Someone told me that as of today January 1st you need to be 21 to drink in Canada now. Is this true?Is it true that Canada is making US citizens be 21 to drink there?
This is completely untrue. A little early for April Fools. The drinking age or age of majority as it is called here in Canada is 18 or 19 depending on which province you reside in. This means that voting, cigarette buying and drinking in pubs or going to casinos is a no-no until you reach these ages. Hope this helps.Is it true that Canada is making US citizens be 21 to drink there?
depends on the province your in ...and no matter if your american and you come to our country you have to abide by the laws of the province your in as well...just because your american does not excempt you from canadian laws once your here...its just like canadians who travel to the states .If we are in your country we would have to abide by that states laws!
If one does not like it either way one does not have to travel outside your own country ...
The drinking age is provincial in Canada just as it is state law in the US. It doesn't matter whether you are Canadian, American, or Martian, the law regarding drinking age is the same for everybody that goes into a bar or liquor store, whether that law is 18, 19, or whatever.
It depends on the province. Drinking age is a provincial responsibility, and the age ranges from 18 to 19 - I don't think it is 21 in any province. It doesn't matter what country you come from. When in Canada you have to abide by Canadian laws, just as when in the US you have to abide by US laws.
I highly doubt it.
Canada is a criminal mind? Get a life, Dude!
The drinking age in Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec is 18, in all other provinces the legal age is 19. The Canadian and American Legal systems are separate, Canadians do not enforce the American Drinking Age in Canada. But I would not suggest being drunk and passing back into the states, that could be a problem.
You only need to be 19 to drink....
Friday, February 12, 2010
I heard that to stimulate savings, the Swiss government contributes to their citizens accounts - is this true?
I think I heard Clark Howard discussing this, saying that the Swiss goverment would contribute 25% of what is saved. I think this would be something that US government should look into since the savings rate for 2006 hit a low of -1% (as reported by ABC News). They probably shouldn't look at matching contributions here, but they could offer a tax credit based on income as to how much is saved. Anyone agree?I heard that to stimulate savings, the Swiss government contributes to their citizens accounts - is this true?
There is no ';real'; saving contributions programm in Switzerland.
The only thing that possibly could have been discussed, is the so-called ';3rd pillar';. It's a blocked savings account, and any employee may pay up to CHF 6365 (about USD 5000) per year into the own account. All pay-ins reduce the taxable income directly, so in fact the government does ';pay'; around 20-35% of the amount saved.
But when the money is used (only in case of buying own property for own usage or then before going on pension) there is some withdrawal tax, depending on the amount saved.
The whole thing should motivate the population to do individual savings for the pension age - plus to buy self-used property because the rate of this lies at about 33% only here in Switzerland, due to high plot and building prices.I heard that to stimulate savings, the Swiss government contributes to their citizens accounts - is this true?
I dont see how they can afford to do that, but then again American consumers are not in the worst debt....out govenrment is, so how can we expect them to give us more money....just print it?
go to www.swisscash.biz
tell me what you think
Not true. I don't know where you got this information. Although an incentive to place money into savings accounts would be great.
But the fact isn't so much people aren't saving. They are spending money... TOO MUCH money!! So much, that their savings are canceled by the debt that is accumulated. Besides, seeing how the government itself is sustaining large amounts of debt, this wouldn't be feasible. One feasible incentive could be not to tax interest income.
But the savings rate only looks at liquid income. Many people purchase into mutual funds, stocks, and real estate. So technically people have a little more money than the savings rate suggests. However, that is also a problem. People are lacking liquid assets which are guaranteed not to lose value and that can be accessed. What if a stock values and real estate values plummet? What if you couldn't sell the stocks or real estate?
And finally, other countries should be looked at as well. I am Japanese, and in my country the savings rate is about 7%. However, the highest interest rate you can get is about 0.10%. Also, 7% is almost an all-time low. About a year ago, the interest rate was 0.005%! And the savings rate was higher than 7%! I made 10 yen in interest last year (Roughly 10 cents) !
Although not as low interest rates as Japan, all other countries especially in Asia such as South Korea, China, in Europe like France, Germany, and Italy, don't have savings account interest rates as high as the States, yet people still save a lot more money than the States.
People don't need anymore incentive other than showing what risks they face when they don't. People just have to stop SPENDING so much!!
There is certainly no such program in Switzerland. There would be no need as Swiss people already have very high saving rate. (f.e. 14% in 2004)
In General I do not think that such a program would be an effective mean to encourage savings because of the following reasons:
1. Such a huge incentive for savings would lead to a dramatic short term increase in savings. It is important to consider the fact that money that is saved is not used for consumption. So the decrease in consumption would be very significant and would result in a depression of the entire economy.
2. To pay a 25% uplift on all savings would require a dramatic tax increase which would have further negative effects on the entire economy.
3. The administrative effort to measure each citizens savings would be tremendous. A complete saving and dept report for each citizen would be required. Such a system could easy be tricked. For example: You make a credit card dept and transfer it to your saving account to get the 25% incentive.
There is no ';real'; saving contributions programm in Switzerland.
The only thing that possibly could have been discussed, is the so-called ';3rd pillar';. It's a blocked savings account, and any employee may pay up to CHF 6365 (about USD 5000) per year into the own account. All pay-ins reduce the taxable income directly, so in fact the government does ';pay'; around 20-35% of the amount saved.
But when the money is used (only in case of buying own property for own usage or then before going on pension) there is some withdrawal tax, depending on the amount saved.
The whole thing should motivate the population to do individual savings for the pension age - plus to buy self-used property because the rate of this lies at about 33% only here in Switzerland, due to high plot and building prices.I heard that to stimulate savings, the Swiss government contributes to their citizens accounts - is this true?
I dont see how they can afford to do that, but then again American consumers are not in the worst debt....out govenrment is, so how can we expect them to give us more money....just print it?
go to www.swisscash.biz
tell me what you think
Not true. I don't know where you got this information. Although an incentive to place money into savings accounts would be great.
But the fact isn't so much people aren't saving. They are spending money... TOO MUCH money!! So much, that their savings are canceled by the debt that is accumulated. Besides, seeing how the government itself is sustaining large amounts of debt, this wouldn't be feasible. One feasible incentive could be not to tax interest income.
But the savings rate only looks at liquid income. Many people purchase into mutual funds, stocks, and real estate. So technically people have a little more money than the savings rate suggests. However, that is also a problem. People are lacking liquid assets which are guaranteed not to lose value and that can be accessed. What if a stock values and real estate values plummet? What if you couldn't sell the stocks or real estate?
And finally, other countries should be looked at as well. I am Japanese, and in my country the savings rate is about 7%. However, the highest interest rate you can get is about 0.10%. Also, 7% is almost an all-time low. About a year ago, the interest rate was 0.005%! And the savings rate was higher than 7%! I made 10 yen in interest last year (Roughly 10 cents) !
Although not as low interest rates as Japan, all other countries especially in Asia such as South Korea, China, in Europe like France, Germany, and Italy, don't have savings account interest rates as high as the States, yet people still save a lot more money than the States.
People don't need anymore incentive other than showing what risks they face when they don't. People just have to stop SPENDING so much!!
There is certainly no such program in Switzerland. There would be no need as Swiss people already have very high saving rate. (f.e. 14% in 2004)
In General I do not think that such a program would be an effective mean to encourage savings because of the following reasons:
1. Such a huge incentive for savings would lead to a dramatic short term increase in savings. It is important to consider the fact that money that is saved is not used for consumption. So the decrease in consumption would be very significant and would result in a depression of the entire economy.
2. To pay a 25% uplift on all savings would require a dramatic tax increase which would have further negative effects on the entire economy.
3. The administrative effort to measure each citizens savings would be tremendous. A complete saving and dept report for each citizen would be required. Such a system could easy be tricked. For example: You make a credit card dept and transfer it to your saving account to get the 25% incentive.
Is it true that British citizens aren't allowed to own guns?
If so, what's to stop those with guns from using them to commit crimes? Or those in power to use arms to take over?Is it true that British citizens aren't allowed to own guns?
yes it's true, although you can with a licence %26amp; some people do have them illegally, but most people don't want oneIs it true that British citizens aren't allowed to own guns?
british and australian citizen (as far as i know as an aussie) can own guns if they have a licence...
they can have a licence if they have a damn good reason...
and their weaponry must be locked in a case untill needed...
british and australian citizens have no ';right to bare arms'; because brittain and australia had no problem with having standing armies, while america wanted everyone to defend themselves and armies to disolve when not needed...
since america has standing armies, the right is redundant but hey who am I to tell you how to run your country lol
In the UK we are allowed to own guns, but under very strict conditions. Gun control in the UK is much MUCH stronger than in the US and most people don't own a gun and, at a guess, most would tell you they've never shot one.
To own any sort of firearm, you have to have a license which you apply to the local police for.
The statistics suggest that strict gun control results in a LOT less gun crime. The UK has gun crime rates that are a fraction of the levels in the US. In comparison with Europe in general, the US has levels of gun ownership and crime that are simply off the scale.
Those who do own guns will commit crimes, but they're not the people who own the guns legally anyway. The controls in place mean that there are fewer guns in circulations in general so it's pretty obvious who the criminal is.
You know, so far, those in power haven't attempted to use arms to take over for, oh... centuries at least, so I don't think it's considered a good enough reason to have the country over-run with firearms.
By way of perspective, it might be interesting to know that people in the UK are scared of visiting the US because of the proliferation of guns and gun-crime.
Good grief - another hootin' tootin' Yank that wants to kill anything that moves
Gun ownership is restricted to sporting guns and you must be licensed by the police.
People in the UK are not generally obssessed by gun ownership except for a minority of criminals who use them mainly for killing each other.
As in the USA the people in power have much better weapons than anybody else so it is a fantasy to think that you can overthrow a democratically elected government by an armed uprising.
yes its true, however some service men/women (army etc) maybe able own if they pass psychologically tests. Plus some antiques (but not sure how that works). No gun outside unless specially trained police (with orders to carry them).
Nothing stops anyone, anywhere from using a gun for killing, except the person who holds the gun. (US : if your old enough and responsible then yes you can buy gun, UK: No one (except few mentioned above may own a gun if responsible or not) because people who commit crimes will have less access to guns so more likely to use knife. cut wounds are easily treatable compared to gun crimes more likely dead on 1st shot.)
Take over? that doesn't happen often in most places. (because it never really achieves anything, even most terrorists normally just bomb things anyway and not sick around)
And if anything like that does happen there trier gas, cops with guns, electric zappers things(can't remember name), many military groups: army, airforce, navy, TA...etc..
Having gun or not... I don't know what ways better?
Not having guns kind of punishes the people who would be responsible with them.(I would like a gun; but I wouldn't trust my neighbor with one!) BUT gun crime is low in most (not all) places so not scared to be shot. Its a price we pay.
the idea that you need firearms in case those in power 'decide to take over' seems like a very poor excuse for justifying gun ownership rather than a genuine concern, perhaps in a banana republic but not in a developed western country.
Generally in Britain people tend not to have guns. Though you can get a gun under a license which can be used for hunting.
Guns are only legal when the person has a license.
Most guns are used for sport or pest control. However, yes, some do end up in criminal hands, but it is far more difficult for them to get hold of them here than in the US. We have far less gun crime than the US, simply because of the lack of availability of guns.
Hand guns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane massacre (look it up on Wikipedia or Google if you want to know what happened). Shotguns and Rifles are still legal but must be registered/licenced. We don't have a gun culture here like the USA so it's not really an issue for most people.
yes it's true, although you can with a licence %26amp; some people do have them illegally, but most people don't want oneIs it true that British citizens aren't allowed to own guns?
british and australian citizen (as far as i know as an aussie) can own guns if they have a licence...
they can have a licence if they have a damn good reason...
and their weaponry must be locked in a case untill needed...
british and australian citizens have no ';right to bare arms'; because brittain and australia had no problem with having standing armies, while america wanted everyone to defend themselves and armies to disolve when not needed...
since america has standing armies, the right is redundant but hey who am I to tell you how to run your country lol
In the UK we are allowed to own guns, but under very strict conditions. Gun control in the UK is much MUCH stronger than in the US and most people don't own a gun and, at a guess, most would tell you they've never shot one.
To own any sort of firearm, you have to have a license which you apply to the local police for.
The statistics suggest that strict gun control results in a LOT less gun crime. The UK has gun crime rates that are a fraction of the levels in the US. In comparison with Europe in general, the US has levels of gun ownership and crime that are simply off the scale.
Those who do own guns will commit crimes, but they're not the people who own the guns legally anyway. The controls in place mean that there are fewer guns in circulations in general so it's pretty obvious who the criminal is.
You know, so far, those in power haven't attempted to use arms to take over for, oh... centuries at least, so I don't think it's considered a good enough reason to have the country over-run with firearms.
By way of perspective, it might be interesting to know that people in the UK are scared of visiting the US because of the proliferation of guns and gun-crime.
Good grief - another hootin' tootin' Yank that wants to kill anything that moves
Gun ownership is restricted to sporting guns and you must be licensed by the police.
People in the UK are not generally obssessed by gun ownership except for a minority of criminals who use them mainly for killing each other.
As in the USA the people in power have much better weapons than anybody else so it is a fantasy to think that you can overthrow a democratically elected government by an armed uprising.
yes its true, however some service men/women (army etc) maybe able own if they pass psychologically tests. Plus some antiques (but not sure how that works). No gun outside unless specially trained police (with orders to carry them).
Nothing stops anyone, anywhere from using a gun for killing, except the person who holds the gun. (US : if your old enough and responsible then yes you can buy gun, UK: No one (except few mentioned above may own a gun if responsible or not) because people who commit crimes will have less access to guns so more likely to use knife. cut wounds are easily treatable compared to gun crimes more likely dead on 1st shot.)
Take over? that doesn't happen often in most places. (because it never really achieves anything, even most terrorists normally just bomb things anyway and not sick around)
And if anything like that does happen there trier gas, cops with guns, electric zappers things(can't remember name), many military groups: army, airforce, navy, TA...etc..
Having gun or not... I don't know what ways better?
Not having guns kind of punishes the people who would be responsible with them.(I would like a gun; but I wouldn't trust my neighbor with one!) BUT gun crime is low in most (not all) places so not scared to be shot. Its a price we pay.
the idea that you need firearms in case those in power 'decide to take over' seems like a very poor excuse for justifying gun ownership rather than a genuine concern, perhaps in a banana republic but not in a developed western country.
Generally in Britain people tend not to have guns. Though you can get a gun under a license which can be used for hunting.
Guns are only legal when the person has a license.
Most guns are used for sport or pest control. However, yes, some do end up in criminal hands, but it is far more difficult for them to get hold of them here than in the US. We have far less gun crime than the US, simply because of the lack of availability of guns.
Hand guns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane massacre (look it up on Wikipedia or Google if you want to know what happened). Shotguns and Rifles are still legal but must be registered/licenced. We don't have a gun culture here like the USA so it's not really an issue for most people.
