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.
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.
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.
Sure I know about the roman marriage laws. I even know about Nero claiming to marry a male ex slave and a boy he castrated and roman law forbidding it at the time. But that is all sort of irrelevant as to why government is still involved in marriage. Even in Rome, the church controlled what could and couldn't count as marriage starting around the 4th century when Rome converted to Christianity. But I didn't want to write a complete history of marriage, just a short summery to why government is involved today.
Also, the church or churches was involved in marriage long before the Council of Trent. The reformation set certain things into cannon but didn't start it. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term Church and instead said a religious matter. In English law which is important here because of the connections to Ireland and the US, the laws of old Rome are somewhat removed. The Marriage Duty Acts on the late 1600s (1694 and 95) is likely where the start of government interference in Ireland and the US in modern day marriage started.
That's a silly argument. You should have just let the GP die in shame rather than put the "same right as everyone else" argument up. You see, the same thing was said about gays. Hell, I even made the same argument. All gays can get married anywhere and have the same rights as everyone else, all they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. Now to say the singles have the same rights and married, all they need to do is conform to whatever dictates are out there is the exact same argument. Either civil rights are rights and belong to everyone or they are special rights to a certain few who act in certain ways.
Years and years ago, marriage was generally a church matter. Some societies had laws or rules dedicated to strengthening the society like procreation edicts and such. The more citizens you have, the more chance of surviving raids and such. Then some European king made it a state matter in a scuffle over power with the church. This is where the "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married line came from", if either spouse was in violation of church laws or the laws of the kingdom, the church wouldn't allow the marriage and the kingdom would sometimes allow or disallow it (but you needed to get special permission) . You had a lot of people who were then just living together. This had problems with inheritance and such which lead into the entire women not owning anything and such. Eventually a perk of government involvement was tying inheritance to marriage which encouraged it even where the church didn't support it. This eventually gave way to women having rights to own land and so on. Common law systems ended up interpreting people living together for long enough times as being married for practical purposes and eased some of this.
Now, where people expect things from the government, their employer, and many other groups of people, proving you are part of a family unit is important as benefits and privileges are bestowed or limited to people based on familiar connections. This origination of government involvement became entrenched and just transferred into most systems out of historicity and ease of implementation. The only way to be added to a family is to either marry into it or be adopted. To establish proof of this, legal documentation is sometimes required. Otherwise, you and I could collaborate that the old rich widow was your wife in common law (or you were her adopted brother) so you inherit all her belongings and will split it with me upon the agree terms after she died with no known heirs.
The reason government is still involved is because people expect things from other people and from government. The government also expects things from people and the degree of expectations is all based on family connections (levels of taxation and so on). Gays want to be married because they want this same benefits that others have when they are essentially common law married. Some of it might be in it just to force others to look at them the same as anyone else, but I find that most people who do not try to appear different already do get looked at the same as everyone else.
that's a short and definitely not comprehensive reason why government is involved. It boils down to tying benefits, legal rights, and inheritance to family relations.
A treaty would place restrictions on congress but congress could also just void/invalidate the treaty and act in any manner they wanted. A treaty cannot stop congress from removing these restrictions. It's just a matter of priorities and whether we want to withdraw and lose any benefits the treaty might have.
It's probably hit with a spam filter before it even reaches him.
In the email servers I administrate, we white list known addresses and segregate others for approval. Generally the higher ups will assign this approval process to their secretaries. However, in the chance that 100 emails come in saying the same things, this usually trips the spam filter and goes into a folder that is generally automatically deleted unless someone detects it as not spam first. This is why form letters and such are not really noticed until someone sends a PR release stating over so many have been sent. then they look at their spam filter logs and realize 200k people are pissed at them.
No, the trust is still in question as there are many "must not" have principles often buried inside of must have legislation. We cannot trust any administration in this day and age to not do this for ideological, personal benefit, or other reasons. It (the trust) simply is not there.
Now as for the detailed in public negotiations, I agree it cannot be negotiated efficiently that way. But the underlying principles should be publicly available and details about questionable or even unfavorable terms and items should be examined more openly. For instance, the copyright terms of the treaty, the US constitution says it's "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". So how is that possible without input or discussion from society at large or even the congress who may or may not want to alter laws concerning it later but cannot in order to comply with the treaty?
Nothing happening because of openness is a lot better than bad things happening because of secretiveness. Its really simply, you can learn to live by the rules you do not like if it means stopping worse rules from happening. But to be further disadvantaged or to even exploit others who are disadvantaged in secrete negotiations defies all public trust. The openness does not have to be microphones in the meeting rooms, it has to be we are working on topics X, Y, and Z, and taking positions a, b, and c, in them. The details to achieve that or even congress saying consider positions d, and e, in Z also is a must in this political climate.
In the era of we won't know what is in the bill until we pass the bill and it will take three days and three lawyers to understand the bill so we will not allow a reading before the vote, knowing what is going into the treaty is a must.
Thats right. This isn't a vote to approve the treaty but to allow the administration to present one that will not be altered by congress for an up or down vote which has to meet constitutional muster.
This concept is supposed to allow time to be saved on making treaties to address issues that are time sensitive. Unfortunately it also requires trust in government to be working in the best interest of the country and that trust simply is not present today and hasn't been for a while.
The parent to your post is confused too. A treaty does not have the same force of law as the constitution. The constitution still supersedes it as the constitution says they need to be made under it. Or in other words government cannot enter into a treaty that gets rid of the constitution or the first amendment or the fifth amendment or anything. The treaty would have to be constitutional before entering into it but then it has the same force as law passed constitutionally.
Possibly the answers may not be importation of their residents but taking control of the countries and improving them. Then there won't be ships to sink or tons of people overloading them.