Oren wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:29:38 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've heard the same about SB not thinking Mormons are Christian. I'd
have to DAGS for you, on that.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be
Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.


While you search, find out if these are Baptists living in the South
or members of the Southern Baptists Convention.

Let me know, please.

This reminds me of a true story in the Netherlands. Guy was rather
orthodox protestant, not anywhere near Anglican. Met a Catholic girl.
Converted, and became so Catholic that his wife divorced him ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:
I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a bit
too far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then a
majority, or even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look at a
(perhaps crazy) example. If you allow that in a majority
Christian/Catholic/Baptist school, you need to allow it also in a
majority Jewish community, or Muslim community. I can see it
already, before a public high school football game 3/4 of the
students prostrate themselves facing east ...
I was talking more about specific functions. For instance if the
students vote to include a prayer at graduation ceremonies, which is
forbidden. In many instances, they have said a person couldn't use
even a biblical reference in their validictory speech.

OK, as an agnostic, and father of an equally agnostic valedictorian at a
public high school, I would say the following: A prayer at graduation is
a no-no for me. But, words with a similar meaning without references to
God or religion should be easy to find. You come up with the prayer, and
I'll "translate", OK? A biblical reference, similarly, I think. I hope
I didn't bite off more than I can chew ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Sure, will do, if I find out anything.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Oren" wrote in message
...

While you search, find out if these are Baptists living in the South
or members of the Southern Baptists Convention.

Let me know, please.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:06:04 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sure, will do, if I find out anything.


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .

While you search, find out if these are Baptists living in the South
or members of the Southern Baptists Convention.

Let me know, please.


I do hope you post what your find. I'm interested in 1710 colonial
Georgia Baptists. Multi-generations. And how many moved to Alabama.

Which ones became Confederate soldiers and such stuff as that.

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be
Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

You can cite me as an authoratitive source. I HAVE heard it from a member of
the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was a
missionary to Mexico. He asserted that "Catholics" in Mexico are really
pagan Aztecs wrapped in some symbology of the Church.

Han wrote:

No, I wouldn't. My religion teaches that what God wants is righteous
conduct. To the degree that such proselytizing strengthens the faith
- and conduct - of the preacher, it's a Good Thing(tm). My kids
won't be affected by it. Nor insulted. We'll wish the Christians
well and success in their endeavors.


I like that phrase "righteous conduct". I will use it too. In my
view righteous conduct doesn't mandate any religion or view except
being a "good person"

You can expand "Righteous Conduct" to include charity, justice, good works,
loving kindness, and any number of otherwise positive actions.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:30:45 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be
Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

You can cite me as an authoratitive source. I HAVE heard it from a member of
the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was a
missionary to Mexico. He asserted that "Catholics" in Mexico are really
pagan Aztecs wrapped in some symbology of the Church.


Gawd damn Spaniards messed it all up for everybody.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be
Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

You can cite me as an authoratitive source. I HAVE heard it from a
member of the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist
Convention. He was a missionary to Mexico. He asserted that
"Catholics" in Mexico are really pagan Aztecs wrapped in some
symbology of the Church.

But hasn't that often been the way of the (Catholic) church?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

No, I wouldn't. My religion teaches that what God wants is righteous
conduct. To the degree that such proselytizing strengthens the faith
- and conduct - of the preacher, it's a Good Thing(tm). My kids
won't be affected by it. Nor insulted. We'll wish the Christians
well and success in their endeavors.


I like that phrase "righteous conduct". I will use it too. In my
view righteous conduct doesn't mandate any religion or view except
being a "good person"

You can expand "Righteous Conduct" to include charity, justice, good
works, loving kindness, and any number of otherwise positive actions.

Yes!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:30:45 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be
Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

You can cite me as an authoratitive source. I HAVE heard it from a member of
the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was a
missionary to Mexico. He asserted that "Catholics" in Mexico are really
pagan Aztecs wrapped in some symbology of the Church.


I've seen a documentary showing much the same.
Knew a Mexican (don't know if he was American yet, or even legal)
in Chicago whose kid was a friend of one of my kids.
He told me his wife was a hair-yanker and could cure just about
anything.
Described to me how hanks of hair on different parts of the skull
controlled different parts of the body.
By yanking the hanks in a controlled manner, cures were had.
All voodoo to me.
Don't know if he was a Catholic, never asked.