What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
like which are more fashionable and good quality.What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
Seven/ and or Citizens of Humanity... love both!What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
true religion
1. True religions- Cute designs, quality stitching.
2. citizens of humanity- Ellen Degeneres wears them? iono.. ohh their CUttee =]
3. Sevens- ugh my least fav... lol dont like quality of fabric, fades..
true religion because of the stitching
Seven/ and or Citizens of Humanity... love both!What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
true religion
1. True religions- Cute designs, quality stitching.
2. citizens of humanity- Ellen Degeneres wears them? iono.. ohh their CUttee =]
3. Sevens- ugh my least fav... lol dont like quality of fabric, fades..
true religion because of the stitching
What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
like which are more fashionable and good quality.What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
Seven/ and or Citizens of Humanity... love both!What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
true religion
1. True religions- Cute designs, quality stitching.
2. citizens of humanity- Ellen Degeneres wears them? iono.. ohh their CUttee =]
3. Sevens- ugh my least fav... lol dont like quality of fabric, fades..
true religion because of the stitchingkawasaki
Seven/ and or Citizens of Humanity... love both!What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
true religion
1. True religions- Cute designs, quality stitching.
2. citizens of humanity- Ellen Degeneres wears them? iono.. ohh their CUttee =]
3. Sevens- ugh my least fav... lol dont like quality of fabric, fades..
true religion because of the stitching
Is it true that when a U.S. citizen turns 100, the U.S. President writes them a Happy Birthday note?
I was told about this today. Sounds very unusual...Is it true that when a U.S. citizen turns 100, the U.S. President writes them a Happy Birthday note?
It's actually true.Is it true that when a U.S. citizen turns 100, the U.S. President writes them a Happy Birthday note?
Yes
I hope I live long enough to get a letter from the president! :)
It can be done, but it's not automatic. You can request a note from the White House Greetings Office. It takes a while, so you have to request it several months ahead of time.
www.whitehouse.gov
Yes, it;s true but you the President has to know if the person reaches the 100. Maybe it's nice to write them when will he/she turned 100, and they will send you a diploma like Happy Birthday card.
I am pretty sure this is false. My great grandmother is 101 right now, and I never heard that she got a note. But it may be possible that you have to write them and tell them that the person has reached 100.
If Obama was the President, I would willingly kill myself at the age of ninety-nine years and 364 days, not to get a letter from him.
Yes it is and you'll also hear from Willard Scott and the Today Show.
He also attends the funeral of every 100th soldier we bury.
It's a lie. Obama just has his staff xerox a signed hallmark card.
Oh yay! Something to live for!
yes, that is true!!
at most a staffer
u didn't know that?????
yes, he does.
It's actually true.Is it true that when a U.S. citizen turns 100, the U.S. President writes them a Happy Birthday note?
Yes
I hope I live long enough to get a letter from the president! :)
It can be done, but it's not automatic. You can request a note from the White House Greetings Office. It takes a while, so you have to request it several months ahead of time.
www.whitehouse.gov
Yes, it;s true but you the President has to know if the person reaches the 100. Maybe it's nice to write them when will he/she turned 100, and they will send you a diploma like Happy Birthday card.
I am pretty sure this is false. My great grandmother is 101 right now, and I never heard that she got a note. But it may be possible that you have to write them and tell them that the person has reached 100.
If Obama was the President, I would willingly kill myself at the age of ninety-nine years and 364 days, not to get a letter from him.
Yes it is and you'll also hear from Willard Scott and the Today Show.
He also attends the funeral of every 100th soldier we bury.
It's a lie. Obama just has his staff xerox a signed hallmark card.
Oh yay! Something to live for!
yes, that is true!!
at most a staffer
u didn't know that?????
yes, he does.
Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
Barack's US citizenship was ';dropped'; because Indonesia doesn't allow duel citizenships?
Thus, his supposed Hawaii birth certificate isn't proof of his citizenship because his citizenship was changed from U.S. to Indonesia.
When he came back he became a nationalized citizen which disqualifies him from becoming President of the United States.
Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
That's what I hear. I have no idea why Obama doesn't come straight forth with all his legal docs. The US deserves the right to know that a candidate for POTUS is legal! He's so quick to prove other rumors!Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
Well not really, the constitution states that a natural born citizen of the U.S. is eligible to run for president. Indonesia doesn't recognize duel citizenship but neither does the U.S. So even if Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, his citizenship would not have been recognized by the U.S. government.
Now, assuming that Obama was not born in Hawaii and born outside of the U.S. then he would be ineligible.
But Hawaii was a U.S. territory when he was born and U.S. territories are considered American soil and their residents granted American citizenship.
It is true. There is a case in court right now challenging Obamas eligibility.
Funny part is the suit was brought forth by a lawyer who is a Democrat and just wants a LEGAL election to happen.
Hahahahaha. I never even heard this claim before a couple of weeks ago. No doubt its just another GOP fiction.
That's my understanding.
Sounds like what they are debating in court we will see how it shakes out.
Thus, his supposed Hawaii birth certificate isn't proof of his citizenship because his citizenship was changed from U.S. to Indonesia.
When he came back he became a nationalized citizen which disqualifies him from becoming President of the United States.
Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
That's what I hear. I have no idea why Obama doesn't come straight forth with all his legal docs. The US deserves the right to know that a candidate for POTUS is legal! He's so quick to prove other rumors!Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
Well not really, the constitution states that a natural born citizen of the U.S. is eligible to run for president. Indonesia doesn't recognize duel citizenship but neither does the U.S. So even if Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, his citizenship would not have been recognized by the U.S. government.
Now, assuming that Obama was not born in Hawaii and born outside of the U.S. then he would be ineligible.
But Hawaii was a U.S. territory when he was born and U.S. territories are considered American soil and their residents granted American citizenship.
It is true. There is a case in court right now challenging Obamas eligibility.
Funny part is the suit was brought forth by a lawyer who is a Democrat and just wants a LEGAL election to happen.
Hahahahaha. I never even heard this claim before a couple of weeks ago. No doubt its just another GOP fiction.
That's my understanding.
Sounds like what they are debating in court we will see how it shakes out.
Is it true that a US citizen residing abroad has to enter US at least once in 5 years?
thanks a lot
MorisIs it true that a US citizen residing abroad has to enter US at least once in 5 years?
My dad lives in the UK and is still considered a US citizen, however he would not be eligible for SSI when he retires. I am a dual citizen and lived the first 18 years of my life in UK and there was no issueIs it true that a US citizen residing abroad has to enter US at least once in 5 years?
I'd like an answer to that too. i would not think so.if you have a birth certificate from the US. you are a US citizen for life.
There is a Social Security requirement which says that ANY U.S. CITIZEN receiving Social Security must return to the USA for 30 days per year, when residing abroad, or their Social Security income will cease.
This proviso is NOT solely for 'restricted' nations such as New Zealand, Iran, Cuba or whatever might now be restricted, but includes Costa Rica, Canada, and all other nations.
I DO NOT KNOW if there are laws of this type for other situations at present.
However, when I was in the military many years ago there was a requirement that those possessing certain security clearances were not allowed to visit or retire to or reside in a long list of nations for various periods of time (10, 15 years and such) after clearance or service terminated. Something like that.
At the time it meant I could not tour Russia during vacation for example. However, I do not think it applies if you are ordered to serve in an embassy, also for certain unusual military missions and assignments.
It is something all decided from higher up. Would be interesting to know if there is/was associated and enabling legislation from the Congress and Senate.
I think they pretty much made the rules in Executive and Defense in the old days.
I did notice they were fussier with enlisted than officersl., even less fussy with civilians One guess who had the most secrets.
Officers and civilians were travelling about everywhere.
Check out John Walker and famous CIA people for example.
MorisIs it true that a US citizen residing abroad has to enter US at least once in 5 years?
My dad lives in the UK and is still considered a US citizen, however he would not be eligible for SSI when he retires. I am a dual citizen and lived the first 18 years of my life in UK and there was no issueIs it true that a US citizen residing abroad has to enter US at least once in 5 years?
I'd like an answer to that too. i would not think so.if you have a birth certificate from the US. you are a US citizen for life.
There is a Social Security requirement which says that ANY U.S. CITIZEN receiving Social Security must return to the USA for 30 days per year, when residing abroad, or their Social Security income will cease.
This proviso is NOT solely for 'restricted' nations such as New Zealand, Iran, Cuba or whatever might now be restricted, but includes Costa Rica, Canada, and all other nations.
I DO NOT KNOW if there are laws of this type for other situations at present.
However, when I was in the military many years ago there was a requirement that those possessing certain security clearances were not allowed to visit or retire to or reside in a long list of nations for various periods of time (10, 15 years and such) after clearance or service terminated. Something like that.
At the time it meant I could not tour Russia during vacation for example. However, I do not think it applies if you are ordered to serve in an embassy, also for certain unusual military missions and assignments.
It is something all decided from higher up. Would be interesting to know if there is/was associated and enabling legislation from the Congress and Senate.
I think they pretty much made the rules in Executive and Defense in the old days.
I did notice they were fussier with enlisted than officersl., even less fussy with civilians One guess who had the most secrets.
Officers and civilians were travelling about everywhere.
Check out John Walker and famous CIA people for example.
Is it true that due to US tax revenue going to Israel, their government pays their citizen's college tuition?
...meanwhile US citizens have to foot their own tuition room and board to the tune of $40,000Is it true that due to US tax revenue going to Israel, their government pays their citizen's college tuition?
and to think a lib congress and a lib prez So sad aint itIs it true that due to US tax revenue going to Israel, their government pays their citizen's college tuition?
Not only college tuition, but also military training, and developing weapons including nuclear weapons. Zionists are controlling your banks therefore the American government are scared to stop funding Israel. Israel a country that have no resources, only few olives and fruits. No oil, no many trading and business. No cars and technology like the Japanese. All their money is from USA, they pay a lot to develop things like nuclear weapon.
USA, the government, gives charity to so MANY countries, we need to stop!
Let the kids in africa die of aids, let the people in the philipines fend for themselves, let people in israel pay for their own school, let people in sirlanka learn how to swim next huge wave that hits...
Its a mean thing to say, but we give out so much money from tax payer money, it should all be volenteer charity....
But to answer your question, i found no such thing of that...
I would ask my friend who lives there, but he is serving his country currently....
There's no way to pick a winner or a loser in the cash cycle between Israel and the US. The US indeed gives millions to Israel, but Israel also gives millions to the US. They are almost an integrated economy, similar to how Canada and the US operate.
I don't know about that, it's news to me but if it's true it is not fair, my daughter is in college now and I told her just last night that next year she may have to move home and commute because between the economy, our bills and her schooling we are sinking fast.
Only if you use the same logic to say our funding of family planning services in Africa is funding abortions.
What we're really doing is taking a huge financial burden off of Israel at a time we cannot afford it. I have never understood why.
Israeli students recently struck against tuition hikes in Israel.
So I think you got it wrong.
Hows that for fact?
The Jews there need to go to college to learn how to lead all industries in the eventual united nations headed world government.
I'd rather give it to an Israeli student in Israel than an undocumented Mexican student in the United States.
Of course its true but remember Israel is your proxy for fighting the muslims in Palestine. So if you want Israel to stay on the map you better keep on sending those cheques..
yes it is,we need to vote out everyone who is in government now to send a message of real freakin change.
and you know the rest of the story....
That's BS and you should know that.
Almsot all U.S. aid to Israel is in the form of weapons for Israel's self-defense.
No, it's not but we have a nice consolation prize for you
55 billion a year Chi....55 Billion.....
no, not at all
i dont know but if it is good for them - glad my taxes are helping pay for it
and to think a lib congress and a lib prez So sad aint itIs it true that due to US tax revenue going to Israel, their government pays their citizen's college tuition?
Not only college tuition, but also military training, and developing weapons including nuclear weapons. Zionists are controlling your banks therefore the American government are scared to stop funding Israel. Israel a country that have no resources, only few olives and fruits. No oil, no many trading and business. No cars and technology like the Japanese. All their money is from USA, they pay a lot to develop things like nuclear weapon.
USA, the government, gives charity to so MANY countries, we need to stop!
Let the kids in africa die of aids, let the people in the philipines fend for themselves, let people in israel pay for their own school, let people in sirlanka learn how to swim next huge wave that hits...
Its a mean thing to say, but we give out so much money from tax payer money, it should all be volenteer charity....
But to answer your question, i found no such thing of that...
I would ask my friend who lives there, but he is serving his country currently....
There's no way to pick a winner or a loser in the cash cycle between Israel and the US. The US indeed gives millions to Israel, but Israel also gives millions to the US. They are almost an integrated economy, similar to how Canada and the US operate.
I don't know about that, it's news to me but if it's true it is not fair, my daughter is in college now and I told her just last night that next year she may have to move home and commute because between the economy, our bills and her schooling we are sinking fast.
Only if you use the same logic to say our funding of family planning services in Africa is funding abortions.
What we're really doing is taking a huge financial burden off of Israel at a time we cannot afford it. I have never understood why.
Israeli students recently struck against tuition hikes in Israel.
So I think you got it wrong.
Hows that for fact?
The Jews there need to go to college to learn how to lead all industries in the eventual united nations headed world government.
I'd rather give it to an Israeli student in Israel than an undocumented Mexican student in the United States.
Of course its true but remember Israel is your proxy for fighting the muslims in Palestine. So if you want Israel to stay on the map you better keep on sending those cheques..
yes it is,we need to vote out everyone who is in government now to send a message of real freakin change.
and you know the rest of the story....
That's BS and you should know that.
Almsot all U.S. aid to Israel is in the form of weapons for Israel's self-defense.
No, it's not but we have a nice consolation prize for you
55 billion a year Chi....55 Billion.....
no, not at all
i dont know but if it is good for them - glad my taxes are helping pay for it
Is it true that some citizens believe?
Is it true that some citizens believe that ';Desert Storm'; was just a religious stunt to ';challenge god'; and therefore they believe that it is everyone's fault for allowing the travel from the middle east and/or egypt to be a proven ability by the united states in both geographic proof of existance in both origin and departure areas and also in commerce?
As in claim it was ';bad luck'; and/or ridiculous to prove and/or know that biblical places exist and/or physically locatable?Is it true that some citizens believe?
Usually yep if you can think of something someone probably already believes it, doesn't make it true though
As in claim it was ';bad luck'; and/or ridiculous to prove and/or know that biblical places exist and/or physically locatable?Is it true that some citizens believe?
Usually yep if you can think of something someone probably already believes it, doesn't make it true though
Is it true the KKK is planning a citizens' revolt against having a Black President on April 15th?
They're announcing it as the beginning of a war between the Aryan race and the New World Order in their web sites.Is it true the KKK is planning a citizens' revolt against having a Black President on April 15th?
No. But your messaiah is working hard to destroy relations in this nation. Not only race but also across affluence levels as well.Is it true the KKK is planning a citizens' revolt against having a Black President on April 15th?
KKK NEEDS LIVES.they have nothing better to do than complain,just like 脮fficial Census Fake褟鈩?they both dumb to me
Doubt it. But I guess if there aren't any other people in the world to keep racism alive and stoke the fire, the job is all yours. Doing an excellent job. By the way..didn't you WIN? Get over that. Time to gush about Obama and your wonderful choice of president. If he really is as wonderful as you and others say, why the constant attacks on the opposition?
