Dan J

I think it is the cause of Denominations of christianity that cherry pick scriptures to build church doctrine and focus on that only.

It is almost as if they keep and study only what agrees with their chosen cherry picked scriptures and throw the rest out.

I think most religious groups do that to some extent. If you were to use the entire bible, you would somehow have to resolve the contradictions.

Technically it really doesn't matter where he was born if at least his mother was a US citizen. For all legal purposes, acquiring citizenship through blood or soil are both considered natural born.

Questions . . . my husband, a US permanent resident from the UK since 2005 found out his mother (age 79) in England has cancer. If we go over to stay with her until the end I need to find out some things and would appreciate anyone's help.

1. How long can I (US born citizen) stay in England? One place I read 6 months, another I read indefinitely. I don't want to go over for 6 months and then have to come back.

2. How long can my husband (US permanent resident) stay out of the US? I think it is 3 years but now sure.

3. If we were to go over, could my husband find a job over there and work for the duration we are there (if under the allowed time for him to stay)?

4. If we were to go over, could I find a job over there and work?

5. If we were to go over there, would he have to change our address with USCIS to England like you do when you move anywhere in the US? We've moved three times in the past 5 years and have to send them our new address.

6. I heard if we do go over, we should buy an airplane ticket with a return for many 2 weeks even if we plan to stay longer as to not alert immigration over there with questions. Anyone know anything about this.

7. Is there anything else anyone can think of that we need to be aware of if we go over there on a temporary basis?

Thank you so very much!

Shari

1. That depends on what visa ( or status) you plan to visit on and the terms of that visa.

2. Up to 2 years, but a stay longer than 1 year requires a reentry permit.

3. He is a citizen, so yes. Not sure if US income tax requirements applies to permanent residents working abroad.

4. You would probably need a work visa and whatever that entails

5. You probably want to keep a permanent address in the US. Not doing so could cause him to loose PR status. As he may be perceived to be moving abroad.

6. Most countries require a return ticket for visitors or otherwise they may deny entry. This is not usually an issue with a longer term visa.

Shallow. Very shallow. But, given a choice between a self-professed Marxist, or a ditsy brunette, I'll take the witch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtdU5Fz1b_w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7EQbSdQ_os

Can we see if she floats?

I think at issue is sort of a complicated mix between race and class. Where people live in a city is largely determined by where they can afford to live. However what economic class people generally end up in is much more of a complicated issue. While some people do get out of the lower economic class they started in, the highest probability is that they will stay in the class of their parents or pretty close to it. If the parents are wealthy, its likely the children will be too (access to the best schools, opportunities that come along with it) If the parents are poor, then its pretty likely the children will stay in a similar economic class.

Immigrant communities often start at the bottom, especially if they were part of a large migration of skilled and unskilled labor (In this case Hispanics). Immigrant communities that are primary made up of skilled labor will likely start much higher (Which is true for Asians). Because of that, it often takes several generations for that to change. Even though black in this country have been here much longer, they have been economically suppressed up until the 1960's and we are only a generation or so past that.

Last time I was there was in 2007, we stayed at the all season hotel in legian http://allseason-resort.com/. At the time it was around $40 USD a night.

Taxi fares are a little bit more expensive than some other areas, but if you want a driver you can basically rent any taxi for the day. Negotiate a fee up front for that however. The best beach that I went to there was Dreamland beach, its a bit out of the way, but its quite beautiful and generally not as many people.

Claims paid/premiums being 0.95 leaves very little $$ for operating expenses. Mandate something that high and you'll see insurance carriers do what AIG once did - invest in risky instruments hoping to make up the difference.

Which is exactly my point. You can manage that in a public system, and many countries do. Companies in a private system would have to be seriously efficient to manage that, and there is no incentive to do so. The incentive is to stay at the 80% as much as possible.

I work for an insurance company. Approximately a decade ago, our claims paid/premium ratio was over 1. The BOD fired the CEO and we got brand new management. Today, claims paid/premium is in the vicinity of 0.8 and our investors are happy and our CEO is being rewarded for a job well done and is now buying up one home after another.