--Vic

On 1/27/2012 1:47 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
The Daring wrote:

On 1/26/2012 3:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
The Daring wrote:

I never understood why Republicans were against Democrats having
abortions. Heck, pass a law that compels only Democrats to get
abortions and see how that flies. Thin the herd, heck conspiracy
nuts already believe the real world rulers behind the curtain want
to eliminate most of the world population. o_O

I like it. A society run and totally influenced by republicans. No foreign
players on baseball, football or basketball teams, no foreign workers
(can't
have even legal ones because there is too much chance of illegals
infiltrating)
so there is no fresh fruit or veggies or even beef, pork or poultry and all
those Mac Mansions will have brown landscape dominated by weeds. And all
the
*******s will all be republicans or there will be a great tourist boom for
single republican mothers-to-be flying to more enlightened countries for
their
"touch-ups"

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD

but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't

Well, the good little religious Republican girl is not going to get an
abortion, the Democrat slut is going to use abortion as a form of birth
control, why would Republicans outlaw abortions if it's only Democrats
that are likely to seek them? Let the Democrats get all the abortions
they want and pretty soon, the Republicans will outnumber them. ^_^

TDD

On 1/27/2012 3:12 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:29:38 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've heard the same about SB not thinking Mormons are Christian. I'd have to
DAGS for you, on that.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600,
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.


While you search, find out if these are Baptists living in the South
or members of the Southern Baptists Convention.

Let me know, please.

Half my relatives are Southern Baptists and since they're family, I have
every right to call them bonkers. ^_^

TDD

On 1/27/2012 7:18 AM, Han wrote:
The Daring wrote in news:jfsu9g$bc$1
@dont-email.me:

I believe wholeheartedly in religious freedom and I have every right to
say "no thank you" when someone tries to share their faith with me. If
they don't understand "no" then I believe I have a right to use much
stronger measures to convince the proselytizer that I'm not interested
in their religion. I've found that pepper spray is quite effective.

Yep, but over here a "no, thank you" to the Jehovah's witnesses has been
sufficient


I've had some that were downright pests so I just started telling any
that approached me that I was a Satanist who worshiped The Devil and
freaked them out by inviting them to be a sacrifice at our next meeting
or whatever the heck you call it. Oh yea, I have to do a loud hiss at
them too. o_O

TDD

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:01:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:45:20 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


How about the family farm? right now,the inheritance tax forces people
to sell their property to meet the tax,despite taxes having already been
paid on that wealth.Double taxation.

Inheritance taxes are put in place, and rather blantantly if you listen to
the people pushing them, solely to punish those who make so much money
that they offend the pushers. Inheritances should be taxed by what they
are. If business, then the inheritors pay the cap gains tax just like they
would have if they had bought it (and get the stepped up basis).

with LLC's or trusts, why would anyone place themselves in the position of
being liable for inheritance taxes?

Corporations don't shield an estate from estate taxes. Before the
corporation changes hands, at death, they are taxed. An irrevocable trust
can change hands without taxes but it has actually changed hands before the
death of the originator.


if the estate is a corporation how can the estate be inherited other than the
normal process of shareholders/members of the corporation. If a corporation
dies, it should pay taxes on the proceeds of the dissolution

It would help if these were complete sentences, but an estate is not a
corporation. A corporation my be owned by (in) an estate. The corporation
doesn't die at the death of its owner, it's passed on to his heirs, just as
stock would be. Estate taxes are paid (by the estate) on the (greatly
optimistic) value of the estate when that transfer occurs. Often there isn't
enough money to pay the estate taxes and the corporation goes out of business
(killing those jobs too).

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:33:34 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:17:38 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:42:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:



I read something that was quite disturbing to me a while back. It
seems that the EEOC may now take action against employers who
refuse to hire anyone who lacks a high school diploma because it's
employment discrimination. The EEOC now considers those without a
high school diploma to be "disabled" and should be considered as
such when applying for a job. o_O

TDD

I no longer hire anyone that has not graduated or have a GED. If
they can't finish high school, they are not ready for the workplace.
Everyone of those "disabled" people has turned out to be lazy,
irresponsible, and unreliable. They don't make the 30 day trial
period.

You should only hire occupiers who have degrees in Ancient Egyptian
Literature, $100K in student loans, and live in mommy's basement.
They *must* be motivated, right?

Heh! Saw an interview with a visibly upset occupier. He said:

"I'm a recent college graduate with a boatload of debt and I can't find a
job!"

