Check out VirginiaPreachers.com to watch great preaching 24 hours 7 days a week.
Check out VirginiaPreachers.com to watch great preaching 24 hours 7 days a week.
www.EarnMoreWV.com Envision a modern manufacturing plant with an automated assembly line or other high-tech robotic equipment that speeds productivity and accuracy. What happens when that key equipment breaks and the line stops? As a mechatronics engineer, you will have the training and skills to get things back on track! In West Virginia, an entry level position in mechatronics pays about 000 a year, and the median salary is roughly 000. Mechatronic engineers are multi-talented, Garretson said. “Students will be very well-versed in the industrial sector. They will be technically versed. They can work in hotels and nursing homes — facility type work. They will be electrical and mechanically inclined, so it can be a good fit just about anywhere here in southern West Virginia.”
Video 3 of 3 In 1964 Peter Griffiths, Conservative candidate in Smethwick constituency won his seat using the slogan “If you want a nigger for a neighbour VOTE LABOR” The general election was won by Labour, overturning 13 years of Conservative government. In contrast, largely because of the race issue, a Labour majority of 3544 was turned into a Tory majority of 1774, defeating the senior Labour MP Patrick Gordon in Smethwick. The “nigger for a neighbour” slogan was attributed to the Griffiths campaign in a BBC interview by Labour leader Harold Wilson. Griffiths denied using those words, but said that they accurately reflected the frustrations of locals. Immediately after the election Wilson (as prime minister) attacked Griffiths in the House of Commons, calling him the “parliamentary leper”. Additionally the Tories had also taken control of the local council, instituting a policy on Marshall Street of buying houses which came up for sale and putting them back on the market for sale to whites only. In an attempt to better-integrated immigrants. Soon after, Americas Malcolm X visited Marshall Street and was interviewed, saying: “I have come here because I am disturbed by reports that coloured people in Smethwick are being badly treated. I have heard they are being treated as the Jews under Hitler. I would not wait for the fascist element in Smethwick to erect gas ovens.” Malcolm X was shot dead in Harlem days after his return from this trip. Later that year in October a …
Video Rating: 5 / 5
Question by Nick: does anyone here know more than 1 single person with NFL network?
i dont have it, and nobody i know except this one guy does. what the hell? i live in virginia and im pissed about not being able to watch the packers vs. cowboys game. imagine how the ppl in wisconson and texas feel. its just not fair.
oh, apparently only some states are totally f**ked. good idea on the sports bar, but i like smoking weed while i watch my football and obviously that wouldnt work. haha
Answer by Rocky The Fearless
NFL BLOWS there biting the hand that feed them
Give your answer to this question below!
Complete video at: fora.tv George Leef, Director of Research at the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, deconstructs several common arguments that propose the need for increasing the number of college graduates in the US Leef argues that the number of people with college degrees currently outweighs the number of jobs that require them, and suggests that graduating more people will only lead to “credential inflation.” —– The rapid growth of China, India, Brazil and other emerging powers has dramatically altered the complexion of the global economy in recent years. At the same time, rising deficits, high trade imbalances, a declining dollar, and a lingering economic downturn have placed America’s position within the global economy in peril-and have policymakers deliberating over the keys to America’s economic future. One area often cited as critical to the nation’s future economic strength is higher education, particularly that America must dramatically increase the number of college-educated citizens to remain a leading economic power. – Miller Center for Public Affairs George Leef is Director of Research at the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, NC. He was previously on the faculty of Northwood University and a policy adviser in the Michigan Senate. Since 1996, he has served as book review editor of the Foundation for Economic Education’s magazine, The Freeman. Leef is the author of Free Choice for Workers: A History of …
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Question by mission_viejo_california: Here’s a pop quiz on money in politics: Who gives more money to federal candidates, MoveOn.org? or?
Here’s a pop quiz on money in politics: Who gives more money to federal candidates, the National Rifle Association or MoveOn.org?
And it isn’t even close.
In the last two election cycles, MoveOn.org Political Action Committee spent more than $ 58 million in pro-Democrat political advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission records.