You tell us.... you say they announced it?
Googled it and got nothing to do with the new world order.
Are you trying to pin this nwo thing on racists now?.... well it's been going on for years, it's against the government primarily.
Black president? We have a half-black president, abandoned by his father, and raised by his white grandparents. He's not black; he's half-black. A mestizo.
LOL...all 2000 members of them?
I can probably find an organization that violently hates people who wear orange colored hats with more members.
The KKK are psychotic - just like any terrorists or nutjob.
April 15, 2009- Tea parties google it
I'll be in Lansing w/ all the other Americans protesting against this high tax, socialist gov
Black White Rep Dem Ind, all are welcome and encouraged to join.
No that's not true, but it does sound like a good idea.
Revolt not for a ';black'; president, but for a ';crappy'; president!
'
They must be stupid, it is their ';Aryan'; race that wants to conquer the world through the Anglo-American empire.
So what if they are? They are a non factor, and have been for years and rightfully so. What good have they ever accomplished?
April 15th is tax day. I would imagine this is not just a KKK thing.
Personally I don't pay attention to asshole losers.
If you ignore the KKK maybe they will go away. I don't even approve of ppl protesting them because it gives them power.
No. YAFM.
Hearsay? need quantitative info. please
rofl, throw a link out if it's true. Otherwise, they won't.
what web sites?
I hope so. That would be really funny.
Link??
LOL I'd sure love to see that.
I don't know are you scared?kawasaki
No. But your messaiah is working hard to destroy relations in this nation. Not only race but also across affluence levels as well.Is it true the KKK is planning a citizens' revolt against having a Black President on April 15th?
KKK NEEDS LIVES.they have nothing better to do than complain,just like 脮fficial Census Fake褟鈩?they both dumb to me
Report Abuse
Doubt it. But I guess if there aren't any other people in the world to keep racism alive and stoke the fire, the job is all yours. Doing an excellent job. By the way..didn't you WIN? Get over that. Time to gush about Obama and your wonderful choice of president. If he really is as wonderful as you and others say, why the constant attacks on the opposition?
You tell us.... you say they announced it?
Googled it and got nothing to do with the new world order.
Are you trying to pin this nwo thing on racists now?.... well it's been going on for years, it's against the government primarily.
Black president? We have a half-black president, abandoned by his father, and raised by his white grandparents. He's not black; he's half-black. A mestizo.
LOL...all 2000 members of them?
I can probably find an organization that violently hates people who wear orange colored hats with more members.
The KKK are psychotic - just like any terrorists or nutjob.
April 15, 2009- Tea parties google it
I'll be in Lansing w/ all the other Americans protesting against this high tax, socialist gov
Black White Rep Dem Ind, all are welcome and encouraged to join.
No that's not true, but it does sound like a good idea.
Revolt not for a ';black'; president, but for a ';crappy'; president!
'
They must be stupid, it is their ';Aryan'; race that wants to conquer the world through the Anglo-American empire.
So what if they are? They are a non factor, and have been for years and rightfully so. What good have they ever accomplished?
April 15th is tax day. I would imagine this is not just a KKK thing.
Personally I don't pay attention to asshole losers.
If you ignore the KKK maybe they will go away. I don't even approve of ppl protesting them because it gives them power.
No. YAFM.
Hearsay? need quantitative info. please
rofl, throw a link out if it's true. Otherwise, they won't.
what web sites?
I hope so. That would be really funny.
Link??
LOL I'd sure love to see that.
I don't know are you scared?
Is it true that some Germans soldiers/citizens tried to assassinate Hitler?
Is there any evidence of when it and how it happened?Is it true that some Germans soldiers/citizens tried to assassinate Hitler?
this was the 'July bomb plot' of 1944; Tom Cruise just did a movie named Valkyrie about it. Basically, plenty of Germans saw that Hitler was going to ruin Germany, so there was a plot to kill him with a bomb. Von Stauffenburg (spelling...?) was one of the key players and placed the bomb in the conference room under the table. The strong oak table is credited with saving hitler's life, and in a wave of paranoia, many top Germans, including those who were uninvolved, were executed, some with their families.
Rommel was implicated in this, but was given the option of suicide to save his good name, since he was such a hero in Germany.
There may have been other attempts, but this one was the most famous.
-EIs it true that some Germans soldiers/citizens tried to assassinate Hitler?
the first answer is true,i remember my dads war story's and he said most f them hated him but they had to to what he said or they would lose their life's,that's was when they put up the Berlin wall.the communists on one side and the good on the other,then president Kennedy got them to tear it down,,can you imagine having to listen an obey that maniac,,i have heard lots of different things and i be they were all true.. and none was good.
stands to reason
this was the 'July bomb plot' of 1944; Tom Cruise just did a movie named Valkyrie about it. Basically, plenty of Germans saw that Hitler was going to ruin Germany, so there was a plot to kill him with a bomb. Von Stauffenburg (spelling...?) was one of the key players and placed the bomb in the conference room under the table. The strong oak table is credited with saving hitler's life, and in a wave of paranoia, many top Germans, including those who were uninvolved, were executed, some with their families.
Rommel was implicated in this, but was given the option of suicide to save his good name, since he was such a hero in Germany.
There may have been other attempts, but this one was the most famous.
-EIs it true that some Germans soldiers/citizens tried to assassinate Hitler?
the first answer is true,i remember my dads war story's and he said most f them hated him but they had to to what he said or they would lose their life's,that's was when they put up the Berlin wall.the communists on one side and the good on the other,then president Kennedy got them to tear it down,,can you imagine having to listen an obey that maniac,,i have heard lots of different things and i be they were all true.. and none was good.
stands to reason
A Citizen by birth. True or false?
It is true that a child born in a given country automatically becomes a citizen of that country by birth. But why is Spain always asking immigrant parents to present a police report from their country for a baby born in Spain before they can issue the child passport?A Citizen by birth. True or false?
No, that's not correct.
If Joe and Melba from Dunkwater, Alabama are on a trip to Botswana for the Tripe Festival, and Melba gives birth to Lil' Bama Baby, that child will be a citizen of the United States, and will not be a citizen of Botswana.
For specific information on the requirements for a child born in the US to be a US citizen, visit http://www.state.gov and search on 'child citizenship'.
-StuartA Citizen by birth. True or false?
the majority of countries now, do not allow nor recognize jus soli,citizenship by birth of children who's parent do not hold the citizenship of that country.
the US is one of the rarest one still applying that law,
most European countries do not give citizenship by birth only,
you must have at least one parent who holds the citizenship on the birth of a child.
Spain=
The persons are considered to be the national of Spain by reason of birth or by origin if the person:
Born to a parent one of whom is a Spanish national at the time of his/her birth.
Born in Spain, whose parents are foreigners and the father or mother is born in Spain.
Born in Spain whose parents are stateless persons at the time of his/her birth
Born in Spain and the identity of the parents' are not known
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/spain/nat鈥?/a>
Every country has its own laws regarding how citizenship is conferred. I don't know the laws in Spain. But in some countries, birth in that country does not automatically confer citizenship.
True and False. It depends on the immigration laws of the host country. Spain has different laws than the US does regarding immigration and citizenship.
No, the USA is unique in this reguard. All persons born or naturalized in the USA are citizens. Not so in 95% of the world.
He would have duel citizenship.
Depends on the country and their laws.
No. I think it depends on the nation, but basically, I think it's an option people do have.
It depends on the country.
Not always.
No, that's not correct.
If Joe and Melba from Dunkwater, Alabama are on a trip to Botswana for the Tripe Festival, and Melba gives birth to Lil' Bama Baby, that child will be a citizen of the United States, and will not be a citizen of Botswana.
For specific information on the requirements for a child born in the US to be a US citizen, visit http://www.state.gov and search on 'child citizenship'.
-StuartA Citizen by birth. True or false?
the majority of countries now, do not allow nor recognize jus soli,citizenship by birth of children who's parent do not hold the citizenship of that country.
the US is one of the rarest one still applying that law,
most European countries do not give citizenship by birth only,
you must have at least one parent who holds the citizenship on the birth of a child.
Spain=
The persons are considered to be the national of Spain by reason of birth or by origin if the person:
Born to a parent one of whom is a Spanish national at the time of his/her birth.
Born in Spain, whose parents are foreigners and the father or mother is born in Spain.
Born in Spain whose parents are stateless persons at the time of his/her birth
Born in Spain and the identity of the parents' are not known
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/spain/nat鈥?/a>
Every country has its own laws regarding how citizenship is conferred. I don't know the laws in Spain. But in some countries, birth in that country does not automatically confer citizenship.
True and False. It depends on the immigration laws of the host country. Spain has different laws than the US does regarding immigration and citizenship.
No, the USA is unique in this reguard. All persons born or naturalized in the USA are citizens. Not so in 95% of the world.
He would have duel citizenship.
Depends on the country and their laws.
No. I think it depends on the nation, but basically, I think it's an option people do have.
It depends on the country.
Not always.
Can a religious person be a true patriot or citizen in a secular nation given that they may put religion first
I asked a question earlier about whether religous people would prioritize the interests of church or state more highly in a situation where a conflict of interests arose, and the response was that in such a situation religion would win. So can these people, who have an alternative agenda be trusted to act as true citizens or patriots?Can a religious person be a true patriot or citizen in a secular nation given that they may put religion first
Yes, a religious person can be a true patriot or citizen in a secular nation. Not all religions believe in forcing others to follow their beliefs. Some religions do not have tenets that would cause a conflict of interests.
Even religious people who follow a religion that promotes forcing others to follow their beliefs COULD be a good leader and not follow those tenets of their religion. That would need to be judged on an individual basis.Can a religious person be a true patriot or citizen in a secular nation given that they may put religion first
Who defines what acting like a patriot is? A religious person would probably tell you that their religion is a guide to what is right. Doing what is right sounds patriotic to me.
Can you provide an example of a ';conflict of interest';?
My guess is that any example you provide would have multiple interpretations regarding what is most patriotic or what is in the country's best interest. And this would happen just as much with a group of athiests as with a group of ministers or priests.
I can't speak for any religion but my own, but the religion that I know is not competing for power with states. It's interest is in salvation beyond this world, not gaining power and influence within it. I simply don't see the conflict you are refering to.
no.
Religious people follow their doctrines according to their religion. Every individual religion has their right to practice their doctrine in America whether agreeable or not to the population.
Example: KKK practice their religion to HATE everybody that is not white.
I can honestly tell you that those people that have an alternative agenda can not be trusted to act as true citizens or patriots.
Islamic radicals have proven that theory and so did the Oklahoma boomers.
Religion is not always represented by its true meaning because to many people use religion as their front to disguise their true agenda (HATE).
Religion has nothing to do with being a true citizen or a good patriot to your country or the world.
A true citizen or patriot comes from the heart and soul not from religion.
A true citizen or patriot no matter what country you live in works to better their country men towards peace and prosperity regardless of their differences.
PLEASE DON'T BLAME RELIGION FOR THE TROUBLES OF THE WORLD.
Blame the INDIVIDUALS that practice HATE and all the INIQUITIES in the world.
Remember that not all people are religious with a ';RELIGION';, but religious in the HOLY SPIRIT AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES (The Holy Bible).
GOD BLESS! AMEN! SHALOM!
Given the corruption of church authority and the problems inherent in religious canonical law, I prefer a secular democracy without religious law or an official religion.
Well geez...Google Sergent York.
If I died in Iraq while serving my country as a medic, does that mean I was more secular than religous? I placed my country, the US before my God?
Bro no religion stops a person from being a patriot or a citizen .. well religion just gives the guidance to live the way of life. In this world thats it.. ASAP
We don't see anything Biblically that suggests
soldiers or Centurions, after their conversion, kept
to their older ways. In fact, if we look at history,
we see the opposite:
';A careful review of all the information
available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus
Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no
Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after
becoming a Christian, remained in military service.';
-The Rise of Christianity(London, 1947), E. W. Barnes,
p. 333.
';We who were filled with war, and mutual
slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the
whole earth changed our warlike weapons,-our swords
into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of
tillage,-and we cultivate piety, righteousness,
philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the
Father Himself through Him who was crucified.';-Justin
Martyrin ';Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew'; (2nd century
C.E.), The Ante-NiceneFathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.;
reprint of 1885Edinburgh edition), edited by A.
Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. I, p. 254.
';They refused to take any active part in the civil
administration or the military defence of the
empire. . . . it was impossible that the Christians,
without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume
the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
princes.';-History ofChristianity (New York, 1891),
Edward Gibbon, pp. 162, 163.
Why is this? ';They are not of the world even as I
[Jesus] am not of the world. ';John 17:16
';Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to
come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew
again into the mountain himself alone.'; John 6:15
Later, he told the Roman governor:
';Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if
my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants
fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but
now is my kingdom not from hence.'; John 18:36
But why? Matthew 4: 8 and 9 shows Satan trying to
tempt Jesus, ';Again, the Devil took him along to an
unusually high mountain, and showed him all the
kingdoms of the world and their glory, and he said to
him: ';All these things I will give you if you fall
down and do an act of worship to me.';
Think about it! How could the devil offer
Jesus the kingdoms of the world, if they were not in
his control already? That is why 1John5:19 says, ';the
whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.';
Satan is also called ';the ruler of this world'; and
';the god of this world'; (John 14:30; 2Cor 4:4).
Jas. 4:4: ';Adulteresses, do you not know that the
friendship with the world is enmity with God?
Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world
is constituting himself an enemy with God.';
And finally,
The Christian Century: ';The earliest Christians did
not serve in the armed forces. Roland Bainton notes
that 'from the end of the New Testament period to the
decade A.D. 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of
Christians in the army.' . . . Only gradually did
Christians abandon their opposition to military
service . . . Once Augustine endorsed 'just war' as
authorizing Christians' participation in military
activities, 'just war' soon became whatever war their
government engaged in.';
The article then exposes the real issue for
Christians: ';Can anyone seriously conceive of Jesus
hurling hand grenades at his enemies, using a machine
gun, manipulating a flamethrower, dropping nuclear
bombs or launching an ICBM which would kill or cripple
thousands of mothers and children? . . . If Jesus
could not do this and be true to his character, then
how can we do it and be true to him?';
';Augustine's 'just war' perversion of Christianity
on this critical issue was the greatest calamity that
ever befell the faith. It has cost Christians endless
opportunities to witness for their central ethical
principle: love your enemies and do good to them who
despitefully use you. It may have done as much to
hamper Christian evangelism as anything that has ever
occurred.';
Christians SHOULD be no part of worldly politics, having nothing to do with it's conflicts and hostility. A christians loyalty should be to God's kingdom with his son as reigning king.
I do not believe that any one who puts their interests first be they religious, political or financial can be a true patriot. That is why I do not consider Bush a patriot as he puts all three ahead of the interest of the USA.
Yes since I am both.