Interviewer: "What was your college major?"

Occupier: "I don't see how that's relevant."

I saw one of those interviews. Typical leftist.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:03:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

I certainly have. My aunt was such a Southern Babtist (though she lived in
far Northern Wisconsin ;-). She used to argue religion with heathen from the
RC church behind their house.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:22:52 -0500, "
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:03:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

I certainly have. My aunt was such a Southern Babtist (though she lived in
far Northern Wisconsin ;-). She used to argue religion with heathen from the
RC church behind their house.

I see. She was a " Southern Babtist" and not Southern Baptists.

Some "Baptist" handle viper snakes (may be now outlawed) to profess
Faith. Some don't.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:18:53 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:22:52 -0500, "
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:03:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

I certainly have. My aunt was such a Southern Babtist (though she lived in
far Northern Wisconsin ;-). She used to argue religion with heathen from the
RC church behind their house.

I see. She was a " Southern Babtist" and not Southern Baptists.

She belonged to the Southern Babtist Church; the same church you spoke of (you
did use the proper name .

Some "Baptist" handle viper snakes (may be now outlawed) to profess
Faith. Some don't.

Some believe Catholics are Christians, some don't. Some believe LDSers are
Christian, some don't. ;-)

On 27 Jan 2012 22:06:10 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
om:

In article ,
Han wrote:
I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a bit
too far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then a
majority, or even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look at a
(perhaps crazy) example. If you allow that in a majority
Christian/Catholic/Baptist school, you need to allow it also in a
majority Jewish community, or Muslim community. I can see it
already, before a public high school football game 3/4 of the
students prostrate themselves facing east ...
I was talking more about specific functions. For instance if the
students vote to include a prayer at graduation ceremonies, which is
forbidden. In many instances, they have said a person couldn't use
even a biblical reference in their validictory speech.

OK, as an agnostic, and father of an equally agnostic valedictorian at a
public high school, I would say the following: A prayer at graduation is
a no-no for me. But, words with a similar meaning without references to
God or religion should be easy to find. You come up with the prayer, and
I'll "translate", OK? A biblical reference, similarly, I think. I hope
I didn't bite off more than I can chew ...

How about the state decide to "edit" everything you have to say?

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:00:06 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:18:53 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:22:52 -0500, "
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:03:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

I certainly have. My aunt was such a Southern Babtist (though she lived in
far Northern Wisconsin ;-). She used to argue religion with heathen from the
RC church behind their house.

I see. She was a " Southern Babtist" and not Southern Baptists.

She belonged to the Southern Babtist Church; the same church you spoke of (you
did use the proper name .

Some "Baptist" handle viper snakes (may be now outlawed) to profess
Faith. Some don't.

Some believe Catholics are Christians, some don't. Some believe LDSers are
Christian, some don't. ;-)

You have front row Baptists and you have back row Baptist.

Miami: bank robber and one FBI agent attends the same church.. what a
hoot (long story).

In article ,
" wrote:


if the estate is a corporation how can the estate be inherited other than
the
normal process of shareholders/members of the corporation. If a corporation
dies, it should pay taxes on the proceeds of the dissolution

It would help if these were complete sentences, but an estate is not a
corporation. A corporation my be owned by (in) an estate.

this is closer to what I meant


The corporation
doesn't die at the death of its owner, it's passed on to his heirs, just as
stock would be.

corporations aren't passed on, the shares of the deceased are. All other shares
are already owned by someone else, hopefully an heir


Estate taxes are paid (by the estate) on the (greatly
optimistic) value of the estate when that transfer occurs. Often there isn't
enough money to pay the estate taxes and the corporation goes out of business
(killing those jobs too).

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD

but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't

Well, the good little religious Republican girl is not going to get an
abortion, the Democrat slut is going to use abortion as a form of birth
control, why would Republicans outlaw abortions if it's only Democrats
that are likely to seek them? Let the Democrats get all the abortions
they want and pretty soon, the Republicans will outnumber them. ^_^

TDD

Newt's a good republican so I assume any daughters he has or would have would be
sluts, just like him. If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:18:09 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:00:06 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:18:53 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:22:52 -0500, "
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:03:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

I certainly have. My aunt was such a Southern Babtist (though she lived in
far Northern Wisconsin ;-). She used to argue religion with heathen from the
RC church behind their house.

I see. She was a " Southern Babtist" and not Southern Baptists.

