Best line of the night

"HeyBub" wrote in news:NIudnXn6Q5dKwL7SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

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

Reply to
Han
Loading thread data ...

"HeyBub" wrote in news:05idnWA6gIjLw77SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Yes!!

Reply to
Han

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

Reply to
Vic Smith

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

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

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).

Reply to
krw

I saw one of those interviews. Typical leftist.

Reply to
krw

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.

Reply to
krw

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

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

Reply to
krw

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

Reply to
krw

this is closer to what I meant

The corporation

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

Reply to
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

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

Come on, spill it!

Reply to
krw

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.

Reply to
krw

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

Reply to
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

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

Reply to
krw

Then they run afoul of the gift tax. Put in precisely for that reason.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

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: "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 ...

Reply to
Han

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.

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

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

Wow! ...just wow!

Reply to
krw

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

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.

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.

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.

?? To me Beatrix isn't a real high fashion model ...

Reply to
Han

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Crap! When *haven't* there been revolutions going on in Europe. It's not like it has *anything* to do with this thread.

Reply to
krw

But three do.

formatting link
With all it's hopes, dreams, promises and urban renewal The world continues to deteriorate.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.