I think that when you get into politics and put religious label on yourself, you have many candidates that say they are part of a religion but then don't incorpate it into their political affairs. They seek after there own philosophy.
Simplifying this I will let you know that if, for example ALL CHTISTIANS, were to be TRUE CHRISTIANS and follow JESUS teachings to the dot, then no single one of them would be involved in politics in the first place!!!! This not only goes for all ';government'; officials, political candidates, etc., but the public itself. Why?
Because Christians are to believe that Jesus Christ's government, ruling, or whatever it is called, it is definetely not from, about, or of this WORLD. He himself explained this repeatedly.
Now, since Christians just like all religious groups, use RELIGION as they see fit, well then all of Jesus teaching have to go somewhere where they don't bother too much, and then his followers can do whatever they want!!!!
There are those that indeed wait for his return, go to Church, do good deeds, try not to sin too much, etc. But in the greater part most Christians just live it up in the world just like any other group. So you don't need to fear any ';UNPATRIOTIC'; anything from them. Same for other religions.
MUSLIMS? Well I tend to think most Muslims are not American born, so we can't expect them to be more patriotic than those that are. And of course, if they hear their ';calling';_such as was the case w/ many Bin Laden followers, they will FOLLOW their roots, tradition, instinct, or whatever you call it.
It is not RELIGION that comes first, it is whatever group of individuals see fit!!!!
Nah, religious wackos will always put the ultimate goal of their religion first and that is of course, world domination.
Jesus Christ himself said that his kingdom is ';No part of this world.'- John 18:36. Also, he said that his followers should also be no part of this world- John 17:16. Therefore, Christians should have nothing to do with politics,they should be politically neutral. They know that only God's kingdom, with Christ as king, will be the answer to mankinds problems. Jesus taught his followers to pray for this kingdom in Matthew 6:9 %26amp;10. The Bible say's that God's kingdom will 'crush' and put an end to all of mankinds kingdoms/governments - Daniel 2:44.
My deities require that we give honor to our families, our deities, our community. We have a responsibility to all of those and not in that order.
I am a United States Marine Corps veteran. I joined when I was a Christian. I wasn't sure if i could take a human life if war broke out but knew going in that it might come to that and accepted it.
Now, as a heathen, I wouldn't want to kill but not because I have a religious conflict against serving my country or killing in war or self defense.
I know a number of heathens, pagans and Wiccans that do what they feel is good service to the country, cities and mankind - some trying to stop the war, some working with veterans, some doing prison outreach, some working in soup kitchens.
I know some pagans and Wiccans would refuse to fight in the current war, some are already serving. I think it depends on the person and how they view their religion.
I'm not sure I'd know of a situation where a conflict between my religion and my nation would arise, I think they go hand-in-hand.
Secular nations do not exist, and any nation that claims to be a perfect secular nation is delusional.
Religion is so wound up into society and government already that it really doesn't matter anymore.
*** re chap. 28 pp. 191-192 par. 20 Contending With Two Ferocious Beasts ***
Putting love of country ahead of love of God is not what true Christian do.. Most people love the land of their birth. As good citizens, true Christians also respect the rulers and the emblems of the country where they reside, obey the laws, and make a positive contribution to the welfare of their community and their neighbors. (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) They cannot, however, give blind devotion to one country as against all others. “Our country, right or wrong” is not a Christian teaching. So Christians who worship Jehovah God cannot share in giving prideful patriotic worship to any part of the wild beast, for this would amount to worshiping the dragon (Satan)—the source of authority of the beast(Earthly kingdoms in power-including United states and UK as the world power. They cannot ask admiringly: “Who is like the wild beast?” Rather, they follow the example of Michael—his name meaning “Who Is Like God?”—as they uphold Jehovah’s universal sovereignty. At God’s appointed time, this Michael, Christ Jesus, will do battle with the wild beast and conquer it, even as he triumphed in expelling Satan from heaven.—Revelation 12:7-9; 19:11, 19-21.
So this being said, true Christians give respect and pay what they are ask of them and follow the laws of the land except when it interferes with Gods Laws. True Christian are neutral to world politics. They will not take arms against anyone. You cannot love mankind and kill them.
depends on the reiligon...
its quite clear christians can do this and consider
it a christian duty to serve a gov't in whatever
form it exsists...
its quite clear that judaism can do the same thing...
its not clear however that islam can do the same thing
as islamic laws definitly overrule secular laws when
muslims are in he majority...
George Washington, our first president in America, the president of the convention that gave us the Constitution, and the president who oversaw the formation of the First Amendment, once declared, “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens…”
I would not even trust such people as babysitters, never mind as patriots.
dont have to look very far to find that the greatest ';polititions'; were also great relgious leaders... look at your money and you will find their picture, read the back and you will find thier open faith.. I dont think they are opposites, I think they empower the other.
Patriot? NO. Citizen? Yes.
True Christians are to obey Jesus in everything. The world is fond of it's own. We are no part of the world just as he is no part of the world. (John 15:19; 17:16) Indeed, Jesus reasoned if his Kingdom were part of this world, his attendants would have fought for him when he was arrested. His Kingdom is no part of this world. (john 18:36)
So while we give Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God, we obey world government's laws as long as they do not conflict with God's laws.
Yes, a religious person can be a true patriot or citizen in a secular nation. Not all religions believe in forcing others to follow their beliefs. Some religions do not have tenets that would cause a conflict of interests.
Even religious people who follow a religion that promotes forcing others to follow their beliefs COULD be a good leader and not follow those tenets of their religion. That would need to be judged on an individual basis.Can a religious person be a true patriot or citizen in a secular nation given that they may put religion first
Who defines what acting like a patriot is? A religious person would probably tell you that their religion is a guide to what is right. Doing what is right sounds patriotic to me.
Can you provide an example of a ';conflict of interest';?
My guess is that any example you provide would have multiple interpretations regarding what is most patriotic or what is in the country's best interest. And this would happen just as much with a group of athiests as with a group of ministers or priests.
I can't speak for any religion but my own, but the religion that I know is not competing for power with states. It's interest is in salvation beyond this world, not gaining power and influence within it. I simply don't see the conflict you are refering to.
no.
Religious people follow their doctrines according to their religion. Every individual religion has their right to practice their doctrine in America whether agreeable or not to the population.
Example: KKK practice their religion to HATE everybody that is not white.
I can honestly tell you that those people that have an alternative agenda can not be trusted to act as true citizens or patriots.
Islamic radicals have proven that theory and so did the Oklahoma boomers.
Religion is not always represented by its true meaning because to many people use religion as their front to disguise their true agenda (HATE).
Religion has nothing to do with being a true citizen or a good patriot to your country or the world.
A true citizen or patriot comes from the heart and soul not from religion.
A true citizen or patriot no matter what country you live in works to better their country men towards peace and prosperity regardless of their differences.
PLEASE DON'T BLAME RELIGION FOR THE TROUBLES OF THE WORLD.
Blame the INDIVIDUALS that practice HATE and all the INIQUITIES in the world.
Remember that not all people are religious with a ';RELIGION';, but religious in the HOLY SPIRIT AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES (The Holy Bible).
GOD BLESS! AMEN! SHALOM!
Given the corruption of church authority and the problems inherent in religious canonical law, I prefer a secular democracy without religious law or an official religion.
Well geez...Google Sergent York.
If I died in Iraq while serving my country as a medic, does that mean I was more secular than religous? I placed my country, the US before my God?
Bro no religion stops a person from being a patriot or a citizen .. well religion just gives the guidance to live the way of life. In this world thats it.. ASAP
We don't see anything Biblically that suggests
soldiers or Centurions, after their conversion, kept
to their older ways. In fact, if we look at history,
we see the opposite:
';A careful review of all the information
available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus
Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no
Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after
becoming a Christian, remained in military service.';
-The Rise of Christianity(London, 1947), E. W. Barnes,
p. 333.
';We who were filled with war, and mutual
slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the
whole earth changed our warlike weapons,-our swords
into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of
tillage,-and we cultivate piety, righteousness,
philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the
Father Himself through Him who was crucified.';-Justin
Martyrin ';Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew'; (2nd century
C.E.), The Ante-NiceneFathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.;
reprint of 1885Edinburgh edition), edited by A.
Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. I, p. 254.
';They refused to take any active part in the civil
administration or the military defence of the
empire. . . . it was impossible that the Christians,
without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume
the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
princes.';-History ofChristianity (New York, 1891),
Edward Gibbon, pp. 162, 163.
Why is this? ';They are not of the world even as I
[Jesus] am not of the world. ';John 17:16
';Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to
come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew
again into the mountain himself alone.'; John 6:15
Later, he told the Roman governor:
';Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if
my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants
fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but
now is my kingdom not from hence.'; John 18:36
But why? Matthew 4: 8 and 9 shows Satan trying to
tempt Jesus, ';Again, the Devil took him along to an
unusually high mountain, and showed him all the
kingdoms of the world and their glory, and he said to
him: ';All these things I will give you if you fall
down and do an act of worship to me.';
Think about it! How could the devil offer
Jesus the kingdoms of the world, if they were not in
his control already? That is why 1John5:19 says, ';the
whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.';
Satan is also called ';the ruler of this world'; and
';the god of this world'; (John 14:30; 2Cor 4:4).
Jas. 4:4: ';Adulteresses, do you not know that the
friendship with the world is enmity with God?
Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world
is constituting himself an enemy with God.';
And finally,
The Christian Century: ';The earliest Christians did
not serve in the armed forces. Roland Bainton notes
that 'from the end of the New Testament period to the
decade A.D. 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of
Christians in the army.' . . . Only gradually did
Christians abandon their opposition to military
service . . . Once Augustine endorsed 'just war' as
authorizing Christians' participation in military
activities, 'just war' soon became whatever war their
government engaged in.';
The article then exposes the real issue for
Christians: ';Can anyone seriously conceive of Jesus
hurling hand grenades at his enemies, using a machine
gun, manipulating a flamethrower, dropping nuclear
bombs or launching an ICBM which would kill or cripple
thousands of mothers and children? . . . If Jesus
could not do this and be true to his character, then
how can we do it and be true to him?';
';Augustine's 'just war' perversion of Christianity
on this critical issue was the greatest calamity that
ever befell the faith. It has cost Christians endless
opportunities to witness for their central ethical
principle: love your enemies and do good to them who
despitefully use you. It may have done as much to
hamper Christian evangelism as anything that has ever
occurred.';
Christians SHOULD be no part of worldly politics, having nothing to do with it's conflicts and hostility. A christians loyalty should be to God's kingdom with his son as reigning king.
I do not believe that any one who puts their interests first be they religious, political or financial can be a true patriot. That is why I do not consider Bush a patriot as he puts all three ahead of the interest of the USA.
Yes since I am both.
I think that when you get into politics and put religious label on yourself, you have many candidates that say they are part of a religion but then don't incorpate it into their political affairs. They seek after there own philosophy.
Simplifying this I will let you know that if, for example ALL CHTISTIANS, were to be TRUE CHRISTIANS and follow JESUS teachings to the dot, then no single one of them would be involved in politics in the first place!!!! This not only goes for all ';government'; officials, political candidates, etc., but the public itself. Why?
Because Christians are to believe that Jesus Christ's government, ruling, or whatever it is called, it is definetely not from, about, or of this WORLD. He himself explained this repeatedly.
Now, since Christians just like all religious groups, use RELIGION as they see fit, well then all of Jesus teaching have to go somewhere where they don't bother too much, and then his followers can do whatever they want!!!!
There are those that indeed wait for his return, go to Church, do good deeds, try not to sin too much, etc. But in the greater part most Christians just live it up in the world just like any other group. So you don't need to fear any ';UNPATRIOTIC'; anything from them. Same for other religions.
MUSLIMS? Well I tend to think most Muslims are not American born, so we can't expect them to be more patriotic than those that are. And of course, if they hear their ';calling';_such as was the case w/ many Bin Laden followers, they will FOLLOW their roots, tradition, instinct, or whatever you call it.
It is not RELIGION that comes first, it is whatever group of individuals see fit!!!!
Nah, religious wackos will always put the ultimate goal of their religion first and that is of course, world domination.
Jesus Christ himself said that his kingdom is ';No part of this world.'- John 18:36. Also, he said that his followers should also be no part of this world- John 17:16. Therefore, Christians should have nothing to do with politics,they should be politically neutral. They know that only God's kingdom, with Christ as king, will be the answer to mankinds problems. Jesus taught his followers to pray for this kingdom in Matthew 6:9 %26amp;10. The Bible say's that God's kingdom will 'crush' and put an end to all of mankinds kingdoms/governments - Daniel 2:44.
My deities require that we give honor to our families, our deities, our community. We have a responsibility to all of those and not in that order.
I am a United States Marine Corps veteran. I joined when I was a Christian. I wasn't sure if i could take a human life if war broke out but knew going in that it might come to that and accepted it.
Now, as a heathen, I wouldn't want to kill but not because I have a religious conflict against serving my country or killing in war or self defense.
I know a number of heathens, pagans and Wiccans that do what they feel is good service to the country, cities and mankind - some trying to stop the war, some working with veterans, some doing prison outreach, some working in soup kitchens.
I know some pagans and Wiccans would refuse to fight in the current war, some are already serving. I think it depends on the person and how they view their religion.
I'm not sure I'd know of a situation where a conflict between my religion and my nation would arise, I think they go hand-in-hand.
Secular nations do not exist, and any nation that claims to be a perfect secular nation is delusional.
Religion is so wound up into society and government already that it really doesn't matter anymore.
*** re chap. 28 pp. 191-192 par. 20 Contending With Two Ferocious Beasts ***
Putting love of country ahead of love of God is not what true Christian do.. Most people love the land of their birth. As good citizens, true Christians also respect the rulers and the emblems of the country where they reside, obey the laws, and make a positive contribution to the welfare of their community and their neighbors. (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) They cannot, however, give blind devotion to one country as against all others. “Our country, right or wrong” is not a Christian teaching. So Christians who worship Jehovah God cannot share in giving prideful patriotic worship to any part of the wild beast, for this would amount to worshiping the dragon (Satan)—the source of authority of the beast(Earthly kingdoms in power-including United states and UK as the world power. They cannot ask admiringly: “Who is like the wild beast?” Rather, they follow the example of Michael—his name meaning “Who Is Like God?”—as they uphold Jehovah’s universal sovereignty. At God’s appointed time, this Michael, Christ Jesus, will do battle with the wild beast and conquer it, even as he triumphed in expelling Satan from heaven.—Revelation 12:7-9; 19:11, 19-21.
So this being said, true Christians give respect and pay what they are ask of them and follow the laws of the land except when it interferes with Gods Laws. True Christian are neutral to world politics. They will not take arms against anyone. You cannot love mankind and kill them.
depends on the reiligon...
its quite clear christians can do this and consider
it a christian duty to serve a gov't in whatever
form it exsists...
its quite clear that judaism can do the same thing...
its not clear however that islam can do the same thing
as islamic laws definitly overrule secular laws when
muslims are in he majority...