In just the 2006 election cycle, MoveOn.org spent $ 27 million in advocacy to elect a Democratic majority in Congress and used its formidable fund-raising clout to propel numerous Democratic challengers to House and Senate victories. By comparison, the NRA PAC donated $ 11 million in 2006.
“They give away and raise about three times as much as the National Rifle Association,” said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. “A tremendous amount of money, especially when you consider how quickly they came on the scene.”
Brief History, Lasting Impact
Founded in 1998 by Wes Boyd and Joan Blades, MoveOn.org started as an online petition to stop the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Boyd and Blades, software engineers from Berkeley, Calif., posted a petition on the Internet seeking signatures for Congress to censure Clinton and “move on” to other domestic issues.
The online petition attracted like-minded liberals and MoveOn began a near-continuous dialogue with its members about what it should do to influence American politics. It created its PAC in 1999 and began attracting money for the 2000 campaign, raising, according to reports, $ 250,000 in the first five days and $ 2 million for the entire cycle. Though impressive for its first cycle, MoveOn did not find its true voice or tap into deep-seated anti-war angst until after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
“To combat terrorism, we must act in accordance with a high standard that does not disregard the lives of people in other countries,” reads a petition drawn up by the organization after the attacks. “If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose.”
That dovish advocacy flowed seamlessly into MoveOn’s campaign against the Iraq war, leading to a wider Internet following, bigger membership and larger contributions. MoveOn continued its anti-war campaign after the invasion of Iraq and mobilized money and members in the 2004 presidential election, rallying around Howard Dean’s campaign and helping propel him to front-runner status in the polls and shattering all previous online fund-raising records.
A Funnel of Funding
The 2006 election cycle thrust MoveOn into the ranks of potent pro-Democrat organizations. Never before had the group’s ability to identify candidates and collect small donations on their behalf yield bigger results.
“MoveOn has grown into one of the biggest political action committees in the country,” Ritsch said. “MoveOn collects money and says to its members ‘We’re going to pass that money along.’ They’re a conduit. They are aggregating and assembling all the money and pooling their resources so it adds up to big influence.”
MoveOn backs candidates and asks members to send contributions on their behalf. They pass the donations on directly and handle all the paperwork.
“They’re speaking for the grassroots,” Ritsch said. “This is a form of bundling.”
A quick tally of MoveOn-directed contributions in the 2006 election cycle, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, offers a sample of the impressive size of its donations:
— Sen. Robert Byrd, West Virginia = $ 834,211
— Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri = $ 382,531
— Sen. Jon Tester, Montana = $ 301,788
— Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio = $ 287,622
— Sen. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania = $ 160,780
Those contributions helped build a Senate Democratic majority as four of the five entered the Senate for the first time. McCaskill and Tester won razor-thin victories over well-funded GOP incumbents Jim Talent and Conrad Burns.
MoveOn-directed contributions also propelled several Democratic challengers to House victories, among them: Nick Lampson, Texas’ 22nd District, $ 156,883; Tim Mahoney, Florida’s 16th District, $ 145,334; Zack Space, Ohio’s 18th District, $ 141,298; Michael Arcuri, New York’s 24th District, $ 129,685; Joe Donnelly, Indiana’s 2nd District, $ 123,035, and Tim Walz, Minnesota’s 1st District, $ 102,657.
“They can help you a lot if you’re a (MoveOn) candidate,” said Byron York, White House correspondent for the conservative National Review magazine and author of “The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy,” a book on powerful liberal groups and their organizing practices.
“They live by the $ 25, $ 50 and $ 100 contributions. They have become a real powerhouse in Democratic circles. The smaller the contributions, the more people it takes to come up with a big amount of money. They can legitimately say they represent a large segment of the Democratic primary electorate,” York said.
MoveOn’s clout was visible most recently in the muted and belated response from prominent Democrats in the aftermath of the organization’s full-page New York Times advertisement last week questioning whether congressional testimony by Army Gen. David Petraeus, head of Multinational Forces in Iraq, would “Betray Us?”
On Capitol Hill, Democrats avoided the issue for days as did the party’s top presidential candidates. Only after days and days of coverage did prominent Democrats declare the advertisement out of bounds.
