Happy holidays to everyone !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ya know...

I don't ask for the long hours or the long weeks. It's part of what I chose for a career to provide for my family. My wife has been gone for 14 years, (wow, just did the math),,, because she was too insecure to trust a double income when we were both working... and even when I wasn't working. Guess what??? I still have the house, (for now),,, and when I'm not working I live off $1600 a month. My house payment is a grand,,, so that leaves me with $600 for gas, groceries, utilities,,, and other incidentals, (at one point i was paying child support too)... so I know what it means for money to be tight!!!

The biggest problem in this country is decent paying jobs. Not for myself... but for those struggling harder than I have at times. I mentioned in a previous post,,, that Indiana was losing 1700 or so manufacturing jobs to Mexico. Now we are hearing of Nabisco moving many Oreo jobs out of the country. This **** has to stop,,, but Trump ain't gonna fix it. We need somone in Office,,, that will repeal NAFTA, WTO, GATT... and stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Trump has hit the "nail on the head"... but not necessarily for change. He's feeding on us being fed up!!! And that's all Trump has ever done... feed on other people. We need a president that will stand for change,,, and not sell us down the river for their own profit... or allow our jobs to be sold to foreign countries. I've said it for close to 20 years now... "you can't bite the hand that feeds you". If the government wants our money to operate,,, then we need decent paying jobs to pay the taxes the government needs to pay their bills. If Big Business wants us to buy their goods,,, then we need the jobs to be able to do so. We can't buy everything made China, (or other foreign countries),,, if we don't have a job!!! It's been said above in other posts... not everyone can be a greeter at Wally World,,, or work at a fast food resturant, (especially when computers are taking our orders now). We need to make "durable goods" here in this country... and it needs to happen now!!! Otherwise Sanders and Clinton will get their Socialistic Society,,, and we will all be on welfare!!!

Trump has said things that I agree with,,, but I do not agree with Trump.

That's it for now...
 
Now this is interesting... I don't know "Billarys" heart,,, so maybe they were being sincere... but is seems a loose interpertaion of the Bible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...affair-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-forgiveness/

So now "Billary" is trying the "Bible thing",,, hoping to get evangelical votes. Maybe "Billary should know the Bible better before they try to compare themselves to it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15:11-32

Let's look a bit into the article above,,, where "Billary" tries to quote the Bible....

"But this isn’t what the father in this parable" does, she said.

She reminded the congregants at the Holy Ghost Cathedral that he instead put on his finest clothes, had the cooks prepare a feast and went out to meet his returning son with an embrace.

Not quite true,,, if you look at the second link above. As the Biblical parable goes... the Father ran out to meet his son,,, and put His finest robe on the returning son.

A bit of a stretch on "Billarys" part,,,, about the forgiveness of infidelity.

Actually... the Scripture/Bible side goes much deeper. Obviously the prodigal son was someone who wanted what the "world had to offer",,, and when he realized that he was in a worse condition... he came back to the Father. Thus the reason for the celebration,,, and the Father giving his best cloak to the prodigal son,,, as a "welcome home". But let's not forget the "good son". With the party going on for the "lost" son... the good son became jealous... and got pissed at "DAD", (GOD)... and kind gave GOD an "ass chewing".

GOD told the good son,,, that he always had a reward... but to celebrate for his "lost brother" returning home. So much for "Billarys" story,,, because it's BS. The story of the prodigal... has alway been about a person rejecting GOD,,, and coming home to find a place with GOD.
 
Almost forgot... one more thing to think about. Remember how I said the 60's were "prophetic" in a way. I forgot a song I will inlclude now. Only when it comes to the lyrics about Selma, Alabama... replace those with Ferguson, Missouri. And when it comes to the lyrics about Red China... think North Korea. Anything the song says about the Middle East... still stands almost 50 years later.

I still have this song on 45 rpm. Nuff said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I
 
Trump may or may not be feeding us a line of crap, but that's not the point. Point is, he is winning because he is saying what the electorate wants to hear, PLUS he is not only not a professional politician, but the professional politicians do not want to see him in. I think that forcing the RNC to deal with Trump is what is needed here, hopefully it will tell the RNC that when you don't give your voters what they want, they're going to slap you upside the head. Trump is that slap.