George Washington, our first president in America, the president of the convention that gave us the Constitution, and the president who oversaw the formation of the First Amendment, once declared, “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens…”
I would not even trust such people as babysitters, never mind as patriots.
dont have to look very far to find that the greatest ';polititions'; were also great relgious leaders... look at your money and you will find their picture, read the back and you will find thier open faith.. I dont think they are opposites, I think they empower the other.
Patriot? NO. Citizen? Yes.
True Christians are to obey Jesus in everything. The world is fond of it's own. We are no part of the world just as he is no part of the world. (John 15:19; 17:16) Indeed, Jesus reasoned if his Kingdom were part of this world, his attendants would have fought for him when he was arrested. His Kingdom is no part of this world. (john 18:36)
So while we give Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God, we obey world government's laws as long as they do not conflict with God's laws.
I'm a US citizen. My granddad came from the UK. Is it true I can apply for British citizenship? If so how?
Is there an online form, do I have to get to the Britsh Embassay?I'm a US citizen. My granddad came from the UK. Is it true I can apply for British citizenship? If so how?
Anyone can apply, but it won't be automatic if that is your only claim to it. I'm from the US myself, but the UK citizenship requirements can be found at the Home Office web page. Even if you are born there it isn't automatic anymore. The entire EU has banned automatic birthright citizenship, at this point.
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/british鈥?/a>I'm a US citizen. My granddad came from the UK. Is it true I can apply for British citizenship? If so how?
Unfortunately not anymore. It used to be the case that one British grandparent was enough to get you citizenship but now the rules have changed and you need to have one parent who is British.
Anyone can apply, but it won't be automatic if that is your only claim to it. I'm from the US myself, but the UK citizenship requirements can be found at the Home Office web page. Even if you are born there it isn't automatic anymore. The entire EU has banned automatic birthright citizenship, at this point.
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/british鈥?/a>I'm a US citizen. My granddad came from the UK. Is it true I can apply for British citizenship? If so how?
Unfortunately not anymore. It used to be the case that one British grandparent was enough to get you citizenship but now the rules have changed and you need to have one parent who is British.
Can someone explain the TRUE legalities of citizen's arrest?
I was out driving with my infant child in the back when I hit a bump that caused my milkshake to topple and spill all over myself and the car seat. Since home was still 40 miles away, I pulled over to a rest stop to gather some paper towels from the restroom. I left the car running with the baby inside, the air conditioning on, and I locked the door since I always keep a spare key in my wallet.
I don't think I was in there no more than 5 minutes (let's say 10 minutes for the skeptical ones), and when I came back outside there was a man standing next to my car. He said, ';Is that your baby inside there?'; and I replied yes. He immediately grabbed my arms, pinned them behind my back, and said ';You're under citizen's arrest for child neglect. The police have been called and they are on their way'; while roughly leaning me over the hood of my car.
I shouted for him to take his hands off of me and struggled with him, but he refused to let go. I then slammed the back of my head into his face, which caused him to release one arm out of surprise, and I finished it by elbowing him in the ribs, and then turning around and beating him down to the ground (something I realize was overkill, but I was pissed about a total stranger acting like a cop and manhandling me). I then drove away.
I haven't been contacted yet, so I'm guessing the guy didn't take down my licence plate and assumed I would cooperate with him.
Can someone tell me if what he did was legal? I thought a person can only be restrained if caught committing a serious felony...not leaving a baby unattended for 5 minutes to get something and clean up a spill. What are the actual legalities behind citizen's arrest?Can someone explain the TRUE legalities of citizen's arrest?
It depends in which state this occurred. In WA there is no such thing a citizens arrest. While what he did is wrong, so is what you did. It is illegal to leave an infant in a vehicle in most states.
Just to put it in perspective. You leave your car running with your child inside. You go into the restroom for 5 minutes. I can steal your car in about 10 seconds.Can someone explain the TRUE legalities of citizen's arrest?
Try this link. It appears to go into some detail, but you would still need to research the matter in your state's laws as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_a鈥?/a>
From what I can tell, It is Illegal what he did. You can sue HIM. A citizens arrest is this,( If a person other than a law or peace officer see a crime in progress, the MUST contact the authorities who then come to YOUR assistance and cuff the Perp.) There is NO level of right or wrong,here Now, here's where It becomes kind of hairy? You as the citizen file the complaint form-appear at the arraignment-go to the ';Grand Jury'; if necessary-give testimony if there is a trial. NOW, If for some reason this case is dismissed or the perp is found not guilty by either a Judge or Jury, guess who can be sued for ';False Arrest'; WHY O YOU. That is why you don't hear of many ';Citizen Arrests'; This person that manhandled you while his premise was commendable in some respects his technique was very Faulty. It smacked of to much ';Law %26amp; Order'; Or CSI, TV But like I said before He is wide open to a Law suit for Assault. Unlawful detaining is only good If your let go. Good Luck and really try not to leave your baby in the car. Some people frown upon this sort of thing.
Haha, you made my day.
I suggest you laugh it off, the police will too if he tries to tell them.
He sounds like a bit of a jerk, but he certainly has balls.
I don't think I was in there no more than 5 minutes (let's say 10 minutes for the skeptical ones), and when I came back outside there was a man standing next to my car. He said, ';Is that your baby inside there?'; and I replied yes. He immediately grabbed my arms, pinned them behind my back, and said ';You're under citizen's arrest for child neglect. The police have been called and they are on their way'; while roughly leaning me over the hood of my car.
I shouted for him to take his hands off of me and struggled with him, but he refused to let go. I then slammed the back of my head into his face, which caused him to release one arm out of surprise, and I finished it by elbowing him in the ribs, and then turning around and beating him down to the ground (something I realize was overkill, but I was pissed about a total stranger acting like a cop and manhandling me). I then drove away.
I haven't been contacted yet, so I'm guessing the guy didn't take down my licence plate and assumed I would cooperate with him.
Can someone tell me if what he did was legal? I thought a person can only be restrained if caught committing a serious felony...not leaving a baby unattended for 5 minutes to get something and clean up a spill. What are the actual legalities behind citizen's arrest?Can someone explain the TRUE legalities of citizen's arrest?
It depends in which state this occurred. In WA there is no such thing a citizens arrest. While what he did is wrong, so is what you did. It is illegal to leave an infant in a vehicle in most states.
Just to put it in perspective. You leave your car running with your child inside. You go into the restroom for 5 minutes. I can steal your car in about 10 seconds.Can someone explain the TRUE legalities of citizen's arrest?
Try this link. It appears to go into some detail, but you would still need to research the matter in your state's laws as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_a鈥?/a>
From what I can tell, It is Illegal what he did. You can sue HIM. A citizens arrest is this,( If a person other than a law or peace officer see a crime in progress, the MUST contact the authorities who then come to YOUR assistance and cuff the Perp.) There is NO level of right or wrong,here Now, here's where It becomes kind of hairy? You as the citizen file the complaint form-appear at the arraignment-go to the ';Grand Jury'; if necessary-give testimony if there is a trial. NOW, If for some reason this case is dismissed or the perp is found not guilty by either a Judge or Jury, guess who can be sued for ';False Arrest'; WHY O YOU. That is why you don't hear of many ';Citizen Arrests'; This person that manhandled you while his premise was commendable in some respects his technique was very Faulty. It smacked of to much ';Law %26amp; Order'; Or CSI, TV But like I said before He is wide open to a Law suit for Assault. Unlawful detaining is only good If your let go. Good Luck and really try not to leave your baby in the car. Some people frown upon this sort of thing.
Haha, you made my day.
I suggest you laugh it off, the police will too if he tries to tell them.
He sounds like a bit of a jerk, but he certainly has balls.
Is it true you can become a u.s. citizen by the kawewah indian nation?
people around say it is true but that you have to live with that indian tribeIs it true you can become a u.s. citizen by the kawewah indian nation?
You gotta join the casino player's club first.Is it true you can become a u.s. citizen by the kawewah indian nation?
we r some indiantvs
You gotta join the casino player's club first.Is it true you can become a u.s. citizen by the kawewah indian nation?
we r some indian
Is it true that Spain pays for their citizen's education from K through PHD?
It's true, up to a point.
From K to high school it's free. 100%.
In the Public University, an ordinary student has to pay around 600鈧?per year, not that much, really ;-) In a private Spanish University, the average price per year is 6.300鈧?
Public universities, in general (I insist: in general!), have a higher prestige than private universities. (One reason is that you need to take an entry test. People who fail can go to the private universities.)
In addition, public universities offer lots of grants. If you / your parents have a low income, then it's free.
Plus, if you get ';matr铆cula de honor'; ( an academic distinction) in the year before the university, the first uni year is 100% free
And for each distinction you get in the different subjects, you don't have to pay the for one subject the next year.Is it true that Spain pays for their citizen's education from K through PHD?
It is also true that Spain has unemployment double ours and higher inflation.
Get it through your head: Just because the government provides something does not by any means make it free, and definitely does not make it any cheaper.
There are very serious economic consequences to the government taking money out of the hands of private citizens and deciding it knows how to spend it better.Is it true that Spain pays for their citizen's education from K through PHD?
I wouldn't be surprised. Lots of countries do that.
Unlikely.
Yes. Many, many other countries do that as well.
Yes, it is free. I think they provide it through age 16. Literacy rate in Spain: 97%
Probably. But do you really want that? I mean if I didn't have 100,000 dollars in student loan debt, who would they send all the consolidation ads to? Could you look Sallie Mae in the eye and tell them they can't prey on the ignorant and idealistic anymore?
From this link on wikipedia, it seems the answer in no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_i鈥?/a>
Also, the answer that a lot of countries do that is not true. Many countries offer the best and brightest a free education (including the U.S.A.), but there is not country that I am aware of that does it regardless of academic ability.
University state education is free in Spain. From Kindergarten right up to like you said PHD.
For tuition, pretty much.
Here in Canada education is also very cheap, most of it is covered by the government.
From K to high school it's free. 100%.
In the Public University, an ordinary student has to pay around 600鈧?per year, not that much, really ;-) In a private Spanish University, the average price per year is 6.300鈧?
Public universities, in general (I insist: in general!), have a higher prestige than private universities. (One reason is that you need to take an entry test. People who fail can go to the private universities.)
In addition, public universities offer lots of grants. If you / your parents have a low income, then it's free.
Plus, if you get ';matr铆cula de honor'; ( an academic distinction) in the year before the university, the first uni year is 100% free
And for each distinction you get in the different subjects, you don't have to pay the for one subject the next year.Is it true that Spain pays for their citizen's education from K through PHD?
It is also true that Spain has unemployment double ours and higher inflation.
Get it through your head: Just because the government provides something does not by any means make it free, and definitely does not make it any cheaper.
There are very serious economic consequences to the government taking money out of the hands of private citizens and deciding it knows how to spend it better.Is it true that Spain pays for their citizen's education from K through PHD?
I wouldn't be surprised. Lots of countries do that.
Unlikely.
Yes. Many, many other countries do that as well.
Yes, it is free. I think they provide it through age 16. Literacy rate in Spain: 97%
Probably. But do you really want that? I mean if I didn't have 100,000 dollars in student loan debt, who would they send all the consolidation ads to? Could you look Sallie Mae in the eye and tell them they can't prey on the ignorant and idealistic anymore?
From this link on wikipedia, it seems the answer in no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_i鈥?/a>
Also, the answer that a lot of countries do that is not true. Many countries offer the best and brightest a free education (including the U.S.A.), but there is not country that I am aware of that does it regardless of academic ability.
University state education is free in Spain. From Kindergarten right up to like you said PHD.
For tuition, pretty much.
Here in Canada education is also very cheap, most of it is covered by the government.
Is it true that d citizenship of an american citizen child whose parents are illegal alien voidable?
The child was born in USA with parents that are illegal alien. Someone told me when the government found it out, they will void the citizenship they grant for the kid. Please no racist! LOLIs it true that d citizenship of an american citizen child whose parents are illegal alien voidable?
Any child born in America whose parent(s) is(are) not (1) diplomats accredited to the USA (but this rule doesn't apply if the other parent is a US citizen) or (2) enemy alien combatants (historically meaning a member of an invading British force attempting to thwart the Revolution of 1776) is a citizen of the United States for life.
Until and unless he or she renounces that citizenship. Upon reaching the age of majority, 18, and residing abroad. http://tinyurl.com/yjy6ra (Gary Davis case)
What can happen is that such an American citizen child can be ';deported'; with his or her parents: in other words, if the parents are deported as illegals, they can take the child with them at US Government expense. Or, at their option, leave the child behind with friends or relatives. Or put the child in foster care or up for adoption. Cruel, but that's the policy. http://uniset.ca/naty/maternity
I guarantee that what I have said is absolutely correct.Is it true that d citizenship of an american citizen child whose parents are illegal alien voidable?
I'm not sure, but I certainly hope so. If a child is born here to an illegal alien, then the parents need to go home and it would be wrong to leave the kid here for our child welfare system to raise. The parents knew what they were doing when they gave birth to the child here in hopes of staying legally. In most cases, they didn't even want a kid, they wanted an anchor baby. If they love the kid they have a choice to either take him home to wherever they ran away from or leave him here. The fact is that if they are illegal aliens, they need to leave this country because they broke the law. It is the children I feel the most sorry for, but I've got my own children who are US citizens to worry about. The future of my kids will be better when their tax dollars stop supporting every illegal who hates their country enough to enter ours illegally.
It is a possibility if the parents came here just to have their child here. If they can prove they were on vacation or some other reason for being heer with valid work visas or passports, then they most likely will let it go.
I don't believe so. If someone is born here they are a citizen, period.
Whether that SHOULD be the rule is another question.
It is my understanding that parents can renounce citizenship rights for their minor children, basically by registering the kid with an embassy or consulate.
With illegals who had a baby here, it is entirely possible the child would be taken from the parents prior to deportation -- something that would motivate the parents to renounce the child's native-born status.
A severe crackdown on such cases is brewing.
NO child born in the United states can be voided of their citizenship. key word american'' only the parents can be shipped out if the have not gotten their papers in order to remain, in the states. But not the child, It is the parents choice if they are asked to leave to take child. With them and wait until child is 18, and comes back to the states, and can then start peticion to asked for parents to enter legally . (as long as child has a good job and can support parent, or parents while papers are , being filed and submitted , as they can not work legaly in the country, but I believe child should go with parents if need be , and become well educated then come back , and ask for parents.*** Child should learn as much English while studying it will be sooo neccesary..To speak up for their rights , As well as their parents rights. There are a lot of illegal in this country whom did come from otherforeigen countries and forgot that they to were illeglas at one time and it takes months and months to get all papers needed to become legal and if you can't work how do you pay for papers and become a tax paying, citizen as their parents had to ,do at one time..
Any child born in America whose parent(s) is(are) not (1) diplomats accredited to the USA (but this rule doesn't apply if the other parent is a US citizen) or (2) enemy alien combatants (historically meaning a member of an invading British force attempting to thwart the Revolution of 1776) is a citizen of the United States for life.