Tale of Torment
MoveOn directs no contributions to Republican candidates or incumbents, instead avidly spending money against the GOP. It spent more than $ 2.5 million in 2006 in independent expenditures against Republicans.
House GOP incumbents who lost in 2006 and saw significant MoveOn independent expenditures against them can testify. Among those hardest hit: Charlie Bass, New Hampshire’s 2nd District, $ 143,266; Chris Chocola, Indiana’s 2nd District, $ 245,603; Melissa Hart, Pennsylvania’s 4th District, $ 297,603; and Nancy Johnson, Connecticut’s 5th District, $ 444,424.
Two House Republicans survived the MoveOn independent expenditure onslaught in ’06, Rep. Deborah Pryce, who represents Ohio’s 15th District, absorbed $ 417,623 in MoveOn wrath but won a narrow victory nevertheless. Pryce recently announced she will not seek re-election to a ninth term. Rep. Thelma Drake of Virginia’s 2nd District won a second term with 51 percent of the vote after withstanding $ 529,535 in MoveOn independent expenditure torment, giving her the distinction among House Repubicans of taking the most expensive independent expenditure punch MoveOn threw in the 2006 campaign and living to tell the tale.
MoveOn also punishes Democrats who stray from their liberal, anti-war world view. MoveOn ran a radio ad against Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell when he announced his opposition to higher fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks.
The script of the brief radio campaign portrayed a conversation between a father and son about something called a Dingellsaurus. The child asks his father what that is. The script reads in part:
“Someone who’s been in Congress so long, he forgets about the people who sent him there,” says the father.
“Are there any around today?” asks son, Billy, to which the father replies: “Our own Congressman John Dingell. He’s standing in the way of the first energy bill ever that would really combat global warming. It would also help the auto companies in the long run and that means more jobs.”
“Is a Dingellsaurus dangerous?” Billy asks. The father replies: “Very, because if the Dingellsaurus gets his way, we could all be extinct.”
Earlier this month, MoveOn ran a brief television campaign against Washington Democratic Rep. Brian Baird after he returned from a trip to Iraq and announced the Bush troop surge may be achieving important military gains. The ad featured an anti-war Iraq veteran. The script reads in part: “Keeping American soldiers in Iraq for an indefinite period of time being attacked by an unidentifiable enemy is immoral and irresponsible.” It asked viewers to “Tell Rep. Baird: Support Our Troops. Bring Them Home.”
“Just because MoveOn only supports Democrats doesn’t mean it supports all Democrats,” Ritsch said.
Answer by .█.
Yes your are right, they only support FAR LEFT democrats, those are the real threats to America.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Question by MusicLuvr: Help with college! Are my grades good enough? Do i need more of anything?
with an average of 3.6 GPA, average SAT and ACT scores, a member of honor, but no sports…do you think i could get into any of these colleges:
university of virginia
university of pennsylvania
i still have 2 years of high school…what else should i do?
more clubs? (what kind)
a sport? (how many, what kind)
Thank you so much!!!
when i say average SAT/ACT scores i mean i haven’t taken them yet, but just assume a score that’s just “good”
and i meant to say honor society (sorry)
i live in California
i wanna become an architect
Answer by samianquazi
where do you live? geography matters
what price range are you looking for? tuition matters
what do you want to study? academics matter
go back and add new details, and tell us your SAT/ACT scores too as well as your class rank
apply to TULANE UNIVERSITY and look up “Tulane Deans Honor Scholarship”…its incredible!!!
also look at Rice University and UC Berkeley…the Ivys might be a reach for you though
What do you think? Answer below!
Question by Dana1981: Based on Virginia, who’s more out of touch, Obama or McCain?
Obama is visiting Lebanon, Virginia today.
Many in economically distressed rural southwest Virginia earn a living mining coal or farming. But Lebanon’s success at attracting high-tech industry has landed it in the Democrats’ campaign spotlight.
Warner, who is running for Senate, carried the rural area for the Democrats when he ran for governor in 2001. And Warner persuaded CGI and Northrop Grumman Inc. in 2005 to locate in the coal-mining region.