The moral of the story being, claims paid/premium should be below 1 in a well run insurance company. Most health insurance companies today (UHC and Aetna being prime examples) have been below 1 for a very long time. Obamacare mandates that the ratio be no less than 0.75 if I recall.

Do they make money on investments too? Yes, of course they do. AIG is a great example of an insurance company that didn't make much money at all on premiums and made a lot with exotic investment vehicles. We all know how that ended up.

The mandated MCR is .8 under the new health care bill. But to be competitive in the world it really should be around .95. Of course we need to make sure 20% of our health care premiums go to buy the executives more stuff. Thats the american way.

Datamining twitter networks could lead to targeted advertising. You don't want to spend too much money on the people who are going to vote for you no matter what, instead you want identify and spend your advertising money on the people you might be able to switch over to you.

I somewhat doubt the Republicans are actually going to do as well as some people predict. They will win some seats, as per historical trends. But I doubt going more conservative is the way to go, some of the tea party candidates are polling lower than McCain (RINO by the tea party definition) did in 2008 and this is a Republican year after all.

CNS taking news out of context for 6000 years...

Yea I mean someone who makes it legal, so they are called officiant and I just have to find one out of the State NY and even better NYC ? How much do they charge ?? are there differences on how the hold the ceremony ? Or they do it after your wishes ?

For religious ceremonies, its often the priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, etc... that will officiate the ceremony and sign your marriage licence. If you are not doing a religious ceremony, often a community justice of the peace or local judge can officiate a ceremony for you. Some places have registries at the local government office. How much they charge will depend on where you are and how and where you want the ceremony, probably anywhere from $50 to a few hundred.

They will generally do what you want, you may have to pay extra to do it an a location of your choosing. If its a religious ceremony, its often done according to that religions customs.

As far as the marriage certificate, you and your fiance(e) need to apply for one after you move to the US. You then give it to the officiant on your wedding day, and he/she, will sign it, along with your signature and the signatures of witnesses (if applicable in your state). You will then either mail it, or hand deliver it to the state recorder.

The costs and conditions of a marriage licence vary by state. Some states do have a waiting period and you must fulfill the waiting period before having the ceremony.

.

I gave up trying to find poutine anymore, but pho and targine keep me satiated.

Mmm poutine... I did try to make that myself once, with rather limited success. But I did manage to find one restaurant in MSP that does serve it.

“In various parts of the country, public schools are allowing Muslim extremists to promote Islam to our children,” the Americans for Peace and Tolerance wrote on its site. “Something’s broken here. Our leadership is failing. It’s now up to ordinary citizens to fix it.”

irony: "Americans for Peace and Tolerance"

I think they would be in the running for the most ironically named organization.

If the only important measurement is cost per job created, then the best thing to do is just pay people welfare directly. You don't need to pay any of the extra costs associated with construction.

For all the computer gamers out there, Brian Wood was a designer on the Company of Heroes games.

Considering how conservative this state is, shouldn't he be polling at somewhere around 55-60%?

The Tea Party is not a party, its a conservative populist political movement that primary operates within the Republican Party. When it gets down to it, the values championed by most of the tea party is platform of the Republican party. However most of the platform will never really be achievable as its contradictory. For example, you can'y really have a small government while at the same time pushing for strong national defense or you cant keep the government out people personal lives while at the same time pushing traditional values.

I get to see quite a few of the resumes that come through at work, and frankly, many of them are appalling. People can't even write decent sentences in English. They write things that make no sense. It's like they didn't even read what they have written. FFS people, you did this on your computer, it's 2010, use the spell checker!!!

The things they show up wearing to interviews is a whole other story entirely.

A spellchecker only checks if a word matches a dictionary and does not usually understand if you have the right word for the context. While I am sure there are a lot of people who do need to improve their English; I don't think its a good idea to be too overzealous about correct spelling and grammar as long as the message is clearly communicated, with the exception of jobs that actually do require it (PR, English Teacher, etc...)

In my line of work, there are other skills that are more important than great spelling or grammar.