Until and unless he or she renounces that citizenship. Upon reaching the age of majority, 18, and residing abroad. http://tinyurl.com/yjy6ra (Gary Davis case)
What can happen is that such an American citizen child can be ';deported'; with his or her parents: in other words, if the parents are deported as illegals, they can take the child with them at US Government expense. Or, at their option, leave the child behind with friends or relatives. Or put the child in foster care or up for adoption. Cruel, but that's the policy. http://uniset.ca/naty/maternity
I guarantee that what I have said is absolutely correct.Is it true that d citizenship of an american citizen child whose parents are illegal alien voidable?
I'm not sure, but I certainly hope so. If a child is born here to an illegal alien, then the parents need to go home and it would be wrong to leave the kid here for our child welfare system to raise. The parents knew what they were doing when they gave birth to the child here in hopes of staying legally. In most cases, they didn't even want a kid, they wanted an anchor baby. If they love the kid they have a choice to either take him home to wherever they ran away from or leave him here. The fact is that if they are illegal aliens, they need to leave this country because they broke the law. It is the children I feel the most sorry for, but I've got my own children who are US citizens to worry about. The future of my kids will be better when their tax dollars stop supporting every illegal who hates their country enough to enter ours illegally.
It is a possibility if the parents came here just to have their child here. If they can prove they were on vacation or some other reason for being heer with valid work visas or passports, then they most likely will let it go.
I don't believe so. If someone is born here they are a citizen, period.
Whether that SHOULD be the rule is another question.
It is my understanding that parents can renounce citizenship rights for their minor children, basically by registering the kid with an embassy or consulate.
With illegals who had a baby here, it is entirely possible the child would be taken from the parents prior to deportation -- something that would motivate the parents to renounce the child's native-born status.
A severe crackdown on such cases is brewing.
NO child born in the United states can be voided of their citizenship. key word american'' only the parents can be shipped out if the have not gotten their papers in order to remain, in the states. But not the child, It is the parents choice if they are asked to leave to take child. With them and wait until child is 18, and comes back to the states, and can then start peticion to asked for parents to enter legally . (as long as child has a good job and can support parent, or parents while papers are , being filed and submitted , as they can not work legaly in the country, but I believe child should go with parents if need be , and become well educated then come back , and ask for parents.*** Child should learn as much English while studying it will be sooo neccesary..To speak up for their rights , As well as their parents rights. There are a lot of illegal in this country whom did come from otherforeigen countries and forgot that they to were illeglas at one time and it takes months and months to get all papers needed to become legal and if you can't work how do you pay for papers and become a tax paying, citizen as their parents had to ,do at one time..
Is it true that american citizen get paid by the canadian governement if they marry a canadian citizen?
I'm not trying to fraud any governement but it's just something that i've heard and i wanted to know if it was true?
I've heard that if a canadian citizen married an american citizen (from the US) and they moved to the united state, they would receive a payment from the canadian governement for doing so ?
My friend just got married to his girlfriend who's american and they moved to florida (where she's originally from) and he could definitely use the money so i was wondering if it was true.
Thank you.Is it true that american citizen get paid by the canadian governement if they marry a canadian citizen?
LMAO oh i haven't laughed this hard in ages
someone is yanking your chainIs it true that american citizen get paid by the canadian governement if they marry a canadian citizen?
Why would the Canadian government pay people to move out of their country? Canada has a population 10 times smaller than the United States. They need more people, not less!
TRUE
I think its only if they are really ugly
NO!!
I have never heard of Canada making any such payment as this
Now if the canadian was entitled to get her pension, (if she is aged 65 or older) then yes she would get her money back - that she paid into the government pension fund.
otherwise the pension is locked until she reaches age 65.
I've heard that if a canadian citizen married an american citizen (from the US) and they moved to the united state, they would receive a payment from the canadian governement for doing so ?
My friend just got married to his girlfriend who's american and they moved to florida (where she's originally from) and he could definitely use the money so i was wondering if it was true.
Thank you.Is it true that american citizen get paid by the canadian governement if they marry a canadian citizen?
LMAO oh i haven't laughed this hard in ages
someone is yanking your chainIs it true that american citizen get paid by the canadian governement if they marry a canadian citizen?
Why would the Canadian government pay people to move out of their country? Canada has a population 10 times smaller than the United States. They need more people, not less!
TRUE
I think its only if they are really ugly
NO!!
I have never heard of Canada making any such payment as this
Now if the canadian was entitled to get her pension, (if she is aged 65 or older) then yes she would get her money back - that she paid into the government pension fund.
otherwise the pension is locked until she reaches age 65.
Is it true that Mark Sanford is not a U.S. citizen and was, in fact, born in Argentina, which is why he is so?
attracted to the area? Where's the birth certificate? I don't believe he is eligible to be a U.S. politician. Does anyone have a link to his birth certificate? Doesn't matter, I heard it is a forgery.Is it true that Mark Sanford is not a U.S. citizen and was, in fact, born in Argentina, which is why he is so?
2 pts Thanx 4 playingIs it true that Mark Sanford is not a U.S. citizen and was, in fact, born in Argentina, which is why he is so?
If he becomes a presidential candidate in 2012, you can ask him to prove his eligibility. I am sure that we will know much more about his private life compared to what we know about Obama.
Media will dig through his past and publish it. I wish they were as diligent in Obama's case.
No birth ccertificate no school records, no passport information...
I was there when he was born. I am, in fact, his godfather. End of rumor; he is a U.S. citizen.
Yeah I've yet to find one person who can give me a link to his birth certificate.
Well, unless Florida (where he was born) has seceded from the United States, he is a natural born citizen of this country.
You don't have to be from Argentina to be attracted to Argentine people.They happen to be very handsome folks.
Are you just as suspicious about the bama's birth certificate issues?
It is required by law the President be born in the US. It is not required of other offices.
2 pts Thanx 4 playingIs it true that Mark Sanford is not a U.S. citizen and was, in fact, born in Argentina, which is why he is so?
If he becomes a presidential candidate in 2012, you can ask him to prove his eligibility. I am sure that we will know much more about his private life compared to what we know about Obama.
Media will dig through his past and publish it. I wish they were as diligent in Obama's case.
No birth ccertificate no school records, no passport information...
I was there when he was born. I am, in fact, his godfather. End of rumor; he is a U.S. citizen.
Yeah I've yet to find one person who can give me a link to his birth certificate.
Well, unless Florida (where he was born) has seceded from the United States, he is a natural born citizen of this country.
You don't have to be from Argentina to be attracted to Argentine people.They happen to be very handsome folks.
Are you just as suspicious about the bama's birth certificate issues?
It is required by law the President be born in the US. It is not required of other offices.
Is it true that its going to take 10 years now to be a british citizen instead of 5?
if your british, why should you care,
if your not british, dont come to britain, its already full of imigrants
if your not british, dont come to britain, its already full of imigrants
Am i a true u.s.citizen?
when my father was stationed in france in 1962, he and my mother were on a sight seeing tour,my mother was pregnant wit,you guessed it ,me! to make a boring story short, i was born, on french soil of u.s.
citizen parents.my birth cert. is in french,my parents ,both us citizens
i returned to u.s. soil at age one.i have a u.s. passport,u.s. ssn # and have been a productive and hard working u.s. citizen ever since.Am i a true u.s.citizen?
The passport is proof of your citizenship, and you are a ';natural born'; citizen (the courts have never distinguished between ';born'; and ';natural born';) but if you want to know the legal basis that makes you a citizen, here it is:
US Immigration and Nationality Act
INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
....
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
...
PS - I think you can run for President, because the Supreme Court has never made any distinction between ';natural born'; and ';born'; in discussing citizenship. There is no court case or statute or precedent, nor language in the constitution to suggest that the child of two citizens is anything but a ';natural born citizen';.
In a very technical way your are not considered a ';14th Amendment citizen'; because of where you were born, but that only allows congress to say, for example, that your parent must have resided in the US. It doesn't change the fact that you became a citizen the moment you were born.Am i a true u.s.citizen?
Since your parents more than likely filed a Certificate of Foreign Birth with the State Department after you were born, then yes you are a US Citizen.
Not a great speller or punctuator, but definitely a US Citizen.
since you have a passport and you were born on french soil of U.S. and both of your parents are citizens than yes you are a citizen also.
Yes you are a full American citizen.... but you still can't run for president!
But you are as american as apple pie!
If you have a US passport you are a US citizen.
it is simple= you have a US passport? you are a US citizen.tvs
citizen parents.my birth cert. is in french,my parents ,both us citizens
i returned to u.s. soil at age one.i have a u.s. passport,u.s. ssn # and have been a productive and hard working u.s. citizen ever since.Am i a true u.s.citizen?
The passport is proof of your citizenship, and you are a ';natural born'; citizen (the courts have never distinguished between ';born'; and ';natural born';) but if you want to know the legal basis that makes you a citizen, here it is:
US Immigration and Nationality Act
INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
....
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
...
PS - I think you can run for President, because the Supreme Court has never made any distinction between ';natural born'; and ';born'; in discussing citizenship. There is no court case or statute or precedent, nor language in the constitution to suggest that the child of two citizens is anything but a ';natural born citizen';.
In a very technical way your are not considered a ';14th Amendment citizen'; because of where you were born, but that only allows congress to say, for example, that your parent must have resided in the US. It doesn't change the fact that you became a citizen the moment you were born.Am i a true u.s.citizen?
Since your parents more than likely filed a Certificate of Foreign Birth with the State Department after you were born, then yes you are a US Citizen.
Not a great speller or punctuator, but definitely a US Citizen.
since you have a passport and you were born on french soil of U.S. and both of your parents are citizens than yes you are a citizen also.
Yes you are a full American citizen.... but you still can't run for president!
But you are as american as apple pie!
If you have a US passport you are a US citizen.
it is simple= you have a US passport? you are a US citizen.
Is ti true that you cannot go to college in the US unless you are a citizen or born here?
noIs ti true that you cannot go to college in the US unless you are a citizen or born here?
No, anyone can go to college who is legal and has the correct visa to do so, who is not a US citizenIs ti true that you cannot go to college in the US unless you are a citizen or born here?
Even illegals in Texas can attend university and get in state resident tuition rates! You just can't get a legal job after graduation.
heyy
where did u get this idea from !!!!?? I am currently in USA, studying in a college..but i was born in India !!! I just came here to attend college some 3 weeks back ! so u can always go to a college in here as in international student !! Talk to the college faculty u wanna go to..they will help u out !! :)
All the best !! :)
No, there are lots of foreign students in college in the U.S.
However, you will have to do so entirely at your own (or your parents') expense. The U.S. government will not give student aid (Pell grants, etc.) to foreigners.
NOT TRUE
Not true. You may also be a foreign citizen and attend school. To get the visa, you need to proof that you can afford going to school here and need to have US health insurance. That was at least the case when I went to college in the US.
no that is not true,.....there are many people from other countries, that attend college in the United States, some legal, and some not,.....
No - we have student visas.
No, you can go to college here in the US
But you cannot afford the costs unless you are an in-state resident
Where did you get your info? 1,000's and 1,000's every year go to our colleges from abroad. They call them student visas. Our country is concerned about middle east students being terrorists as this is an easy way to get into our country.
No, in California or at least in some cities, if a student graduated from High School, and can prove it, then they just filed some forms that certify that if at any time they have the opportunity to fix their status from ';illegal'; to ';legal'; they will do so.
Students who take advantage of this opportunity have to pay the same regular fees as a regular citizen. However they are not allow to ask for any type of financial help. But there scholarships, too.
There are Student Visas for those who come from a foreign country, but the fees are way more expensive.
I hope this helps.
No, there are thousands of foreign students in American colleges and universities right now.
No. We have people from all over the world going to school here. You can go......just expect to pay for it.......it's not free.
No, people have visas like the other person posted here already~ People travel all over
No, anyone can go to college who is legal and has the correct visa to do so, who is not a US citizenIs ti true that you cannot go to college in the US unless you are a citizen or born here?
Even illegals in Texas can attend university and get in state resident tuition rates! You just can't get a legal job after graduation.
heyy
where did u get this idea from !!!!?? I am currently in USA, studying in a college..but i was born in India !!! I just came here to attend college some 3 weeks back ! so u can always go to a college in here as in international student !! Talk to the college faculty u wanna go to..they will help u out !! :)
All the best !! :)
No, there are lots of foreign students in college in the U.S.
However, you will have to do so entirely at your own (or your parents') expense. The U.S. government will not give student aid (Pell grants, etc.) to foreigners.
NOT TRUE
Not true. You may also be a foreign citizen and attend school. To get the visa, you need to proof that you can afford going to school here and need to have US health insurance. That was at least the case when I went to college in the US.
no that is not true,.....there are many people from other countries, that attend college in the United States, some legal, and some not,.....
No - we have student visas.
No, you can go to college here in the US
But you cannot afford the costs unless you are an in-state resident
Where did you get your info? 1,000's and 1,000's every year go to our colleges from abroad. They call them student visas. Our country is concerned about middle east students being terrorists as this is an easy way to get into our country.
No, in California or at least in some cities, if a student graduated from High School, and can prove it, then they just filed some forms that certify that if at any time they have the opportunity to fix their status from ';illegal'; to ';legal'; they will do so.
Students who take advantage of this opportunity have to pay the same regular fees as a regular citizen. However they are not allow to ask for any type of financial help. But there scholarships, too.
There are Student Visas for those who come from a foreign country, but the fees are way more expensive.
I hope this helps.
No, there are thousands of foreign students in American colleges and universities right now.
No. We have people from all over the world going to school here. You can go......just expect to pay for it.......it's not free.
No, people have visas like the other person posted here already~ People travel all over
Is it true after becoming a US citizen?
ok so my husband left me after he became a US citizen and i hear from people that even though he got it but i can revoke it simlpy because that was the only reason he was with me and he is being watched by government for a year after becoming a citizen is it true he filled for divorce so i want to know what i can do and cant doIs it true after becoming a US citizen?
If you have proof that he married you just to get a green card, you can call the USCIS, but you need real proofIs it true after becoming a US citizen?
that depends on which greeen card he has.
if he still has the conditional 2 year green card, then yes you can report him and get him deported.
if he has the permanent 10 year green card, then you cannot do anything!!!!
And no the govt do NOT watch the new immigrants for a year - that would take a LOT Of manpower - something they cannot afford.
Well, there are both sides of your circumstances. Like the others said why did you marry him at the first place? What is the 'real' motive? If he already becomes a US citizen, I don't think you can do anything about it but if not, you should report to the immigration then they're going to ask you as well? If you're part of this, then they're going to look at it you're guilty as he's. Again, I don't know the whole 'facts' so I can't say much.
That's my two cents. Hope it helps you a little bit. All the best!
Your ex-husband is now a U.S. citizen, which means he went through the entire process of being a conditional permanent resident to permanent resident and now a citizen. By U.S. law, he is a naturalized citizen. Now, if you claim that he only used you as a ';stepping stone'; to get his citizenship, the burden of proof lies upon you. You'll need a lawyer, money to pay this lawyer and time in appearing in courts, should it get to the point you get him in court.
And who knows how long this is going to drag. You sue him for misrepresentation or whatever, he'll sue to stay, he has that right. He's not gonna give up that easy.