The two companies moved to the region as a less expensive way to do business without sending jobs overseas. Amid the rolling farmland, Northrop Grumman operates a call center and backup data center for Virginia’s state government across from Canada’s CGI Group center, which employs software developers, analysts and consultants.
Former state Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, co-chairman of Republican John McCain’s campaign in Virginia, said Obama is “out of touch” with the region. McCain is more committed to having coal as part of the nation’s energy future than Obama, he said.
Obama is focusing on the attraction of high-tech industry to the region.
The McCain campaign’s co-chairman claims Obama is out of touch with Virginia because McCain wants to use more coal power plants in the future.
Who do you think is more out of touch, and why?
Answer by Charles V
High tech is the wave of the future… McCain is way out of touch.
Give your answer to this question below!
Representative Virginia Foxx has a long record making outrageous comments on the floor of the US House. She continued that pattern recently by saying health insurance reform posed a greater danger to Americans than any terrorist living in any country. This video is the local news coverage on WXII-TV in Winston-Salem of Foxx’s absurd and shameful statement.
Video Rating: 3 / 5
Rockwell International Corporation
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Overall: 57 ft. tall x 122 ft. long x 78 ft. wing span, 150,000 lb.
(1737.36 x 3718.57 x 2377.44cm, 68039.6kg)
Aluminum airframe and body with some fiberglass features; payload bay doors are graphite epoxy composite; thermal tiles are simulated (polyurethane foam) except for test samples of actual tiles and thermal blankets.
The first Space Shuttle orbiter, "Enterprise," is a full-scale test vehicle used for flights in the atmosphere and tests on the ground; it is not equipped for spaceflight. Although the airframe and flight control elements are like those of the Shuttles flown in space, this vehicle has no propulsion system and only simulated thermal tiles because these features were not needed for atmospheric and ground tests. "Enterprise" was rolled out at Rockwell International’s assembly facility in Palmdale, California, in 1976. In 1977, it entered service for a nine-month-long approach-and-landing test flight program. Thereafter it was used for vibration tests and fit checks at NASA centers, and it also appeared in the 1983 Paris Air Show and the 1984 World’s Fair in New Orleans. In 1985, NASA transferred "Enterprise" to the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum.
Transferred from National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• • •
Quoting from Wikipedia | Space Shuttle Enterprise:
The Space Shuttle Enterprise (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first Space Shuttle orbiter. It was built for NASA as part of the Space Shuttle program to perform test flights in the atmosphere. It was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield, and was therefore not capable of spaceflight.
Originally, Enterprise had been intended to be refitted for orbital flight, which would have made it the second space shuttle to fly after Columbia. However, during the construction of Columbia, details of the final design changed, particularly with regard to the weight of the fuselage and wings. Refitting Enterprise for spaceflight would have involved dismantling the orbiter and returning the sections to subcontractors across the country. As this was an expensive proposition, it was determined to be less costly to build Challenger around a body frame (STA-099) that had been created as a test article. Similarly, Enterprise was considered for refit to replace Challenger after the latter was destroyed, but Endeavour was built from structural spares instead.
Construction began on the first orbiter on June 4, 1974. Designated OV-101, it was originally planned to be named Constitution and unveiled on Constitution Day, September 17, 1976. A write-in campaign by Trekkies to President Gerald Ford asked that the orbiter be named after the Starship Enterprise, featured on the television show Star Trek. Although Ford did not mention the campaign, the president—who during World War II had served on the aircraft carrier USS Monterey (CVL-26) that served with USS Enterprise (CV-6)—said that he was "partial to the name" and overrode NASA officials.
The design of OV-101 was not the same as that planned for OV-102, the first flight model; the tail was constructed differently, and it did not have the interfaces to mount OMS pods. A large number of subsystems—ranging from main engines to radar equipment—were not installed on this vehicle, but the capacity to add them in the future was retained. Instead of a thermal protection system, its surface was primarily fiberglass.
In mid-1976, the orbiter was used for ground vibration tests, allowing engineers to compare data from an actual flight vehicle with theoretical models.