Will Trump be a good President? Who knows. If he is, we'll be better off. If not, one more bungler down the drain. He'll be kicked out of office in 4 years if he doesn't do what he says he will. But, in 2020 the RNC will be more likely to listen to us, and send us a true Conservative instead of the Democrat Lites they've been sending us. I mean, Romney? Really? Give me a break, might as well have put Gore up as the Republican as Romney.
 
Telco,

I apolgize if anything i have said,,, has ticked you off. However,,, I remember you suggesting that Trump may be a Democratic "plant"... and since then I have had other people point out that in any recent election,,, that Trump was seen in the background supporting that Democratic nominee. Sure,,, Trump has said many things that we all agree with,,, but that is a part of him selling himself, (I.E. "marketing genius").

At this point... it wouldn't surprise me,,, ( if Trump did end up heading up directly against "Billary") ... that somehow Trump would concede,,, or in a sly manor... hand the election to "Billary". At this point in time, I don't trust Trump. If he gets in Office,,, and ends up being a good President,,, then I will admit I am wrong. However... keep in mind that even after Trump promised he wouldn't run as an Independant,,, Trump has said he would run as an Independant if he didn't get the Republican nomination.

Again... I keep thinking back to Ross Perot. He ended up, (unintentionally), dividing the Republican vote,,, and "Billary" ended up in Office the first time because of that. However,,, things are differnet this time. Don't forget that Mr. Bill is part of the U.N. now,,, and if Mrs. Bill gets into office... they will work together to make some drastic changes in this country. Think to Great Britain and Australia for example. They are lucky to have a "super soaker" to defend themselves as citizens. California and NYC have already moved in the same direction.

Keeping on that subject for the moment,,, the Second Amendment, (some poeple are rolling eyes and saying "here we go"), not only says we have the right to keep and arm bears, (hope the joke is gotten),,, but that we have the right to an "organized militia". Now,,, I will admit that many of the current individual "state" militias... do nothing but cause bureaucratic problems,,, but the initial idea by the Founding Fathers... was to defend this Country against foreign "boots" setting foot on this soil of the USA. The day may come soon... after we lose the right to defend ourselves,,, where we will see the USA submitting themselves, (beyond economically), to a foreign country.

For a few years now,,, I have talked to friends that have served, or are serving in some branch of the Armed Forces in this country... about having a "civilian" "basic training program". Most Military people think it is a good idea. Not the wallowing in the mud,,, 5 mile marches with back packs thing. Just basic survival, organizational, and tactical skills,,, in case foreign boots land on THIS soil... and knowing where to meet if that scenario did happen. Kinda like the orginal idea of an organized militia.

Speaking of the military, (again), I had a buddy a deacade or so back... that was Marine "Special Forces". His term was expiring,,, and he was considering "re-upping". Partly for serving his country,,, but also for the sign up bonus to take care of his family.

When he found out that he would have 2 "chips" injected into his body... One for tracking,,, and the other to "short circuit" his nervous system, (killing him instantly),,, if captured behind enemy lines... he backed out.

On another note,,, some or many of us may have seen the recent "Billary" ads... where she says that she will make sure that jobs don't leave this country. Does it need to be said that "Billary" signed NAFTA in the 90's,,, and sent many manufacturing jobs overseas. I have no doubt she means jobs won't leave this country now... but that the positions will be filled by illeagal immigrants willing to work for half the wages we now have. Thus her first steps to Socialism... similar but different from Sandars.

While Trump may be talking about building a wall,,, I think the first thing he would do as President... would be to grant amnesty to the present illeagals in this country,,, and give them citizen status. So much for our jobs. Trump is a businessman first and foremost,,, and if he can save a buck to make a buck... he will do it. If he will whine about windmills ruining the view from his hotel property in Europe... he'll do the same thing here in the U.S. !
 
Sorry Telco,

I forgot to rant about Romney. In the "circle" I belong to,,, I caused shock and dismay when I voted for Obama. I got called a few dirty names,,, including a "moderate Democrat"... when actually I consider myself as a "moderate Republican". Beyond certain issues I have with Romney that I will not discuss, (and me already saying i could look into his eyes and tell he was lying)... I did not agree with his "voucher" program to privatize medicare,,, any more than I agreed with Bush juniors idea to privatize, ("voucher") social security. None of this was meant for anything else,,, than to pump up the stock market on an already failing economy... to make the rich, richer.
 