So its up to you. Perhaps you were duped? and like the other one said, you could be a party to this irregularity. My advice to you is bear it with pride and move on ...
You should call the USCIS customer Service and ask them.
I think the only way his citizenship can be revoked is if you can prove that he married you with the intent to gain U.S Citizenship. For instance, proof that he was either cheating on you, or correspondance confirming his intentions, etc.
If he married you just to get his citizenship then that may have been against the law. You should get in touch with the INS.
You could try but piratically it is impossible to proof that he got marry you only for citizenship reasons.
Why is it women every year think some guy half her age who is from some third world slumhole really wants her?
If he married you only to get his citizenship and you were a party to this I believe you are in trouble legally.
why in the world would you marry a mexican't anyway?
If you have proof that he married you just to get a green card, you can call the USCIS, but you need real proofIs it true after becoming a US citizen?
that depends on which greeen card he has.
if he still has the conditional 2 year green card, then yes you can report him and get him deported.
if he has the permanent 10 year green card, then you cannot do anything!!!!
And no the govt do NOT watch the new immigrants for a year - that would take a LOT Of manpower - something they cannot afford.
Well, there are both sides of your circumstances. Like the others said why did you marry him at the first place? What is the 'real' motive? If he already becomes a US citizen, I don't think you can do anything about it but if not, you should report to the immigration then they're going to ask you as well? If you're part of this, then they're going to look at it you're guilty as he's. Again, I don't know the whole 'facts' so I can't say much.
That's my two cents. Hope it helps you a little bit. All the best!
Your ex-husband is now a U.S. citizen, which means he went through the entire process of being a conditional permanent resident to permanent resident and now a citizen. By U.S. law, he is a naturalized citizen. Now, if you claim that he only used you as a ';stepping stone'; to get his citizenship, the burden of proof lies upon you. You'll need a lawyer, money to pay this lawyer and time in appearing in courts, should it get to the point you get him in court.
And who knows how long this is going to drag. You sue him for misrepresentation or whatever, he'll sue to stay, he has that right. He's not gonna give up that easy.
So its up to you. Perhaps you were duped? and like the other one said, you could be a party to this irregularity. My advice to you is bear it with pride and move on ...
You should call the USCIS customer Service and ask them.
I think the only way his citizenship can be revoked is if you can prove that he married you with the intent to gain U.S Citizenship. For instance, proof that he was either cheating on you, or correspondance confirming his intentions, etc.
If he married you just to get his citizenship then that may have been against the law. You should get in touch with the INS.
You could try but piratically it is impossible to proof that he got marry you only for citizenship reasons.
Why is it women every year think some guy half her age who is from some third world slumhole really wants her?
If he married you only to get his citizenship and you were a party to this I believe you are in trouble legally.
why in the world would you marry a mexican't anyway?
Is Barack Obama a true U.S. citizen?
Yes Obama was born of an American citizen in the United States. either of which fit the requirements. On a personal note I think he is better suited to be leading a communist country as he is a socialist.Is Barack Obama a true U.S. citizen?
The world may never know since his birth records are ';sealed'; and will not be released---so much for him being ';transparent';Is Barack Obama a true U.S. citizen?
who cares he is your President
JFC -- YES!
WTF is your problem? How many times does this idiotic question have to be asked?
Probably not.. but we will never know.. Oprah says he is '; the one';.. so who can question that?
obviously, he became the president
Well....I think that question still remains unanswered. Usually if there is any questionable ';fact'; in politics the person in question is quick to bring out indisputable proof from multipule resources. As of now Obama has not given indisputable proof that his birth was actually IN Hawaii, not just REGISTERED there.
This, along with all the other controversy, worries me... I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but usually if someone is surrounded by this much controversy, not all of them can be coincidences.
Nobody bothered trying to find out.
Yes he is. And there is little to no reason to wonder otherwise.
Can we actually focus on some real problems instead of fringe conspiracy theories?
I rather not see a one-party government rise because the opposition was too busy picking their nose.
yes
The world may never know since his birth records are ';sealed'; and will not be released---so much for him being ';transparent';Is Barack Obama a true U.S. citizen?
who cares he is your President
JFC -- YES!
WTF is your problem? How many times does this idiotic question have to be asked?
Probably not.. but we will never know.. Oprah says he is '; the one';.. so who can question that?
obviously, he became the president
Well....I think that question still remains unanswered. Usually if there is any questionable ';fact'; in politics the person in question is quick to bring out indisputable proof from multipule resources. As of now Obama has not given indisputable proof that his birth was actually IN Hawaii, not just REGISTERED there.
This, along with all the other controversy, worries me... I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but usually if someone is surrounded by this much controversy, not all of them can be coincidences.
Nobody bothered trying to find out.
Yes he is. And there is little to no reason to wonder otherwise.
Can we actually focus on some real problems instead of fringe conspiracy theories?
I rather not see a one-party government rise because the opposition was too busy picking their nose.
yes
I'm shortly to become a Senior Citizen and have heard that Bran Muffins will be good for me. Is this true?
well, one benefit of bran muffins is that they will scratch your hemorrhoids for you on the way outI'm shortly to become a Senior Citizen and have heard that Bran Muffins will be good for me. Is this true?
Absolutely...Footballs are often cumbersome,difficult to grip and are the cause for many severe nose-bleeds,in the hands of the elderly...Why not just have mama,bake up a tray of Bran Muffins,grab your baseball mitts and have a good old fashoned,bran muffin toss...
Also,Bran Muffins are all the rage on the shuffle-board courts,as they have now replaced the dangerous,hard plastic pucks...For the senor pool shark...Just paint 'em slap on a number,rack 'em and enjoy a game of 8-ball,the old fashoned way...I'm shortly to become a Senior Citizen and have heard that Bran Muffins will be good for me. Is this true?
Hello, Save your money and read my answers if they don't move you nothing will. You know in Britain we have a famous puppet called Muffin the mule, you have just obliterated my childhood memories of him straight down the pan. lol
They are good for you if you eat them and drink lots of water with them or they might give you an impaction. Then you will need a nuclear explosion to get everything back in motion.
Short answer: Yes
(Long answer had something to do with an Edsel and the time I borrowed it with your cousin Jim and tried to drive a stick for the first time... but didn't really answer the question.)
depends how you use them kind sir, depends how you use them
Oatmeal's better.
Bran is good for all of us slow crappers.
Yes, they are very helpful ! Just make sure you are a fast mover, like they are !
It is true.
:)
Yes! There are the perfect compliment to that cold dish of Alpo dogfood - bon appetite!
Yes, the trick is remembering to eat them.
Rosends is very correct, All I can add is ';and how often'; {;%26gt;
Yea.
They will kill you.
When you are your age sir, any kind o Muffin
is good for you !!
just don't try to smoke the stuff,.,.,it'll only burn yer frote ;-0)
Absolutely...Footballs are often cumbersome,difficult to grip and are the cause for many severe nose-bleeds,in the hands of the elderly...Why not just have mama,bake up a tray of Bran Muffins,grab your baseball mitts and have a good old fashoned,bran muffin toss...
Also,Bran Muffins are all the rage on the shuffle-board courts,as they have now replaced the dangerous,hard plastic pucks...For the senor pool shark...Just paint 'em slap on a number,rack 'em and enjoy a game of 8-ball,the old fashoned way...I'm shortly to become a Senior Citizen and have heard that Bran Muffins will be good for me. Is this true?
Hello, Save your money and read my answers if they don't move you nothing will. You know in Britain we have a famous puppet called Muffin the mule, you have just obliterated my childhood memories of him straight down the pan. lol
They are good for you if you eat them and drink lots of water with them or they might give you an impaction. Then you will need a nuclear explosion to get everything back in motion.
Short answer: Yes
(Long answer had something to do with an Edsel and the time I borrowed it with your cousin Jim and tried to drive a stick for the first time... but didn't really answer the question.)
depends how you use them kind sir, depends how you use them
Oatmeal's better.
Bran is good for all of us slow crappers.
Yes, they are very helpful ! Just make sure you are a fast mover, like they are !
It is true.
:)
Yes! There are the perfect compliment to that cold dish of Alpo dogfood - bon appetite!
Yes, the trick is remembering to eat them.
Rosends is very correct, All I can add is ';and how often'; {;%26gt;
Yea.
They will kill you.
When you are your age sir, any kind o Muffin
is good for you !!
just don't try to smoke the stuff,.,.,it'll only burn yer frote ;-0)
True or False '; is it true that kuwaiti citizen is rich?
Hi just curious I watch the Ophra show few months ago talking about women around the globe. I am intrigue with Kuwaiti woman saying they have a better life in Kuwait, their gov't give them anything they want. i.e. wedding gift if they get married, university expenses paid, all they have to do is go shopping all the time. If this is true WOW what a place its like paradise. No problem at all.True or False '; is it true that kuwaiti citizen is rich?
I'm tired of hearing that stereotype about us Kuwaitis being rich and living in mansions with oil wells in our backyards lol. The lady you saw on Oprah is a member of the corrupt royal family whose job is stealing the profits of the country's 10% world oil reserves. She is just bragging about nothing but her lies and bs. Even though there are no ';taxes'; as she claims, the average kuwaiti citizen is living in debts such as house mortgage and loan payments since the salaries aren't enough for the average family to survive without getting loans from banks. This link shows you the GDP per capita and the ranking of Kuwait compared to other countries...see for yourself. What would the rank be if kuwait had 0% of oil?????True or False '; is it true that kuwaiti citizen is rich?
dude im from kuwait and yea ive got $$$$$$$ baby.... but not everyone does..
true.
true .. but they have poor ppl too.
True.
They have one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. I would not say it is absolutely true, but its not a bad place economically to live as a Muslim, I would guess...
i can't say it better than ';Kuwaiti Dude'; did
Definitely yes.In fact,the are one of the largest oil producer in the world.No wonder they became so rich.
true
I'm tired of hearing that stereotype about us Kuwaitis being rich and living in mansions with oil wells in our backyards lol. The lady you saw on Oprah is a member of the corrupt royal family whose job is stealing the profits of the country's 10% world oil reserves. She is just bragging about nothing but her lies and bs. Even though there are no ';taxes'; as she claims, the average kuwaiti citizen is living in debts such as house mortgage and loan payments since the salaries aren't enough for the average family to survive without getting loans from banks. This link shows you the GDP per capita and the ranking of Kuwait compared to other countries...see for yourself. What would the rank be if kuwait had 0% of oil?????True or False '; is it true that kuwaiti citizen is rich?
dude im from kuwait and yea ive got $$$$$$$ baby.... but not everyone does..
Report Abuse
true.
true .. but they have poor ppl too.
True.
They have one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. I would not say it is absolutely true, but its not a bad place economically to live as a Muslim, I would guess...
i can't say it better than ';Kuwaiti Dude'; did
Definitely yes.In fact,the are one of the largest oil producer in the world.No wonder they became so rich.
true
Is it true that all french citizens are required to serve in the military?
my father told me this- but i don't think it's true.Is it true that all french citizens are required to serve in the military?
it's not true for France but it is true for Switzerland...
every male in switzerland between the ages of 18 and 45 are in the army reserve.
the reason for this is to protect their neutrality.Is it true that all french citizens are required to serve in the military?
No.tvs
it's not true for France but it is true for Switzerland...
every male in switzerland between the ages of 18 and 45 are in the army reserve.
the reason for this is to protect their neutrality.Is it true that all french citizens are required to serve in the military?
No.
Any truth to Obama is not a natural born citizen??? If this is true why does mainstream media avoid this ?
Jeff, give it up. it's one of those stupid stories that's gone around the Web for months. The story does not get airplay because it's false. Any truth to Obama is not a natural born citizen??? If this is true why does mainstream media avoid this ?
No, that is not true at all. Here are the requirements to be President of the U.S. If he were not a natural born citizen they would have had him disqualified before the primary elections were over with.:
';Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:
be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. ';
Any truth to Obama is not a natural born citizen??? If this is true why does mainstream media avoid this ?
spread the wealth....in all 57 states
he was born in hawaii.
mccain was born in panama.
No truth what so ever. That is why the media and McCain are ignoring this.
McCain wasn't even born in the US.
No, that is not true at all. Here are the requirements to be President of the U.S. If he were not a natural born citizen they would have had him disqualified before the primary elections were over with.:
';Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:
be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. ';
Any truth to Obama is not a natural born citizen??? If this is true why does mainstream media avoid this ?
spread the wealth....in all 57 states
he was born in hawaii.
mccain was born in panama.
No truth what so ever. That is why the media and McCain are ignoring this.
McCain wasn't even born in the US.
Is it true that Hong Kong citizens can go to over 180 countries without visa?
I have recently been in a trip to Hong Kong. Our tour guide told us that Hong Kong citizens can go to over 180 countries without visa.Is it true that Hong Kong citizens can go to over 180 countries without visa?
It's not correct. According to the HK immigration department there are 135 countries which can be entered visa free, or with visa on arrival.Is it true that Hong Kong citizens can go to over 180 countries without visa?
up til now we r visa free for 135 countries.....plz c the link below.
http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/immigrati鈥?/a>
i m using the HKSAR passport 2.
No I think that is totally wrong. But, a tour guide is an expert in travel?
Just plain no, that isn't true.
I do not count how many but we still need to apply for tourist visa for USA, Veitnam, Russia and Australia.
It's not correct. According to the HK immigration department there are 135 countries which can be entered visa free, or with visa on arrival.Is it true that Hong Kong citizens can go to over 180 countries without visa?
up til now we r visa free for 135 countries.....plz c the link below.
http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/immigrati鈥?/a>
i m using the HKSAR passport 2.
No I think that is totally wrong. But, a tour guide is an expert in travel?
Just plain no, that isn't true.
I do not count how many but we still need to apply for tourist visa for USA, Veitnam, Russia and Australia.
Is the movie citizen kane a true story?
Not at all
The story is very loosely based on the life of media tycoon William Randolf Hearst, but VERY loosely.
Basically, Orson Welles used Hearst's life as inspiration for the character, but the story is completely made up.Is the movie citizen kane a true story?
Rosebud!Is the movie citizen kane a true story?
It is fiction based very closely on the life of William Randolph Hearst, the multi-millionaire publisher. At the time, Hearst was very much alive, so they had to fictionalize some parts to keep from the threats of lawsuits. It is said that Hearst, through his lawyers, attempted to buy the film even before it was released, in order to stop the bad publicity. It is a devastating look at megalomania and wealth, remembered today because of the marvelous example of film-making that it was. Truly pioneer use of camera angles and focus in black-and-white film. It is considered one of the best films ever made.
The studio filming the picture was so afraid of Hearst, that the production did not even have a name while it was being produced--only a number, in case the rumors of its subject matter got out and back to Hearst and his attorneys. Hearst had many friends and sycophants in Hollywood, and he soon found out about the film.
After its release, Welles said that he never received a good review for any movie he made in the more-than 100 Hearst newspapers, and many flatly refused to sell or print advertisements for his films.