On September 17, 1976, Enterprise was rolled out of Rockwell’s plant at Palmdale, California. In recognition of its fictional namesake, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and most of the principal cast of the original series of Star Trek were on hand at the dedication ceremony.
Approach and landing tests (ALT)
Main article: Approach and Landing Tests
While at NASA Dryden, Enterprise was used by NASA for a variety of ground and flight tests intended to validate aspects of the shuttle program. The initial nine-month testing period was referred to by the acronym ALT, for "Approach and Landing Test". These tests included a maiden "flight" on February 18, 1977 atop a Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) to measure structural loads and ground handling and braking characteristics of the mated system. Ground tests of all orbiter subsystems were carried out to verify functionality prior to atmospheric flight.
The mated Enterprise/SCA combination was then subjected to five test flights with Enterprise unmanned and unactivated. The purpose of these test flights was to measure the flight characteristics of the mated combination. These tests were followed with three test flights with Enterprise manned to test the shuttle flight control systems.
Enterprise underwent five free flights where the craft separated from the SCA and was landed under astronaut control. These tests verified the flight characteristics of the orbiter design and were carried out under several aerodynamic and weight configurations. On the fifth and final glider flight, pilot-induced oscillation problems were revealed, which had to be addressed before the first orbital launch occurred.
On August 12, 1977, the space shuttle Enterprise flew on its own for the first time.
Preparation for STS-1
Following the ALT program, Enterprise was ferried among several NASA facilities to configure the craft for vibration testing. In June 1979, it was mated with an external tank and solid rocket boosters (known as a boilerplate configuration) and tested in a launch configuration at Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39A.
With the completion of critical testing, Enterprise was partially disassembled to allow certain components to be reused in other shuttles, then underwent an international tour visiting France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the U.S. states of California, Alabama, and Louisiana (during the 1984 Louisiana World Exposition). It was also used to fit-check the never-used shuttle launch pad at Vandenberg AFB, California. Finally, on November 18, 1985, Enterprise was ferried to Washington, D.C., where it became property of the Smithsonian Institution.
After the Challenger disaster, NASA considered using Enterprise as a replacement. However refitting the shuttle with all of the necessary equipment needed for it to be used in space was considered, but instead it was decided to use spares constructed at the same time as Discovery and Atlantis to build Endeavour.
In 2003, after the breakup of Columbia during re-entry, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board conducted tests at Southwest Research Institute, which used an air gun to shoot foam blocks of similar size, mass and speed to that which struck Columbia at a test structure which mechanically replicated the orbiter wing leading edge. They removed a fiberglass panel from Enterprise’s wing to perform analysis of the material and attached it to the test structure, then shot a foam block at it. While the panel was not broken as a result of the test, the impact was enough to permanently deform a seal. As the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panel on Columbia was 2.5 times weaker, this suggested that the RCC leading edge would have been shattered. Additional tests on the fiberglass were canceled in order not to risk damaging the test apparatus, and a panel from Discovery was tested to determine the effects of the foam on a similarly-aged RCC leading edge. On July 7, 2003, a foam impact test created a hole 41 cm by 42.5 cm (16.1 inches by 16.7 inches) in the protective RCC panel. The tests clearly demonstrated that a foam impact of the type Columbia sustained could seriously breach the protective RCC panels on the wing leading edge.
The board determined that the probable cause of the accident was that the foam impact caused a breach of a reinforced carbon-carbon panel along the leading edge of Columbia’s left wing, allowing hot gases generated during re-entry to enter the wing and cause structural collapse. This caused Columbia to spin out of control, breaking up with the loss of the entire crew.
Enterprise was stored at the Smithsonian’s hangar at Washington Dulles International Airport before it was restored and moved to the newly built Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum‘s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles International Airport, where it has been the centerpiece of the space collection. On April 12, 2011, NASA announced that Space Shuttle Discovery, the most traveled orbiter in the fleet, will be added to the collection once the Shuttle fleet is retired. When that happens, Enterprise will be moved to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City, to a newly constructed hangar adjacent to the museum. In preparation for the anticipated relocation, engineers evaluated the vehicle in early 2010 and determined that it was safe to fly on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft once again.