She belonged to the Southern Babtist Church; the same church you spoke of (you
did use the proper name .

Some "Baptist" handle viper snakes (may be now outlawed) to profess
Faith. Some don't.

Some believe Catholics are Christians, some don't. Some believe LDSers are
Christian, some don't. ;-)

You have front row Baptists and you have back row Baptist.

And then you have Southern Babtists, only some of whom actually live in the
South ;-)

Miami: bank robber and one FBI agent attends the same church.. what a
hoot (long story).

Come on, spill it!

On 1/28/2012 7:15 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
The Daring wrote:

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD
but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't
Well, the good little religious Republican girl is not going to get an
abortion, the Democrat slut is going to use abortion as a form of birth
control, why would Republicans outlaw abortions if it's only Democrats
that are likely to seek them? Let the Democrats get all the abortions
they want and pretty soon, the Republicans will outnumber them. ^_^

TDD
Newt's a good republican so I assume any daughters he has or would have would be
sluts, just like him. If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them
Jeezuz this got nasty.

The real sluts are the politicians.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:13:37 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


if the estate is a corporation how can the estate be inherited other than
the
normal process of shareholders/members of the corporation. If a corporation
dies, it should pay taxes on the proceeds of the dissolution

It would help if these were complete sentences, but an estate is not a
corporation. A corporation my be owned by (in) an estate.

this is closer to what I meant


The corporation
doesn't die at the death of its owner, it's passed on to his heirs, just as
stock would be.

corporations aren't passed on, the shares of the deceased are. All other shares
are already owned by someone else, hopefully an heir

You're splitting words. Corporations are owned by stockholders. Where there
is only one stockholder it's irrelevant that there is stock (a legal necessity
but irrelevant). Upon death, the corporation *is* passed from the deceased to
his heirs. It does not die. The estate tax *is* paid when (before) that
transaction occurs.

Estate taxes are paid (by the estate) on the (greatly
optimistic) value of the estate when that transfer occurs. Often there isn't
enough money to pay the estate taxes and the corporation goes out of business
(killing those jobs too).

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:15:48 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD

but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't

Well, the good little religious Republican girl is not going to get an
abortion, the Democrat slut is going to use abortion as a form of birth
control, why would Republicans outlaw abortions if it's only Democrats
that are likely to seek them? Let the Democrats get all the abortions
they want and pretty soon, the Republicans will outnumber them. ^_^

TDD

Newt's a good republican so I assume any daughters he has or would have would be
sluts, just like him. If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

As long as they don't vote Democrats; you will be fine and dandy.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:15:48 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD

but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't

Well, the good little religious Republican girl is not going to get an
abortion, the Democrat slut is going to use abortion as a form of birth
control, why would Republicans outlaw abortions if it's only Democrats
that are likely to seek them? Let the Democrats get all the abortions
they want and pretty soon, the Republicans will outnumber them. ^_^

TDD

Newt's a good republican so I assume any daughters he has or would have would be
sluts, just like him.

You mean like Malia and Sasha?

If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

None would have you.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:29:18 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:18:09 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:00:06 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:18:53 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:22:52 -0500, "
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:03:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:45:15 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I know
that Southern Baptists do not consider Mexican Catholics to be Christians.

Cite please!

I've never heard of such a thing, from any Southern Baptists, period.

I certainly have. My aunt was such a Southern Babtist (though she lived in
far Northern Wisconsin ;-). She used to argue religion with heathen from the
RC church behind their house.

I see. She was a " Southern Babtist" and not Southern Baptists.

She belonged to the Southern Babtist Church; the same church you spoke of (you
did use the proper name .

Some "Baptist" handle viper snakes (may be now outlawed) to profess
Faith. Some don't.

Some believe Catholics are Christians, some don't. Some believe LDSers are
Christian, some don't. ;-)

You have front row Baptists and you have back row Baptist.

And then you have Southern Babtists, only some of whom actually live in the
South ;-)

middle row Baptists


Miami: bank robber and one FBI agent attends the same church.. what a
hoot (long story).

Come on, spill it!

Riverside Baptist Church, Kendall, Miami, Florida '80's (not a river
in site). I worked the federal jail down the road and attended
church. I'm not afraid at all. I'm Baptist -- a blood line to 1710!

