Do you think businesses print money? They have to take in more than the cost of doing business is. How is this possible if it is not achieved by passing the costs along to the customers? There is nothing vile about it. It's simple economics.
My rebuttal was that years and years before that, marriages had nothing to do with the churches of today, and maybe nothing to do with any church at all.
So your opening sentence was flawed on that basis.
lol.. there is no flaw at all. What is so hard for you to understand here? I DID NOT give a complete accounting and did not intend to. For fucks sake, how many times does this need to be said? I do not care about before or anything. It is completely irrelevant.
Exactly, what you gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage. My point exactly. Thanks for noticing.
Is it your point to echo my own point? If so, you win the internet. I said this in the original post.
That is what you said. Please refrain from saying that in the future. It would be most appreciated.
If you want to specifically limit yourself to certain periods or countries, where it is accurate, that would be much improved.
lol.. Stop, just stop pretending to be a moron. Sorry for going for the insults but you seem to be insisting things that never were said were. I never said in the beginning, or always or on this specific date, I never even said it was absolute, that is all inventions of your own minds. What I said is correct, in the past churches and religions generally controlled marriage. You know this to be true and admitted it but are stuck on some bullshit about periods when it wasn't.
Just drop it, you are not adding anything to the conversation and doing little more then pedantic trolling.
That seems to indicate me you think there are non-Christian religious institutions you want to consider, and that would take you outside of Ireland, or into its ancient history if you want to discuss Celtic marriage. I guess the jews weren't invented until well after the Christians. Is that what you are trying to say? And yes, pagan religions had marriage ceremonies too.
Anyone? Yes, they have, history has been asserted as the role model to follow, especially with marriage, which is treated as a "sacred" and "unchanging" and "eternal" tradition that is exclusively and solely the province of the "church" or other "religious institution" so yes, they have done so.
So that's why you are acting like an imbecile. You are pissed that people don't like gay marriage and banned it forever and somehow thing going after me will vindicate it or something. No, I nor anyone in this thread asserted history is any role model. For fucks sake, all I did was explain how modern government became entangled in something that they shouldn't even be involved with in the first place.
Go piss up a rope or something. You will be more productive doing that then you have demonstrated yourself to be here.
Do you want me to paste some of the filings made in regards Proposition 8, or Obergefell v. Hodges, or the advertising regarding this vote in Ireland? Or will you accept it as generally true without me doing so?
I can paste some crap too. Here is your problem, I simply do not care. I did not come here and say marriage should be a certain way or another way or whatever. I really do not care if you can marry your boyfriend, dog, sister, mother or whatever your fetish is. It doesn't matter to me one but at all.
Then I'll take this as implying a disavowal of those arguments, is that ok with you?
It doesn't matter, you took everything else and twisted it just so you can troll against it. I don't find having any opinion on how you twist and misaligned contexts will have any meaning other then further your trolling.
Sadly many don't know this. But no, even with the history being recognized as discretionary, you do need to get it right. Because sometimes it isn't what others, including yourself, say it is.
No I got it right. You are just hopelessly looking for an argument to win even if you have to create one that never happened.
PS, the Magna Carta, mentions marriages and sets conditions thereby, including the King's involvement. I kinda consider it part of the English legal system, and I wouldn't consider it entirely religious either.
Actually, the magna carta gives the catholic church power over marital matters. It only mentions heirs in ward (
not of age) and a widows inheritance and the abilities of spouses to appeal for the life of their condemned spouse. Not the shell shocker you think it is and truthfully, it starts off strengthening my claims.
Temp drop is about 3.5 degrees f every 1000 feet. So that's around 35 degrees f drop at the ceiling. Untreated diesel will start separating wax at around 24 degrees F and likely be completely gelled at 18 or so degrees F. So as long as the ground temp is lets say above 35+30, or 65 degrees, there should be little to worry about. Frankly, in an open cockpit, that might be a little low of a range anyways for that height.
That is without added weight of a fuel heater. You could run a return line near the exhaust or through a port in the intake manifold to heat the fuel and pump it back into the tank eliminating most all gelling concerns as long as the ground temp is above the 24 degrees F. But then you would need a pump large enough to supply the engine as well as return excess fuel and hoses and pressure regulators.
Sure.. I don't see why it wouldn't. They have been using gasoline and diesel to cut steel for ages. Usually it's the larger operations and big steel but petrogen makes a consumer torch that burns gas or diesel and can cut something like 14 inches thick.
"Accidentally" isn't certain here. If I was part of something that was wrong and I wanted it to be known, I would very well "accidentally" leak it too.
Except I don't see how that applies in this case. Stay or leave -- it's not the bank's call. But if politicians are putting leaving the EU on the table, even as an empty gesture, then naturally the bank has to start thinking about contingency plans. That's just common sense, even if you think the very idea of leaving the EU is mad.
It's also common sense to keep that on the DL to prevent misguided overreaction to what is after all still a hypothetical scenario. The Bank of England a central bank and so people must be constantly scrutinizing it hoping to glean inside information on future monetary policy. That's to say nothing of having to deal with the conspiracy theory nutters.
