• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kokigami

  1. you have a complicated life.
  2. The louisiana purchase WAS confiscated property. Confiscated by government. From natives. And given to the "private sector". And from that, is derived, nearly every modern property claim west of the MIssisipi. So, where does that put the wealth of the private sector, much of which is derived from the land confiscated by government and redistributed to its favored people (in this case, white folk.. ). So, since all that wealth was redistributed by the government, and established much of the individual wealth of the nation, wealth in the form of personal property you seem to value so deeply, why, NOW, is redistribution so evil? And if it is always evil, why is not the fruit, a few generations on, also held as evil, in your eyes.. (Actually, I know the answer.. but I am curious as to what you will say to avoid saying it..)
  3. you are right, everyone pays some taxes.. at some level. I think he is refering to income taxes, which are often paid in, only to be returned at the end of the cycle. Other tax programs may return more than was paid in on income tax, offsetting sales taxes, for example. Not everyone who needs help benefits from those programs of course. The resources being used by those in the private sector were obtained by government, and handed out to the private sector. Consider the Louisiana Purchase, and how that led to the land rush and railroad right of ways etc etc. etc.. where the fed gave away the purchase. Try to be consistent.
  4. True, those on public aid are in no position to pay taxes. You and I are. There are some who are paying taxes that believe in supporting those unable to pay taxes, simply because it is good for society to do so. It is a matter of scope of vision, I suspect. You seem only interested in those that do something for you. The NY times and Maseratis are optional, personal items. Government is not. We all interact with, benefit from, are hindered by, and generally function within and environment defined by governance. I do not think we all get the same product, however. The wealthy tend to benefit more and so, they should pay more. The poor aren't getting the NYT or Maserati of governance, they are getting the weekly reader and yugo with a flat..
  5. ah, you seem to think those people don't pay taxes. I think we all should pay, in accordance with what we can. You think someone else should pay. See the difference?
  6. moving costs money. You could give him the funds. Then it wouldn't be your tax money..
  7. And, of course, it may well be that a god, or God might want a few not too serious ministers mocking the rest.. One can never tell with g/Gods...
  8. those squirrels are not dependent upon you. They are making reasoned decisions about investment of time and energy vs pay out. They are extorting you.
  9. the library reference desk is a great place to seek info. Also, you may want to seek out the convention circuit, as they have panel discussions, often with some successful writers. I have friends who write, at a various levels of success, but I know nothing of the industry personally.. sorry.
  10. It really isn't an answerable question. So why take it seriously? greatest is subjective. And there is the question "has mankind actually achieved anything, or is it all a big accident.?"
  11. I don't know if you read the article. It is here. He was asked a direct question, and one of things his fines like about him is that he doesn't sugar coat anything. That is the reason they asked the question.. they knew it would get exactly this kind of response, and that would get people reading the article. He knew that too, which works well with his agenda of spreading the gospel as he understands it.. so he gave them what they wanted. A&E also knew this could generate interest, both good and bad, so they tried to make it look like they were distancing themselves from his comments while keeping their cash cow on payroll. That didn't work, because the Cash Cow is has more business smarts than the A&E farmers.. There is nothing of import here. neither. A&E for trying to have it both ways.
  12. depriving him of livelihood? Do you know anything about the stars of Duck Dynasty? What they gave him was a time out. They were saying, "careful how you word things. In order to appear progressive now, as opposed to money grubbing CEOs, we are going to give you a minor rebuke.. " Next time, try not to be quite so specific about what you think.." Now, it is quite possible that someone who made the decision was personally offended.. we will never know..
  13. no, he was being punished for potentially offending a portion of their viewing audience. If he had said, "I am a believer in Jesus and the Bible and those two things define what I see as sin", there would have been no punishment. He didn't. What seems to have offended some was tying homosexuality with bestiality and a rather myopic view of the life of pre civil rights blacks. Now, I agree, this was hardly cause for anyone to get their panties in a bunch, but, a TV station can't really afford to offend anyone.
  14. That is just a persecution complex, which, I understand to be a tenet of your faith. A&E is not anti christian. They are very friendly to profits.. (see what I did there..). Someone thought this was going to create a public relations problem and hurt the bottom line, so they (admittedly over) reacted and created a public relations problem. That is a pretty common scenario, and has nothing to do with issues of faith or oppression thereof. I have my own theory, which is that Phil is trying to get A&E to break the contract, or at least get himself some leverage for new negotiations. He doesn't seem dumb, despite him appearing ignorant. He knew the interview would create a frickus, and he knows there are currently others who would give them a better percentage to ride the shows popularity. I think someone at A&E underestimated him. Yes they backed down. They would have backed down soon enough anyway. This was just a damage control manoeuvre to try to quell a protest movement. He would have been off hiatus before they ran out of episodes already filmed.