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:15:48 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD

but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't

Well, the good little religious Republican girl is not going to get an
abortion, the Democrat slut is going to use abortion as a form of birth
control, why would Republicans outlaw abortions if it's only Democrats
that are likely to seek them? Let the Democrats get all the abortions
they want and pretty soon, the Republicans will outnumber them. ^_^

TDD

Newt's a good republican so I assume any daughters he has or would have
would be
sluts, just like him.

You mean like Malia and Sasha?

Barack isn't a slut like Newt



If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

None would have you.

au contraire

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:15:48 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD

but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't

Well, the good little religious Republican girl is not going to get an
abortion, the Democrat slut is going to use abortion as a form of birth
control, why would Republicans outlaw abortions if it's only Democrats
that are likely to seek them? Let the Democrats get all the abortions
they want and pretty soon, the Republicans will outnumber them. ^_^

TDD

Newt's a good republican so I assume any daughters he has or would have
would be
sluts, just like him. If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

As long as they don't vote Democrats; you will be fine and dandy.

republican sluts don't register, that's why the repubs are always at a numerical
disadvantage

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:13:37 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


if the estate is a corporation how can the estate be inherited other than
the normal process of shareholders/members of the corporation. If a
corporation dies, it should pay taxes on the proceeds of the dissolution

It would help if these were complete sentences, but an estate is not a
corporation. A corporation my be owned by (in) an estate.

this is closer to what I meant


The corporation
doesn't die at the death of its owner, it's passed on to his heirs, just
as stock would be.

corporations aren't passed on, the shares of the deceased are. All other
shares are already owned by someone else, hopefully an heir

You're splitting words. Corporations are owned by stockholders. Where there
is only one stockholder it's irrelevant that there is stock (a legal
necessity but irrelevant). Upon death, the corporation *is* passed from the
deceased to his heirs. It does not die. The estate tax *is* paid when
(before) that transaction occurs.

I'd assume that anyone smart enough to form a corporation to hold their estate
would be smart enough to distribute the shares before becoming a statistic



Estate taxes are paid (by the estate) on the (greatly
optimistic) value of the estate when that transfer occurs. Often there
isn't enough money to pay the estate taxes and the corporation goes out of
business (killing those jobs too).

On 1/28/2012 10:23 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
z wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:15:48 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In ,
The Daring wrote:

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD
but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't
Well, the good little religious Republican girl is not going to get an
abortion, the Democrat slut is going to use abortion as a form of birth
control, why would Republicans outlaw abortions if it's only Democrats
that are likely to seek them? Let the Democrats get all the abortions
they want and pretty soon, the Republicans will outnumber them. ^_^

TDD
Newt's a good republican so I assume any daughters he has or would have
would be
sluts, just like him.
You mean like Malia and Sasha?
Barack isn't a slut like Newt


If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them
None would have you.
au contraire

That's why they're sluts.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:26:20 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:13:37 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


if the estate is a corporation how can the estate be inherited other than
the normal process of shareholders/members of the corporation. If a
corporation dies, it should pay taxes on the proceeds of the dissolution

It would help if these were complete sentences, but an estate is not a
corporation. A corporation my be owned by (in) an estate.

this is closer to what I meant


The corporation
doesn't die at the death of its owner, it's passed on to his heirs, just
as stock would be.

corporations aren't passed on, the shares of the deceased are. All other
shares are already owned by someone else, hopefully an heir

You're splitting words. Corporations are owned by stockholders. Where there
is only one stockholder it's irrelevant that there is stock (a legal
necessity but irrelevant). Upon death, the corporation *is* passed from the
deceased to his heirs. It does not die. The estate tax *is* paid when
(before) that transaction occurs.

I'd assume that anyone smart enough to form a corporation to hold their estate
would be smart enough to distribute the shares before becoming a statistic

Then it gets taxed as income. Pay now or pay later. Either way the tax man
gets his.

Estate taxes are paid (by the estate) on the (greatly
optimistic) value of the estate when that transfer occurs. Often there
isn't enough money to pay the estate taxes and the corporation goes out of
business (killing those jobs too).

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:23:08 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:15:48 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD

but there is a whole passle of repubs that aren't

Well, the good little religious Republican girl is not going to get an
abortion, the Democrat slut is going to use abortion as a form of birth
control, why would Republicans outlaw abortions if it's only Democrats
that are likely to seek them? Let the Democrats get all the abortions
they want and pretty soon, the Republicans will outnumber them. ^_^

TDD

Newt's a good republican so I assume any daughters he has or would have
would be
sluts, just like him.

