A: Not really. The victim must be close and connected to the same machine as all invaders are hooked into. much more technical than supernatural.
Q: well, if it is so common, people are not in possession of valuable information to be prepared against the invasion of sleep? Moreover, instead of “pullers” will refer to them in the future as Warriors ‘dream’?
A: Of course. and some of them are ready. This is why the exhaust … sorry, the “Dream Warriors,” as Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), uses a system of a dream within a dream to trick the victim into thinking he has raised, although he has not done so. Finally, try the trick is a dream within a dream within a dream is. what some think, can not be done.
Q: This is the second time you’ve listed one act that can not be done in the world of creation. well, these acts can be done?
Q: When I die in my dreams, I wake up. what happens to these people when they die in your dreams?
A: It depends. Normally, if they die, they get up. When they try to go through several layers of dreams within dreams, the sedative used for the experiment is so powerful that if they die in sleep, they enter a state of limbo in his mind. (Cobb does not tell his fellow warriors that dream until it’s too late to turn back.) When the warrior dream is now in the frame, the only thing that can wake them up is something called a “kick” that basically is the act of falling in real life.
Q: That’s very misleading Cobb. Is it a good guy or bad guy?
A: none, really. It is basically a mercenary who can not return to the United States because of a standing order for his arrest for suspected murder of his wife (Marion Cotillard). his projection of his wife often invades the dreams is working on its mission and is altered.
Q: So, the dead wife of Cobb is entering their dreams. Wait, does that mean …
Q: what exactly is the mission of Cobb?
R: Cobb was hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) to plant the idea in the mind of a rival businessman, Fischer (Cillian Murphy), to break the giant conglomerate is about to inherit from her dying father. if Cobb and his team are successful, the burden of murder Cobb disappear.
Q: Wait … to rich Japanese businessmen have the ability to have the charges against the accused murderers of U.S. fell with a single phone call?
A: yes I do. (It is not home!)
Q: what do we know about Cobb?
A: Not much, but this may be by design. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the right hand of Cobb, who teaches the protégé of Cobb (Ellen Page) how to use his skills as an architect to create and modify the structures of the dreams of your post.
Q: Gordon-Levitt is versed in architecture? So this is a sequel (500) Days of Summer?
A: This seems to be a very different kind of architecture. Page specialty is creating labyrinthine worlds in the subconscious of a person.
Q: This movie sounds very complicated. what if I’m not very smart, I am yet to go? I like to think of movies.
A: you have to think. But many people are selling the building as a movie too complicated to understand. Not at all. A seventh-grade education should suffice. and that’s the beauty of the direction of Christopher Nolan: It’s a complicated story, but presented in a way that is very easy to follow. The film is Nolan rules and adhere to those standards. The first Mission: Impossible film is about ten times more complicated. Put it this way: I graduated from a state school Big XII and never confuses me.
Q: Home is being considered as El Salvador for a summer season very bad movie. well, right?
A: Home is very good. But living up to the hype will be difficult for several reasons.
Q: does that mean that advertising is not it?
A: well, it depends. Part of it is true. do you have an example?
Q: I heard that Home whales is one summer movie experience satisfactory.
A: oh, okay Yeah, that’s reasonable. I’d say that’s true.
Q: I heard that watching Initial cure cancer.
A: Um, I’m not so sure. although, personally, can not refute that watching Initial cure cancer.
Q: I heard that when they finally make first contact with aliens, we will initially show to prove our superior intelligence as a species. I have heard that we fully expect foreigners to surrender to us because of our brilliance.
R: I have no answer for this.
Q: if you are going to be advertising blurb for the home, what do you think will?
A: “I personally can not refute that watching Initial cure cancer!” Mike Ryan, Vanity Fair.
Q: Home is the final touch?
Q: well, let me rephrase: Beginners do not have a satisfactory ending?
A: Let’s say that any movie from Christopher Nolan does not stop with clones Drowning is a successful conclusion.
- Super 8 Movie Super 8 Movie:Super 8 is an upcoming mystery sci-fy…
- Is Ashton Kutcher’s Reign as Twitter King Ending? Is Ashton Kutcher’s Reign as Twitter King Ending?:after the famous…
- Which Corey Haim Movie Is Your Favorite? which Corey Haim Movie Is Your Favorite?:Corey Haim shot to…
- Sandra Bullock makes Surprise Appearance for the ‘Guys’ Sandra Bullock makes Surprise Appearance for the ‘Guys’:LOS ANGELES-In his…
- Lost Ending Lost Ending:Spoilers ahead for the ‘Lost’ end .. “Live together,…
Related posts on UssPost.com Details.
_________________________________________Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
usspost@gmail.com
KPISP.NET ATMZ.US
Inception Ending
15 Jul 2010
by in Uncategorized Tags: amp, dems, doubt
So fast that no one can catch up.
Have you watched the Shi* in the toilet swirl before it goes down? That's where the Democrats are at this point.
i would hope for that change
Yes and we should give them a ball & chain for their prize.
There's three years to go mate. Bush took eight years to stuff everything up. Give Barack a fair suck of the sav eh!
Not sure what you're talking about- the economy has picked up, we're capturing and killing terrorists left and right, and a dozen Republicans who verbally shunned stimulus money for their states have been exposed as liars when it was discovered that they had accepted the money after all. The Repubelicans have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are nay-saying, lying, racist, hypocrites. and one more thing- who, pray tell, are the Repubes going to run in 2012? sometimes you people make shooting your rants into dust, just too easy
Are Obama and Dems going down hill faster than a Lindsey Vonn?