According to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust, workers nationwide on average are paying 14 percent, or $482, more for family health insurance coverage this year than they were last year.

We would have see at least that much of an increase without heathcare reform. My premiums have been going up an average of 13-15% each year for the past several years.

With the FDA preparing to initiate cost-based rationing of late stage cancer drugs, the intellectual giants at the New York Times have decided to lay down a gauntlet to defend rationing of medical care. Welcome to the Brave New World of ObamaCare.

To the Times, it is an outrage that drugs are approved with “no consideration of cost,” begging the question, which bureaucrat will determine what is the value of life? We have already seen evidence that $8,000 for an average six months of more life for breast cancer patients is too much for some bureaucrats to bear.

The opinion writers at the Times show sympathy for the sick by suggesting in that they don’t want to “bar patients from getting the treatment they need. But without curtailing the use of unnecessary, overly costly and even dangerous new technologies and surgical procedures, there is little hope of restraining the relentless rise in health care costs. That is a truth that American politicians and taxpayers cannot afford to ignore for much longer.”

There you have it. In one subjective packed paragraph, the proponents of rationing within the administration have called in air support from the New York Times.

Voters will not forget that Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother to the president’s chief of staff and a presidential appointee has written extensively, as Betsy McCaughey reminded us, about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs.

But Emanuel is not alone in advocating denial of care from within the executive branch of government. The president’s own Medicare appointee has Dr. Donald Berwick long been an advocate for a single-payer system. While speaking in England in 2008, he praised the British system and said “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.” Unfortunately for the sick, this often means redistribution of health from the sick to the healthy.

With the public clearly rejecting ObamaCare and its rationing mechanisms, the Times laments that supporters of “reform” curtailed the ability of bureaucrats to limit new drugs based on cost factors. Or did they?

With the FDA preparing to limit access of a critical late stage cancer drug for breast cancer patients as early as this week, observers note that quickly the FDA can become our health care system’s judge and executioner.

Americans should never be denied treatment because a bureaucrat determines a treatment, procedure or drug is too expensive. But that is where we are heading. Can Americans, this November, take the country back from those who want government and not doctors to make these life or death decisions?

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/09/13/obamacares-brave-new-world/#more-166921

I would think conservatives would be first to point out that the health care system does not have unlimited resources, yet they are the ones who are most vocal against using resources wisely.

I guess they would prefer that they health care system delivers everything they want and damn everyone else.

I suppose one could speculate about such things but it's dishonest to write up speculation as something with historical merit.

I mean really now, can you locate any historian who claims all those Popes and Leaders were in fact Atheists.... this is silly talk.

But the catholic church did resist translating the bible from Latin, which is one of the reasons for the Reformation. The church wanted to keep priests as the only people who could read it. Its easier to control the message that way.

That has nothing to do with the suggestion that CHristian leaders are actually convinced their faith is a fraud... and for that reason they resisted common people from getting their hands on the bible.

How many of them are actually going to admit it? Especially if their position affords them wealth or power?

It's quite telling that in a time of "educated Cultures" people would actually believe this to be factual.

"early Christian leaders KILLED people that tried to translate the bible into "common language" for fear that people would find out the whole thing was a hoax."

Religion relies on control of information, or at least the ability to discredit competing information.

Interesting, given that the Democrats have refused to compromise on any measure. The pork-ridden "stimulus" plan and the "health care" plan were pushed through on party-line votes. That's not compromise.

I find it interesting that Republicans are called the "Party of No" or "Obstructionists". Saying no sometimes is necessary in order to block disastrous legislation. It's kind of like saying no to a child who begs for something that an adult knows is not good for him or her...

There were attempts to compromise on both to get more Republicans on board. But even if a Republican wanted to, it would be basically a career ending decision as they would find themselves under the Tea Party express.

Of course, if you don't believe something is a problem in the first place, then why would you agree to a solution?

There he goes again, blocking any reasonable compromise. It's either his Pelosi's way, or the highway.

I think the Republicans have made it clear that at least for the time being, compromise is not part of their vocabulary. So why bother?