You mean like Malia and Sasha?

Barack isn't a slut like Newt

Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.

If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

None would have you.

au contraire

You're a liar.

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:



I'd assume that anyone smart enough to form a corporation to hold their
estate
would be smart enough to distribute the shares before becoming a statistic
Then they run afoul of the gift tax. Put in precisely for that reason.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

" wrote in
:

On 27 Jan 2012 22:06:10 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news:JfqdneDfqcm6M7_SnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@earthlink. com:

In article ,
Han wrote:
I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a
bit too far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then a
majority, or even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look at
a (perhaps crazy) example. If you allow that in a majority
Christian/Catholic/Baptist school, you need to allow it also in a
majority Jewish community, or Muslim community. I can see it
already, before a public high school football game 3/4 of the
students prostrate themselves facing east ...
I was talking more about specific functions. For instance if the
students vote to include a prayer at graduation ceremonies, which is
forbidden. In many instances, they have said a person couldn't use
even a biblical reference in their validictory speech.

OK, as an agnostic, and father of an equally agnostic valedictorian at
a public high school, I would say the following: A prayer at
graduation is a no-no for me. But, words with a similar meaning
without references to God or religion should be easy to find. You
come up with the prayer, and I'll "translate", OK? A biblical
reference, similarly, I think. I hope I didn't bite off more than I
can chew ...

How about the state decide to "edit" everything you have to say?

That's off topic here. We are dealing with minors and public schools.
Seems there is a valid reason for preemptive censoring/editing.

On another level: In Holland, and I believe Britain too, the Queen
cannot say what she wants, since as head of state she represents the
"government", and the prime minister's office has to approve everything
she is going to say. Up to and including whether she may were a
headscarf - sorry, it's in Dutch about a state visit of the queen to
Oman:
http://nos.nl/koningshuis/artikel/33...ek-onderdrukt-
niet.html "beatrix headscarf represses not"

Parliament (in hindsight) approved of her reasoning, whether it really
was hers, or her staff's.

A rather right-wing party asked questions in Parliament about the wearing
of the headscarf. Beatrix is known for her elaborate head coverings ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 29 Jan 2012 13:39:28 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Jan 2012 22:06:10 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news:JfqdneDfqcm6M7_SnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@earthlink .com:

In article ,
Han wrote:
I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a
bit too far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then a
majority, or even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look at
a (perhaps crazy) example. If you allow that in a majority
Christian/Catholic/Baptist school, you need to allow it also in a
majority Jewish community, or Muslim community. I can see it
already, before a public high school football game 3/4 of the
students prostrate themselves facing east ...
I was talking more about specific functions. For instance if the
students vote to include a prayer at graduation ceremonies, which is
forbidden. In many instances, they have said a person couldn't use
even a biblical reference in their validictory speech.

OK, as an agnostic, and father of an equally agnostic valedictorian at
a public high school, I would say the following: A prayer at
graduation is a no-no for me. But, words with a similar meaning
without references to God or religion should be easy to find. You
come up with the prayer, and I'll "translate", OK? A biblical
reference, similarly, I think. I hope I didn't bite off more than I
can chew ...

How about the state decide to "edit" everything you have to say?

That's off topic here. We are dealing with minors and public schools.
Seems there is a valid reason for preemptive censoring/editing.

No, it's not. You're saying that one should submit his speech to another to
have it edited before giving it. Once you edit speech for "religious"
content, is political content vary far off? You lefties really are all about
controlling thought.

On another level: In Holland, and I believe Britain too, the Queen
cannot say what she wants, since as head of state she represents the
"government", and the prime minister's office has to approve everything
she is going to say. Up to and including whether she may were a
headscarf - sorry, it's in Dutch about a state visit of the queen to
Oman:
http://nos.nl/koningshuis/artikel/33...ek-onderdrukt-
niet.html "beatrix headscarf represses not"

Something *SHE* chooses to do. BTW, there was a war fought to separate us
from the Queen.

Parliament (in hindsight) approved of her reasoning, whether it really
was hers, or her staff's.

Rather irrelevant, (and as you accused me of, above, *way* "off topic")

A rather right-wing party asked questions in Parliament about the wearing
of the headscarf. Beatrix is known for her elaborate head coverings ...

Wow! ...just wow!