28 Jun 2010
by in Uncategorized Tags: constitution, doubt, framers, judicial philosophy, nbsp, provision
Today’s decision in McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, finding that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution applies equally to the states and local governments as it does to the federal government, represents just the latest in a long string of decisions by the Roberts Court that demonstrates beyond doubt that judicial activism is something that is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
All jurists approach interpretation of the law and the Constitution from a particular vantage point that informs their decision making. Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, considers himself an "originalist" which, simply put, places greater value on how James Madison would have decided a case in light of the words he and the other framers chose when authoring the Constitution than he does on how a given provision can be interpreted in light of the realities of the day.
Liberal jurists, on the other hand, tend not to adhere to a particular judicial philosophy that informs their decision making but, rather, decide what they believe to be the correct outcome and then go back to justify their decision through a mishmash of doctrines and philosophies that provide a framework, of sorts, to explain how legal provision a lead to legal decision B.
For the last 30 years, America has been caught in a false legal and political dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has little, if anything, to do with the meanings of those words. So-called conservatives who adorn that label do so not because they share a slow and considered approach to progress as a society but, rather, because they adhere to a consensus of beliefs from the conservative community. From the Cato Institute and Heratige Foundation down to the local GOP party leader, if you believe x, y and z, you’re a "conservative" and if you don’t, you’re not.
Liberals, on the other hand, are arguably much less disciplined in their worldviews. rather than adhering of a checklist of beliefs and opinions on various issues, they place much greater value on concepts like empathy to inform their decision making. Neither approach has any more intrinsic value than the other, but that doesn’t stop each side from claiming a monopoly on the truth or the best way to interpret the law and Constitution.
Take the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage, for example. Conservative talking points, for years, have railed against the perceived and expected "judicial activism" of liberal judges to "legislate from the bench" so as to advance their interests and beliefs. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that any court finding in favor of same-sex marriage will have done so by adhering to the provisions and protections already enshrined within the Constitution. Given those vastly different biases, is it even possible to decide who’s right and who’s wrong?
The doctrine of stare decisis is a basic tenant of American jurisprudence that, in the simplest terms, encourages (but doesn’t require) judges to give deference to issues that have previously been decided, placing high value on the predictability and reliability of the law. this doctrine has been one of the hallmarks of our system of justice since before the Constitution itself was drafted. it is a basic and commonly held belief that relitigating issues over and over diminishes the reliabilty of the law and puts citizens in the precarious position of not knowing whether conduct presently legal will still be legal tomorrow or whether a right enjoyed by an individual today will still be considered an individual right tomorrow. We presume that the judges who previously addressed the issue, did so with care and all due consideration and that relitigating the issue would only result in re-inventing the wheel, coming with it the inherent danger of that re-invented wheel having a straight edge.
In the five years since taking the helm at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts has apparently made it his mission to right what he perceives as the past mistakes of the Court in an attempt to reshape the political and legal landscape to more closely comport with his so-called conservative worldview. Basic legal doctrines like stare decisis mean little to the Roberts Court because they stand in the way of arriving at the outcomes he and others would have preferred all along. therefore, in cases like the recently-decided Citizens United vs. Federal Communications Commission, long-standing rules curtailing corporate participation in elections – arguably the most self-disciplined action that Congress has ever taken to limit their own powers - have been thrown aside in favor of corporate interests who want to use their vast resources to influence and control the outcome of elections to advance their own agendas.
With respect to gun ownership, the Court has decided that not only is the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms a fundamental right that attaches to the individual, but that it is incorporated to the states and local governments through the 14th amendment’s due process clause. now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that decision, however, arriving at it did require a rather narrow reading of the 2nd amendment (basically ignoring the meaning of the first part of the 2nd amendment that reads "a well-armed militia being necessary to the security of a free State. . . ." emphasis added). it also required ignoring the reality of the day – a reality wherein handgun violence has reached epidemic proportions and literally thousands of people are killed or injured each year due to the prevalence of such weapons. The duly-elected governments of the city of Chicago or the District of Columbia adopted their gun control measures as a means of curtailing such violence – a public policy choice that, apparently, the Roberts Court doesn’t believe they have the power to do. it doesn’t matter that nearly all police organizations throughout the country opposed overturning such gun control laws – Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative allies on the Court had an agenda of elevating the perceived individual right to gun ownership above the rights of local governments to protect their citizens and since Justice Kennedy decided to side with the conservatives this time around, the validity of all gun control measures throughout the country are now called into doubt.
Call it what you will, but these decisions are just as judicially activist as any other decision you can name. The conservatives, for whatever reason, place such value on the 2nd amendment that they’re willing to sacrifice their own safety and the safety of every other American in order to arrive at what they fully believe was the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
I’ve read the 2nd Amendment over and over throughout the years. not once did I ever see the word "handgun" in it. it merely refers to "arms." therefore, if the 2nd amendment grants an unrestricted right to an individual to keep and bear "arms," what’s to stop an individual who chooses to keep and bear a thermonuclear weapon, for example? How does one draw the line, wherever it may exist, between what are acceptable arms and what are not? There’s nothing in the text of the 2nd Amendment itself that answers that question and, I suspect, that if such a case were ever to reach the Supreme Court, some overriding public policy or national security concern would trump the individual’s right to nukes. It’s hard to imagine how such public policy or national security concerns are any less valid in the context of cities that are plagued by gun violence, but there it is.
One person’s judicial activism is another’s adherence to the Constitution. In the age of the Roberts Court, one that, in all liklihood, will be around for a long time to come, it’s high time we drop the false narrative of judicial activism vs. judicial restraint. Everyone has an agenda and, given the opportunity, anyone would follow theirs. In light of recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts is clearly unafraid to pursue his own agenda – what makes his doing so any less "activist" than others who exercise their powers to advance theirs? Absolutely nothing.
Judicial Activism is in the Eye of the Beholder
RSS