04_Sport_LS said:
Keeping on that subject for the moment,,, the Second Amendment, (some poeple are rolling eyes and saying "here we go"), not only says we have the right to keep and arm bears, (hope the joke is gotten),,, but that we have the right to an "organized militia". Now,,, I will admit that many of the current individual "state" militias... do nothing but cause bureaucratic problems,,, but the initial idea by the Founding Fathers... was to defend this Country against foreign "boots" setting foot on this soil of the USA. The day may come soon... after we lose the right to defend ourselves,,, where we will see the USA submitting themselves, (beyond economically), to a foreign country...
Click to expand...

The second Amendment was because our founders feared a gummint standing army that could be used to oppress the people. There is a reason the British are subjects and we are citizens. The 2nd is to protect us from a tyrannical gummint (read NObama). His INjustice department already oversees something like half the police forces in the country. The FIRST thing Hitler was disarm the populace. NObm is using the same logic and reasons Hitler used.

They can take my firearms from my cold, dead hands. In fact, I start the paperwork on a couple tomorrow...
 
Absolutely correct,LS4me! Obomber is far left and unqualified as they usually are. don-ohio :)^)

LS4me said:
The second Amendment was because our founders feared a gummint standing army that could be used to oppress the people. There is a reason the British are subjects and we are citizens. The 2nd is to protect us from a tyrannical gummint (read NObama). His INjustice department already oversees something like half the police forces in the country. The FIRST thing Hitler was disarm the populace. NObm is using the same logic and reasons Hitler used.

They can take my firearms from my cold, dead hands. In fact, I start the paperwork on a couple tomorrow...
Click to expand...
 
LS4me said:
The 2nd is to protect us from a tyrannical gummint
Click to expand...

too many people dont understand that this is the real case right there...



the 2nd amendment there to protect US from OUR OWN GOVERNMENT in case they try to take our other rights away...

the 2nd amendment protects the rest of them...





and thats why it drives me crazy when you hear people (mostly the left side of the government) try to tell us that we need to ban certain weapons, or limit the amount of rounds then can hold. or that you dont need semi automatic weapons for hunting... hunting? when did the 2nd A ever have anything to do with hunting?
 
Are you all sure about that??? Keep in mind that when our government was formed... The U.S. was still considering England as an enemy of tyranny.

Consider the following links... and read them carefully for proper definition. Keep in mind at the time,,, a "state" meant a nation state... and not an individual state.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secon...ution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

Also keep in mind Thomas Jefferson is famous for the quote of "separation of church and state". Was Jefferson talking about individual states,,, or a "nation state"?

Then again... when Jefferson mentioned "separation of church and state"... was that statement meant to keep religion out of gobernment,,, or government out of religion????
 
To double back for a moment on my "Marine" buddy for a moment. He was part of the Group that had Saddam Husein in their sights,,, readfy to "pull the trigger". As I was told,,, the command came back from the Whitehouse,,, not to take Saddam out... and to stand down. This Marine buddy was also one of the ones that watched the "waepons of mass destruction,,, drive their way out of Iraq... into Afgahnistan,,, and told not to fire on the convoy.

Like I said before... each President has their special supporters,,, that gives them backing. In the Bush years, (and "Billary" years), they all kissed a** to Saudi Arabia. Now we are doing the same to China. This country lost it's "brass" decades ago,,, mostly because people no longer give a sh!t about anyone but themselves. Trump says he will consider halting, (but not necessarily stop), buying Saudi oil... but that is of no consequence,,, because most of our oil is now coming from China owned Canadian soil. I know I am repeating myself to a point... but it bears repeating!!!

In the end,,, we have no one to blame but ourselves... for our inaction.
 
Once again... gotta do this the hard way;

LS4me said:

"The second Amendment was because our founders feared a gummint standing army that could be used to oppress the people. There is a reason the British are subjects and we are citizens. The 2nd is to protect us from a tyrannical gummint (read NObama). His INjustice department already oversees something like half the police forces in the country. The FIRST thing Hitler was disarm the populace. NObm is using the same logic and reasons Hitler used.

They can take my firearms from my cold, dead hands. In fact, I start the paperwork on a couple tomorrow... "

LS4me,

You are right about NoBama,,, but not the Hitler example. More along the idea of the USSR and China,,, but I STILL wouldn't have voted for Romney,,, even if my life depended on it!!! We haven't been given much of a choice overe the last few years. It's not Obama that is over seeing half the police forces in this country... but is actually "Billary" with Mr. Bill, (ohh nooo) being part of the United Nations.... and the gradual disarmament of law abiding citizens in countries like Austraiia and England for example.