" wrote in
:

On 29 Jan 2012 13:39:28 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 27 Jan 2012 22:06:10 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news:JfqdneDfqcm6M7_SnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@earthlin k.com:

In article ,
Han wrote:
I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a
bit too far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then
a majority, or even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look
at a (perhaps crazy) example. If you allow that in a majority
Christian/Catholic/Baptist school, you need to allow it also in a
majority Jewish community, or Muslim community. I can see it
already, before a public high school football game 3/4 of the
students prostrate themselves facing east ...
I was talking more about specific functions. For instance if
the
students vote to include a prayer at graduation ceremonies, which
is forbidden. In many instances, they have said a person couldn't
use even a biblical reference in their validictory speech.

OK, as an agnostic, and father of an equally agnostic valedictorian
at a public high school, I would say the following: A prayer at
graduation is a no-no for me. But, words with a similar meaning
without references to God or religion should be easy to find. You
come up with the prayer, and I'll "translate", OK? A biblical
reference, similarly, I think. I hope I didn't bite off more than I
can chew ...

How about the state decide to "edit" everything you have to say?

That's off topic here. We are dealing with minors and public schools.
Seems there is a valid reason for preemptive censoring/editing.

No, it's not. You're saying that one should submit his speech to
another to have it edited before giving it. Once you edit speech for
"religious" content, is political content vary far off? You lefties
really are all about controlling thought.

Sorry for not making it clearer. I am saying that a statement in the
form of a prayer can also be rephrased so that it isn't formally a
prayer. I am NOT suggesting that something like that should become a
formal censoring step. More like an evasive maneuver so that a prayer
isn't a prayer anymore.

On another level: In Holland, and I believe Britain too, the Queen
cannot say what she wants, since as head of state she represents the
"government", and the prime minister's office has to approve
everything she is going to say. Up to and including whether she may
were a headscarf - sorry, it's in Dutch about a state visit of the
queen to Oman:
http://nos.nl/koningshuis/artikel/33...ek-onderdrukt-
niet.html "beatrix headscarf represses not"

Something *SHE* chooses to do. BTW, there was a war fought to
separate us from the Queen.

Around 1848 there were revolutions going on in Europe (some more, some
less violent). The then current King Willem II of Holland had an
overnight epiphany to avoid a violent revolution and charged his prime
minister (?) Thorbecke to rewrite the constitution. That led to the
modern form of a constitutional monarchy, similar to Britain's, wherein
the power to govern rests with the prime minister, subject to
parliamentary support. The Queen/King has very little, if any, actual
power. So (perceived) abuses of power as left and right have accused US
president of, do not happen. On the other hand, cabinets fall sometimes
because of petty "no confidence" motions.

The changes in governing "rules" during the broad time period between
1770 and 1850 were applied with much less violence in Holland than in
France or the US. The wars during the time, as far as Holland was
concerned were the Napoleonic wars, and the 10 day war Holland lost to
the "rebels" in Belgium.

Parliament (in hindsight) approved of her reasoning, whether it really
was hers, or her staff's.

Rather irrelevant, (and as you accused me of, above, *way* "off
topic")

Sorry, it was definitely on topic as concerned with the power of the
Queen. The debate was whether she should be reprimanded for "giving in"
to burka-requiring rules in the Islamic world. As in France, in Holland
there is a big issue whether muslim women can go around in public with
heavy veiling, and if the Queen acquiesces in that sentiment when
visiting a Muslim country (Oman), that is reprehensible according to the
anti-burka crowd. SO the issue was did she give in to the anti-burka
crowd or was she complying somewhat with local custom? As the picture
shows, it was delicately, but somehat tastefully, balanced in that
respect.

A rather right-wing party asked questions in Parliament about the
wearing of the headscarf. Beatrix is known for her elaborate head
coverings ...

Wow! ...just wow!

?? To me Beatrix isn't a real high fashion model ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
" wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt

Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.

all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better



If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

None would have you.

au contraire

You're a liar.

I'm waiting for you to provide proof

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:16 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Barack isn't a slut like Newt

Like, no. A corporate slut, absolutely.

all our elected officials are, it's just the repubs that do it so much better

So you're agreeing with me; Sasha and Malia are then by definition sluts.
It's your logic, after all.

If I find out that republican sluts don't get pregnant
unless they are married, I'll start exclusively sleeping with them

None would have you.

au contraire

You're a liar.

I'm waiting for you to provide proof

No self respecting babe would have someone as stupid as you.