The scripture from earlier confirms to those of us who trust in the promise of God's kingdom --and who see dozens of bible promises already fulfilled-
Pardon me, I might be one of those godless heathens but I suffered through quite a few years of Christian teachings - what exactly has the Bible promised us apart from forgiveness from our sins and heavenly bliss in the afterlife? The old testament was as I remember it mostly punishments. Punishment for eating the apple, building Babel's tower, Sodom and Gomorrah and of course the flood to wipe out everything. We're all sinners from the original sin and if we don't repent it's hell.
The new testament was pretty much all allegories on how we should live, there were a few "one-off" miracles while Jesus lived but all those who saw him raise the dead, turn water to wine or walk on water has been dead for 2000 years. So there's good and evil in the world, but that's pretty indistinguishable from good and bad people with free will without God or Satan pulling anyone's strings.
So I'm curious, what is it you feel God has promised? And what do see that makes you feel he's delivered? Because I can't find a lick of difference, the devout believers get injured, sick and die like the rest of us and terrible sins go by without being struck down from the heavens. It's of course possible that all of this gets tallied up and justice is served in the afterlife, but here and now in this life I can't find any sign of God. Maybe I should ask this in the opposite direction, if you were to envision a world without God what exactly would be different?
So when did they first exist?
It's irrelevant to any point I made. Most of the rest of your comment is irrelevant too.
But your summary was based on flawed premises. You should have tried harder to be more accurate.
There is no flawed premise. Ireland gets it's laws from English law not roman laws. Nothing it flawed, as I already said, what I gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage. It's even in the first post. You gain nothing by trying to inject what I left out as I left it out on purpose. BTW, what is it you think you are going to gain by arguing what was never said?
But it did try to change things to suit its needs. Why does the Church get to dictate what it wants?
Because at one point in time, the church had the power to do so. It's fucking history, you can find books about it. I suggest you pick on up.
You didn't limit your comments specifically to Ireland, the UK or the US, you should have started with that caveat, but no, you'd still be wrong in your summary if you didn't note how the Church attempted to subsume existing marriage practices.
You do not need to limit anything as long as it is within the context of the article and GP post. FFS are you that daft that you cannot take that into consideration?
You mean right after Ireland was forcibly conquered by English forces?
Yep, and that would make it the history that is important because it actually happened and is what is influencing modern day Ireland. Wow, for a minute there I though you were a complete imbecile but evidently, you do get it. You just don't want anyone to know it.
As role models go, I'd pass on that.
I'm not sure anyone asked you to make it a role model. If you think I did, I'm sorry your English is so screwed that you got that impression. The history is the history, it is just what is. You do not need to worship it, look up to it, just know about it and decide if you want to repeat it or not.
Not really, Jet fuel is more or less kerosene/diesel with a few additives to stop gelling at low temps. Well, jet B fuel is anyways. Jet A is a little more tricked out but you could get a close approximation with either kerosene or diesel fuel and a few additives mixed in something like the oil additives for 2 cycle engines. You possibly might need to few engine modifications. The Ceiling of this type of craft just isn't high enough to worry about the air temps that much as long as the ground temp is high enough.
Who gave this clown a "5"?
People tired of other people apologizing on behalf of the Obama administration, and those already tired of Hillary weasel-wording on the subject.
so you are saying that republicans were lying in their report about Benghazi?
No, I'm saying that the Obama administration, with the direct involvement of Hillary Clinton, was lying - deliberately, repeatedly, for weeks - about what happened. In order to influence the imminent election.
Look, I understand what you're trying to say. If they're trying to hide their atrocities we should expose them, if they're using them as propaganda and to terrorize we should suppress them. But as a guideline that would be very confusing and hard to live by since it assumes you know the details of every conflict and who wants what, assuming they're all in agreement which they're probably not. Not to mention the answer is probably (d) all of the above, some are inspired to fight against the atrocities, some are frightened by them and some are cheering them on.
Every year we send busloads of teens to visit Nazi concentration camps, not because we have some morbid fascination with death camps and genocide but because at some point you have to learn how cruel human beings can be to each other. But that is quickly fading out of living memory, it's 70 years since the war ended so those who really remember the war is in their 80s and 90s by now. Very soon it'll be "museum" knowledge that you read about in a book and look at an exhibit and it's going to be filed away as ancient history. But it's not, because there's still shit like that going on but we're not sure if we want to see it or not.
I'll admit that watching cruelty will make you die a little inside. You will want to punch something or maybe cry a bit, but at the end of the day I want the truth about the world not the PG-rated version. Which is of course not to say you should lose perspective, with 7 billion people it'll seem like anything you focus on happens a lot even if it deals with 0.01% of the population or less. And I'm here in the safety of my living room looking at a screen, I'm not the one in a war zone getting shot at. I'm not the one hoping nobody will bomb the market I go to. I'm not the soldier who needs to pull the trigger risking that innocents die if I do or die if I don't. I still got it easy.
Church was probably a wrong word to use. Religions traditionally did the marriages. When I said church, I didn't mean the catholic church or church of England or just Christianity, I mean it was generally a religious institution if it was officially recognized at all. In England, which US and Irish law derives from, the government started getting involved when it started requiring licenses in the late 1600s with the marriage duty acts. It started setting conditions of who can and cannot be married too.