We are the "last stronghold",,, and if the U.S. falls to "politically correct" firearms pressure...then the world is won by us failing to stand our ground, (not from a physical or defensive standpoint... but from a moral one). As much as the Gospel of Peace is meant to be preached,,, if one is to take a look at the Old Testament,,, there were many wars fought against tyranny and anything else that was wrong.

I find it interesting that you are from the Socialist State of California, (I mean that half as a joke, so please don't take it personally). Back on March 20th... You said you started paperwork on a couple of purchases. Sorry you have to go through that. I have been joking lately with co- workers,,, that I belong to the gn of the month club. Where I live,,, I can walk into an LGS... pick what I want,,, and walk out in about 10 minutes, (with an FBI background check), and be on my way. Maybe part of that is because I don't buy any "black guns",,, or "assault weapons". Most of my stuff has "collector value"... but is still useable out to 200+ yards,,, or within 50 yards... if necessary. A practical range for self defense.
 
As an aside to my above post... I will say that I have no problem with people going through a background check for a firearms purchase. The basic form to be filled out, (in my state),,, covers most problematic issues for the individual directly purchasing the firearm, (in the state I live in). If you are a felon, domestic abuser, drug user, or found without full mental faculty, or have other major issues, (even if you are honest with the questions)... then when the LGS runs the background check,,, and you are "red flagged"... you can expect the local law enforcement agency to come pick you up for an extended stay until you stand in front of a judge...and you won't have a positive experience as an end result.... and you just dug your hole deeper.

At the same time,,, I have no problem with the idea, (or proposed laws),,, wanting background checks at gun shows. I dont see that as unconstitutional... because if a person has broken the wrong laws, (or doesn't have proper faculties), then they probably shouldn't own a gun. For some... put a statute on the laws,,, saying those with no drug, felon, or abuse charges in the last 5 or 10 years... have a probationary period,,, before they can own a gun. Repeat offenders will most likely repeat... and those that don't should have the same rights as others to legally own a firearm.

Fair enough???
 
Last thing, (for now).

I am sick and F-ing tied of all of the public shootings in this country. This all startedback waaaayyy before 1999 with Columbine. I actually have columbine plants behind my house to remind me of that day. My now ex and I planted them together, at our new house at the time. Why is this happening??? Lack of proper parenting or parents not being present in kids lives.

My son is way past high school at this point,,, but... (how do I say this correctly),,, he had proper correction and discipline growing up. Not necessairly a spanking... but riding his ass when he screwed up, (while knowing I still love him),,, and pointing out in a reasonable way how he could have done better... or thought things through more than he did. In recent years,,, he has told me that while it may not seem like he is listening... eventually what I tell him sinks in.

This idea goes right on through the Sandy Hook Elementary thing... and beyond to this day. Parents stick their kids in front of a TV watching Barney all day long... or playing video games by themselves,,, and wonder why their kids are underdeveloped socially... and don't do well in school when the parents don't put the time into their kids or the homework to give the child drive and motivation to better themselves. I gotta stop here before i get into a long rant.
 
On the First Amendment, separation of Church and State, its intent was not to keep religion out of government or government out of religion as the claimed intent is now. In other words, it wasn't meant to keep a 10 Commandments monument off the courthouse lawn. It's ONLY intent was to keep the government from determining your religion for you. Before the Revolutionary War, everyone in the Colonies was a member of the Church of England, and you paid tithes to it. It didn't matter if you were a Christian, Hindu, atheist or what, you were required by law to be a member of CofE and pay tithes to it. The First Amendment prevents the government from forming a Church of America and requiring everyone to be a member of it. Course, it does seem that we're being required to be a member of the Church of Secularism, and our tax money goes to promote no God considering all traces of Him are being legislated and sued away. I've even been hearing calls to prevent religion from being seen in public period, and occasionally hear people saying that teaching a child about God should be treated as child abuse. These same people then excuse themselves because it's visiting day at the federal pen and they want to go see their kids.
 
Telco,

I'll agree with you to a point,,, but separation of Church and State was meant to keep Government out of Religion. I went through this coming up on a year ago with a buddy of mine,,, with the supreme court decision of June 2015... and "Billary's" interpretation of separation of church and state. The idea went beyond the idea of "one religion" for the newly formed United States,,, and freedom from England's tyranny.

