kokigami

laws are full of legacy bits like that. Someday, it will cause a problem, no doubt.. and you're welcome..

seems a sweeping, and unsupported statement. Though, I suspect some people who get support are lazy, the large majority are working poor..

the state of Wisconsin, prior to April, required out of state ministers to obtain a letter of sponsorship from an a resident minister of the same church prior to the event. For the last 12-13 years I have been doing that for ULC ministers. This will save me time and money.. this is a good thing.

Looks like the odd, and onerous requirement for non resident officiants being required to have a letter of sponsorship has been repealed. Gates are open.. come one and all, and hold a wedding.... https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/acts/372 and the history

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html

anyone look at the link? It gives a pretty good survey response to this question. It effectively refutes Youch claim that "In case that was not clear, virtually none in the Muslim community has denounced any of their global terrorism". It doesn't rely on personal anecdote. The vast majority of Muslims in several very Islamic areas of the world, oppose attacks on civilians as a means of achieving their largely shared objective of getting us (the US) out of their part of the world. But, as we saw with the fight over universal background checks, the majority can not always get the minority to act a certain way.

If it had worked, it would not have been supplanted by another system. That is why the internal combustion engine has not lost its dominance yet. evolution isn't just a biological event. It is social and political. I think you tell a lot with your terminology above. You don't say charitable opportunities that present themselves, but "confront me". You really don't approve of charitable requests. Taxes are just your excuse.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/591.php

that wasn't his assertion..

tough call. and you need a lawyer to give you a legal answer. And it may be wrong. Contact the local PFLAG and see if they know if the state has made any specific restrictions on the term.

right, and that is why we now have welfare. We tried the kindness of strangers thing long enough to know it doesn't work. Also, you must admit that welfare wasn't the only change in US policy around that time. International warfare, led to seeking and trying to maintain superpower status, a long and expensive cold war, and some pretty creative neo imperialism certainly helped drain the coffers.

historically, good deeds didn't get us as far as welfare has in taking care of the poor. Just sayin...

seems like you could do the job? Get ordained. Or even not. No laws on who can perform a baptism.

well, I would go to the person who told you this, and ask them for references.. They may have it all wrong, having learned if from someone who had it all wrong.. or maybe just mostly wrong.. My bet is they can't cite references, which makes the claim a bit suspect.. But, you can then contact some other places that do this, and inquire if they know of such policies or the source. The agencies that do this are far more likely than we, here, are to know something about the rules governing their operations, though they may well have them.. as I say.. all wrong. Someone likely knows from whence they arise..

it is the closest on the list. Where as, taxing and spending, redistributing wealth, etc, all fall loosely under establishing justice and promoting the general welfare. Which is topical. I am simply refuting the claim that the federal government is exclusively a war/defense administration agency. well, that is a view, I guess. http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm I think you are incorrect, though this doesn't account for any Hispanic or Asian populations.. I don't think they would have skewed the results much.. Lincoln didn't start the war. Sumpter was attacked by the south. The south seceded over slavery issues. (several of the states mention this in their declarations of secession.). Ergo, the war was about slavery. I know historical revision is a popular debate technique, but it is also the reason we so often repeat history. http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm again..

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,establish Justice,insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, andsecure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. waging war was one of 6 items listed for the formation of the federal governement. Not even the first. Governing efforts are patterned after a war theme because the war theme tends to stir motivation, not to justify their existence.

I can't speak for others, but, here, you mis -characterize my position. I think. I don't think your abstract writing is wrong. I think it is difficult to read and distracting.

chicken egg problem. The familiar patterns form the rules. We didn't invent the language, it evolved. the protocols are a function of the language. The specifics of Grammar are an attempt to trap the evolutionary process. The mind is pretty good as sussing out the intent of a message even when the protocols are breached, but it is a distraction.

yeah, there is that. I have generally been a person who believes that spelling is a minor fascism foisted upon us by the previous century.. on the one hand. However, the closer one adheres to protocols of spelling and grammar, the more easily one can be understood by others familiar with the protocols. It is a balancing act. Language is an interesting tool of social engineering. I read somewhere, though I am not sure it is true, that the words we consider obscene are mostly the anglo saxaon terms, suppressed by the normans in their cultural conquests. So we can now say fornicate, but we must refer to the anglo saxon as the F word. I am not sure where I stand on this.

seismic data is pretty easy to come by http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/

well, this agnostic, objects to corporations as well. I make no distinction between the two. And my experience with atheists has been a mixed bag of libertarians, socialists, and the apolitical. I think you are making an inaccurate generalization.

still, there are at least two salient points in there. One is that he is mostly unemployable. Not that he can't work, necessarily, but that few would hire him, when there are others, more capable, to hire. Which leads to a second point, that he is unlikely to make a living wage at any job he might be able to get. These are both problems that arise from a work force that is too large for demand. It is a sensible, and financially sound decision at an individual level. But on an aggregate level, it creates a tension that puts the system at risk, if too many people make it. Much like the anti vaxers put the general health at risk. It is not like no contribution is being made to the social matrix. Buskers, at least good ones, help to make a locality unique, and of interest to visitors, at least. They are a mixed blessing, however, as some hate them. (at least it isn't street mime, eh?)

well, maybe. First, the bible is not the only possible source of info that claims to describe God. So knowledge of God may still exist. Second, it is possible that God had little or nothing to do with the bible because God does not exist. Just like My Aunt Emma had little or nothing to do with the bible. I don't have an aunt Emma. And, of course, it is a popular religious trope that we can't really know God anyway.. because of the difference in scale, or righteousness or what ever. (this is generally brought up when trying to explain why God might have - say - allowed someones child to die: the whole God works in Mysterious ways thing..) So it is quite possible a God of that nature has not intended for us to "know" them.. Just options..

while you have a valid point, re doing just what a corp would do, do you not see how puts you on a par with said corporations? You appear to fall into the complicated area of the the semi deserving poor. You are obviously clever enough to work the system, which means you are probably clever enough to work in the "system". There are those who feel if you can work, you should stuggle along with the rest of us, and eek out a minimal existence. That is, in large part, because, the way the system currently works, the burden of your support is falling to those who are only marginally better off. I don't have exact answers for this. Tax reform, moving more of the burden up the pyramid, seem like a good plan. Better screening and removal of corporate welfare would also help.

You can't represent everyone in this arguement, because you don't represent everyone. Everyone includes us both. Semantically, it would be more correct, I think, to say "not everyone agrees". Which is my point, yes. You don't. Neither does Pan. But you both agree I should help pay for the military. See how the compromise works. I help pay for the military, which, in my view is bloated and wasteful, and you help pay for Welfare, which in your opinion is bloated and wasteful. I have always been curious what would happen if we allowed society to earmark their taxes themselves. The bill would remain the same, but the citizen would be able to assign it as percentages for different spending. That would be an interesting experiment. Have you heard the polls show that acceptance, even appreciation, of Obamacare is on the rise? Still early in the life of this particular bill, but, it will be interesting to watch how it all pans out..