  15. "The problem with internet quotes is that you cant always depend on their accuracy" -Abraham Lincoln, 1864
  16. First, he wasn't fired. He was suspended. A pretty minor punishment, designed to look like A&E was doing something when it wasn't. Second, like most stars, he has a contract, which, probably, stipulates how he can represent himself as his behaviour reflects on his employers. A bit like that "Dude, I'm getting a Dell" guy got canned for marijuana. I could find others. This is about bullying, I suppose, if it is bullying to enforce a contract. Like, say you hire a contractor to fix paint your house blue, and they paint it rainbow.. would you take them to court?
  17. People seek out things with which they can identify and commiserate, and things that they find foreign and strange. They seek drama, and 'reality" shows are designed to amp up drama, while presenting "everyman" figures that we can either relate to, or mock. Personally, I think that A&E over reacted to this. What he said was not that horrible, and completely in line with his character. That is to say, no one should be surprised he said it. He didn't advocate any oppression, he simply expressed his lack of understanding, and lack of any interest in understanding, the lifestyle of others. I read the article, and it is well written. What I find most interesting about this episode is not the Phil/A&E dynamic, but the social dynamic of the supporters and attackers. The conservatives have lept up screaming about freedom of speech, when this isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a contractual issue, between a star and his shows owners. I never saw these people leaping up when Charlie Sheen was having comflicts with the two and a half men people.. I don't see them leaping up to defend the Satanists and the Hindus trying to put a monument next to the 10 commandments in --- Oklahoma.. I think.. ? Defending the free speech of someone one agrees with is easy and of no merit. I fully support Phils right to say whatever he wants. I also support A&Es right to enforce their contract.. or not, as they have chosen it seems... I support wackos at the Westboro Babtist church. I don't agree with any of them. And that was the phrase I had hoped to see from some of those leaping to his defence.. It didn't happen..
  18. We start treading on dangerous ground when we start looking at loyalties.. . but I understand..
  19. from what I have seen, he didn't see the TSA as innocent, but generally avoided everyone else.
  20. I don't think the RCC cares if you are ordained by a church that they don't recognize. A bit like if one of their members joined a fan club. They would probably care about what you do with that ordination. Think of every church as a brand, or a trademark. The RCC has a specific brand image they wish to present. At some level, this image is based upon belief and tradition, at some level, it is about customer retention. Their brand is Patriarchal, and built on Central Authority, with very restrictive dogma. If you act on your ordination, you erode their brand, even if you don't claim any RCC allegiance. But in such a minor way that they probably won't take notice. Unless you get a lot of publicity, or simply inform them. But if you do so with a claim to RCC doctrine, or dogma, etc, you are effectively mis representing their product. So, say you perform weddings, in a manner similar to, inspired by, or outright stolen from the Catholic Liturgy. Their view would be that you are selling a counterfeit product.. and thus diminishing the percieved value of their product. As they can't really sue on copyright, they might take other actions to suppress, or at least distance themselves from you. Ostensibly, they would do so based upon the fact that, as a member of the RCC, you were actively working against the teachings of the RCC. This is what they say when they threaten to apply sanctions to politicians who support Gay Rights or Abortion Rights. The church teaches X, and the member professes Z in contradiction of X. The member has lost standing by their own actions, and the church can't condone their errors.
  21. whois reports http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=ulcihq.org&type=domain bruce good Oklahoma
  22. this appears to be a second agency using the title of ULC international Headquarters. This site claims to forward ordinations requests to modesto, and advises that those already ordained via ULCHQ, .Net or the Seminary need not do so again.
  23. well, contact them. Ask them for more info. Names and such. Assume they mean well, unless you learn differently. ]
  24. well, the question belongs in Legal.. but.. as all things legal, it depends. Most states, I suspect, have small religious communities that perform their rites without the benefit of "clergy". I suspect many states have exemptions encoded in the law to allow this, and I doubt any specify the religious communities allowed to do that. When I became ordained, that, in fact, was one of my reasons for doing so. I was also unsure if the law allowed it. We opted to have a friend ordained, and she performed the wedding, but, after extended time reading Wisconsin law, I am pretty sure it would be legal here. You will have to consult a lawyer to be mostly sure, and a legal challenge and court is the only method to be nearly certain. But start by looking up the marriage statutes in the states you are considering. Google is your friend.