To repost those e-mails, (not part of this forum or any menber of this forum):

Joe,



Take a look at this, and read the whole thing.



http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=123



About halfway down the article,,, you will read this:




So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:


And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case - the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:


Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12]



That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":


[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]



With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which - if perpetrated in the name of religion - the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel" - whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
 
So those that think that separation of "Church and State" was meant to keep "religious" ideas out of government... need to think twice. Because back in the day when this country was founded... most people were "God fearing" and understood where their liberties came from. So stick that in your corn cob pipe,,, and smoke it.
 
To continue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state



2 sections you will find in this link:



I highlighted the red part below

Reformation

At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms. According to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.[11]

In the 1530s, Henry VIII, angered by the Catholic Church's refusal (Pope Clement VII) to annul his marriage with his wife Catherine of Aragon, decided to break with the Church and set himself as ruler of the new Church of England, the Anglican Church, ending the separation that had existed[citation needed] between Church and State in England.[12] The monarchs of Great Britain have retained ecclesiastical authority in the Church of England since Henry VIII, having the current title, Supreme Governor of the Church of England. England's ecclesiastical intermixing did not spread widely, however, due to the extensive persecution of Catholics that resulted from Henry's power grab. This eventually led to Nonconformism, English Dissenters, and the anti-Catholicism of Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth of England, and the Penal Laws against Catholics and others who did not adhere to the Church of England.

One of the results of the persecution in England was that some people fled Great Britain in the hopes of religious freedom. Some of these people voluntarily sailed to the American Colonies specifically for this purpose. After the American Colonies famously revolted against King George III of the United Kingdom, the Constitution of United States was specifically amended to ban the establishment of religion by Congress.

Jefferson and the Bill of Rights

Main articles: Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause

In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[20]

Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their manner of worship. The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of theCitizen in 1789).





Citizen in 1789).Citizen in 1789).
 
How backwards are the the above posts,,, from what we are taught now about the "separation of church and state". Sad thing is... the lies that are being pushed on the people of this country now,,, contradict what this country was originally founded on over 200 years ago.
 
The "Joe" i sent the above e-mails to,,, is someone haven't heard from since talking to him in June of 2015.... and again,,, is no member of this forum!!!
 
Seems trump is starting to cut his own throat,,, with the idea that women deserve some sort of punishment for an abortion. While I am pro life,,, there is no reference in the Bible to abortion,,, even though historically they had ways back then to prevent children. However,,, I have gone "round and round"... with a female friend or two,,, that if a woman becomes pregnant and the man wants the child... then the woman has no right to an abortion!!!

Sorry... but if a woman "opens herself up" to becoming pregnant with a man, (Knowing it doesn't always take a man to become pregnant these days),,, then the man should be able to legally hold the woman accountable to deliver the child... even if she doesn't want it!!! As the saying goes, "it takes two"... so let the man have a say before the child is aborted!!!
 
04_Sport_LS said:
Seems trump is starting to cut his own throat,,, with the idea that women deserve some sort of punishment for an abortion. While I am pro life,,, there is no reference in the Bible to abortion,,, even though historically they had ways back then to prevent children. However,,, I have gone "round and round"... with a female friend or two,,, that if a woman becomes pregnant and the man wants the child... then the woman has no right to an abortion!!!

Sorry... but if a woman "opens herself up" to becoming pregnant with a man, (Knowing it doesn't always take a man to become pregnant these days),,, then the man should be able to legally hold the woman accountable to deliver the child... even if she doesn't want it!!! As the saying goes, "it takes two"... so let the man have a say before the child is aborted!!!
Click to expand...

There's ALWAYS 2 people involved in an abortion; and one isn't the male that sired the child.
 
If I install an extra phone line on your house against your will, can I still demand you pay me for the service you didn't want?
 
FDR said:
If I install an extra phone line on your house against your will, can I still demand you pay me for the service you didn't want?
Click to expand...

I sure hope you're not trying to make that an analogy..... If so, it's a pretty poor one!!
 
Trump actually answered correctly to the question `IF it's illegal to have an abortion.......''. Any illegal act,especially causing death should be prosecuted.
Of course,they wouldn't BE prosecuted as a rule,but the answer is correct. don-ohio :)Î
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 140 (members: 1, guests: 139)
Back
Top