(from imdb)
Orson Welles always claimed that this picture was not the biography of one specific individual, but a composite of characters from that era in America. Though universally recognized as based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, there were also elements in the story that applied to the life of Chicago utilities magnate Samuel Insull (1859-1938).
After production wrapped, William Randolph Hearst forbade any advertisement of the film in any of his newspapers - or indeed any other RKO movies - and offered to buy the negative from studio head George Schaefer with a view to destroying it. Fortunately Orson Welles had already previewed the film to influential industry figures to rave reviews, so it was granted a limited theatrical release. Critics from non-Hearst newspapers fell over themselves praising the film. The film itself was not reviewed in any Hearst newspaper until the mid-1970s, when the film critic for the ';Los Angeles Herald-Examiner'; finally reviewed it.
Yes it is based on a true story
Bob says it its, but I say that I would doubt it. And usually if movies are supposed to be based on a true story, they would say so. But when of course they have been known to make more things up in a movie that is supposed to be based on a true story.
The story is very loosely based on the life of media tycoon William Randolf Hearst, but VERY loosely.
Basically, Orson Welles used Hearst's life as inspiration for the character, but the story is completely made up.Is the movie citizen kane a true story?
Rosebud!Is the movie citizen kane a true story?
It is fiction based very closely on the life of William Randolph Hearst, the multi-millionaire publisher. At the time, Hearst was very much alive, so they had to fictionalize some parts to keep from the threats of lawsuits. It is said that Hearst, through his lawyers, attempted to buy the film even before it was released, in order to stop the bad publicity. It is a devastating look at megalomania and wealth, remembered today because of the marvelous example of film-making that it was. Truly pioneer use of camera angles and focus in black-and-white film. It is considered one of the best films ever made.
The studio filming the picture was so afraid of Hearst, that the production did not even have a name while it was being produced--only a number, in case the rumors of its subject matter got out and back to Hearst and his attorneys. Hearst had many friends and sycophants in Hollywood, and he soon found out about the film.
After its release, Welles said that he never received a good review for any movie he made in the more-than 100 Hearst newspapers, and many flatly refused to sell or print advertisements for his films.
(from imdb)
Orson Welles always claimed that this picture was not the biography of one specific individual, but a composite of characters from that era in America. Though universally recognized as based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, there were also elements in the story that applied to the life of Chicago utilities magnate Samuel Insull (1859-1938).
After production wrapped, William Randolph Hearst forbade any advertisement of the film in any of his newspapers - or indeed any other RKO movies - and offered to buy the negative from studio head George Schaefer with a view to destroying it. Fortunately Orson Welles had already previewed the film to influential industry figures to rave reviews, so it was granted a limited theatrical release. Critics from non-Hearst newspapers fell over themselves praising the film. The film itself was not reviewed in any Hearst newspaper until the mid-1970s, when the film critic for the ';Los Angeles Herald-Examiner'; finally reviewed it.
Yes it is based on a true story
Bob says it its, but I say that I would doubt it. And usually if movies are supposed to be based on a true story, they would say so. But when of course they have been known to make more things up in a movie that is supposed to be based on a true story.
Is it true US citizens will need passports to leave the country in 07'?
I heard that December 31st 2006 will be the last day to travel out of the US without a passport to surrounding countries and after that everyone will need a passport even to go to canadA, MEXICO, puerto rico and the islands.....is tat true?Is it true US citizens will need passports to leave the country in 07'?
Yup. My husband to be is a trucker and he will need to get a passport to haul between the US and Canada.Is it true US citizens will need passports to leave the country in 07'?
Yes, as of today, the date is December 31st, 2006. After that date if you leave the United States (by the way-Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands are considered as the States for travel and many other issues) and you wish to return, you, as an American Citizen whether you are naturalized or born in the USA, must have a valid passport. Those that are residents of the USA (not born here or yet a citizen, but legally here) may wish to check with the Immigration dept -Homeland Security_ as to if their documentation permits them to leave and re-enter this country. Right now it is very easy to come into this country if you know English and have a driver's lic from any state. Suggest anyone that travels out to Canada, etc. start the process soon to get a passport or they may find themselves with a 6 to 12 month wait since we all tend to leave things until the last moment.
Here is latest info from the Govmt.:
New Requirements for Travelers
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires that by January 1, 2008, travelers to and from the Caribbean, Bermuda, Panama, Mexico and Canada have a passport or other secure, accepted document to enter or re-enter the United States. In order to facilitate the implementation of this requirement, the Administration is proposing to complete it in phases following a proposed timeline, which will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.
In the proposed implementation plan, which is subject to a period of initial public comment, the Initiative will be rolled out in phases, providing as much advance notice as possible to the affected public to enable them to meet the terms of the new guidelines. The proposed timeline will be as follows:
December 31, 2006 - Requirement applied to all air and sea travel to or from Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda.
December 31, 2007 - Requirement extended to all land border crossings as well as air and sea travel.
This is a change from prior travel requirements and will affect all United States citizens entering the United States from countries within the Western Hemisphere who do not currently possess valid passports. This new requirement will also affect certain foreign nationals who currently are not required to present a passport to travel to the United States. Most Canadian citizens, citizens of the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda, and to a lesser degree, Mexican citizens will be affected by the implementation of this requirement.
New Requirements for Travelers
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires that by January 1, 2008, travelers to and from the Caribbean, Bermuda, Panama, Mexico and Canada have a passport or other secure, accepted document to enter or re-enter the United States. In order to facilitate the implementation of this requirement, the Administration is proposing to complete it in phases following a proposed timeline, which will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.
In the proposed implementation plan, which is subject to a period of initial public comment, the Initiative will be rolled out in phases, providing as much advance notice as possible to the affected public to enable them to meet the terms of the new guidelines. The proposed timeline will be as follows:
December 31, 2006 - Requirement applied to all air and sea travel to or from Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda.
December 31, 2007 - Requirement extended to all land border crossings as well as air and sea travel.
This is a change from prior travel requirements and will affect all United States citizens entering the United States from countries within the Western Hemisphere who do not currently possess valid passports. This new requirement will also affect certain foreign nationals who currently are not required to present a passport to travel to the United States. Most Canadian citizens, citizens of the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda, and to a lesser degree, Mexican citizens will be affected by the implementation of this requirement.
Yes,as far as I know
Absolutely, beginning Jan. 1, 2007.
Welcome to the furthur adventures of post 9/11.
Yes that is what is suppose to happen.
Yes, welcome to bush world.
Yes that is correct. My daughter went on a tour from US to Canada and the tour company told us this.
However, there is some controversy with this because of the close economic ties between certain US/Canada cities (Windsor/Detroit for instance) and I understand we are trying to work something to streamline the process.
Yes it is true.
YES.
they are so expensive!
Woa, I didn't know that. I always took mines even when I went into Mexico. I just thought we always needed our passports when outside of american soil.
As of December 2006, you will need a passport to REENTER the united states any time you are traveling by air and by boat... However, you can go to Mexico and Canada in your own car at that time and return without a passport.. However, in December 2007, any time you cross the border, whether in your car, plane or boat, you WILL need a passport to reenter.
They wont be that high dollar though.. 94 bucks.. I just happened to research this last night, cuz hubby and I are going to Sandals in Jamaica..
Yup. My husband to be is a trucker and he will need to get a passport to haul between the US and Canada.Is it true US citizens will need passports to leave the country in 07'?
Yes, as of today, the date is December 31st, 2006. After that date if you leave the United States (by the way-Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands are considered as the States for travel and many other issues) and you wish to return, you, as an American Citizen whether you are naturalized or born in the USA, must have a valid passport. Those that are residents of the USA (not born here or yet a citizen, but legally here) may wish to check with the Immigration dept -Homeland Security_ as to if their documentation permits them to leave and re-enter this country. Right now it is very easy to come into this country if you know English and have a driver's lic from any state. Suggest anyone that travels out to Canada, etc. start the process soon to get a passport or they may find themselves with a 6 to 12 month wait since we all tend to leave things until the last moment.
Here is latest info from the Govmt.:
New Requirements for Travelers
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires that by January 1, 2008, travelers to and from the Caribbean, Bermuda, Panama, Mexico and Canada have a passport or other secure, accepted document to enter or re-enter the United States. In order to facilitate the implementation of this requirement, the Administration is proposing to complete it in phases following a proposed timeline, which will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.
In the proposed implementation plan, which is subject to a period of initial public comment, the Initiative will be rolled out in phases, providing as much advance notice as possible to the affected public to enable them to meet the terms of the new guidelines. The proposed timeline will be as follows:
December 31, 2006 - Requirement applied to all air and sea travel to or from Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda.
December 31, 2007 - Requirement extended to all land border crossings as well as air and sea travel.
This is a change from prior travel requirements and will affect all United States citizens entering the United States from countries within the Western Hemisphere who do not currently possess valid passports. This new requirement will also affect certain foreign nationals who currently are not required to present a passport to travel to the United States. Most Canadian citizens, citizens of the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda, and to a lesser degree, Mexican citizens will be affected by the implementation of this requirement.
New Requirements for Travelers
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires that by January 1, 2008, travelers to and from the Caribbean, Bermuda, Panama, Mexico and Canada have a passport or other secure, accepted document to enter or re-enter the United States. In order to facilitate the implementation of this requirement, the Administration is proposing to complete it in phases following a proposed timeline, which will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.
In the proposed implementation plan, which is subject to a period of initial public comment, the Initiative will be rolled out in phases, providing as much advance notice as possible to the affected public to enable them to meet the terms of the new guidelines. The proposed timeline will be as follows:
December 31, 2006 - Requirement applied to all air and sea travel to or from Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Bermuda.
December 31, 2007 - Requirement extended to all land border crossings as well as air and sea travel.
This is a change from prior travel requirements and will affect all United States citizens entering the United States from countries within the Western Hemisphere who do not currently possess valid passports. This new requirement will also affect certain foreign nationals who currently are not required to present a passport to travel to the United States. Most Canadian citizens, citizens of the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda, and to a lesser degree, Mexican citizens will be affected by the implementation of this requirement.
Yes,as far as I know
Absolutely, beginning Jan. 1, 2007.
Welcome to the furthur adventures of post 9/11.
Yes that is what is suppose to happen.
Yes, welcome to bush world.
Yes that is correct. My daughter went on a tour from US to Canada and the tour company told us this.
However, there is some controversy with this because of the close economic ties between certain US/Canada cities (Windsor/Detroit for instance) and I understand we are trying to work something to streamline the process.
Yes it is true.
YES.
they are so expensive!
Woa, I didn't know that. I always took mines even when I went into Mexico. I just thought we always needed our passports when outside of american soil.
As of December 2006, you will need a passport to REENTER the united states any time you are traveling by air and by boat... However, you can go to Mexico and Canada in your own car at that time and return without a passport.. However, in December 2007, any time you cross the border, whether in your car, plane or boat, you WILL need a passport to reenter.
They wont be that high dollar though.. 94 bucks.. I just happened to research this last night, cuz hubby and I are going to Sandals in Jamaica..
Isn't it true that the average citizen doesn't know jack sh*t about global warming?
We go on what scientists tell us, and there are scientists on both sides saying different things. How do we know the truth? How are we supposed to vote for someone on their global warming stance when we really don't have a clue who's right. Isn't it true that the average citizen doesn't know jack sh*t about global warming?
Meteorologists can't even predict the weather for the next day accurately. In 1974 we were expected to brace for the coming ice age. Isn't it true that the average citizen doesn't know jack sh*t about global warming?
Another case of herd mentality, similar to the Messiah's minions, clueless. Al Gore id in the process of making millions off of both the american people and american industry, He's getting legislation that will require payment for some bull s--- carbon footprints. Even Big Al can not control natural occurring events like warming trends and now they predict an ever increasing cold era. Something about a 26K year axis adjustment of our North and South poles. Lets see Gore explain this. He refuses to discuss anything concerning earth's warming or cooling. He's just a shyster, who wants to make a cheap score. Sad.
Well im not a scientist but i can tell that global warming is very real and I know there are certain things that a senator, congressman, president...etc. I believe that the way to fix this problem or at least help it starts with the average citizen such as cut down on driving if you dont have to drive dont solar panels do work they are pricey but you make that money back in 3 years. So take what you want from this but the best thing to do is to start at home.
Yes and yes, but the scientists that say there is no global warming always seem to be geologists working for oil companies or coal companies. We have even invented a new field of science for them - Enviromental Geology.
I have an enourmous online library available at my university and I have spent a great deal of time looking for credible articles that would dissuade you from believing that Global Warming is real or that it is caused by man. I have found none.
The problem we are having is that reputable sources want to be paid for allowing you to read their articles while oil, gas, and coal companies will pay to have garbage put every place they can get it. It took 50 years to get the cigarette companies to admit nicotine was addictive and that cigaretes are bad for your health.
Read Clark's Law and Asimov's corollary.
Whether either side is right or wrong, can we afford to gamble and do nothing or continue down the path we have been? Nearly every industry that has recognized it was causing some sort of pollution has been able to make money off the waste products. They just need the push to do the right thing which is odd when you think about it. The exception seems to be the coal industry. Now the Dept. of the Interior is going to let them dump slag into rivers! Let's hope that can be reversed quickly.
The average??? Quite a lot of people out there don't know nothing about global warming, you can tell by the way we still abuse this wonderful world of ours, change is a hard thing to do for a lot of people they just don't get it, its not us it will be our children and their children future we playing with, scientists? ummmmm .. makes me wonder what they really know and are doing about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! make your own mind about it, browse on the web, read books.....our weather can tell you that things are getting bad for one thing...
When there is a dispute, I think its best to use common sense. Its 27 degrees F here. Which is pretty cold for this time of year. My common sense tells me that I don't have to worry about the ice melting at the north pole. The truth is that global warming is all about control and raising taxes.
We just need to be smarter with how we do things. I don't buy into global warming so much; however, I do buy into the fact that we need to be more environmentally friendly and all.
We should all have our own take on issues because for all we know, everything around us could be lies.
Absolutely.
I think it's hilarious when I read a Q or A here stating unequivocally that global warming is/isn't fact and anyone who doesn't believe their point of view is stupid.
The truth is no one knows for sure, and if top scientists disagree on it, how does the average Y!A idiot know for sure?
Global what?
Common Sense. Al Gore invented the internet. In order to support his invention, the world had to make tons of computers that are replaced every 2 years. All these computer have caused the warming.
Thanks Al for creating and solving your own problem. You are Superman.
What do we do when we fix this hoax.Once we have fluorescent light bulbs and windmills that are sitting idle because of a calm day.We will no longer have coal fired plants because Obama put them out of business.I hope we have global warming otherwise it is going to get cold on days like this.
Global warming is BS. All the scientists saying that it is man made are all on government payrolls. Of course they say its real, if they didn't, they would be out of a job. Come on people, stop drinking the Al Gore kool-aid, the debate is never over.
It doesn't matter what they are told, most people only care about what affects them and global warming is still too theoretical for the average citizen. They've already forgotten about the possibility of $5/gallon gasoline.
global warming is a hoax.climate change yes.it is always changing.did we cause it no.in the 1970's they said we were heading into a ice age.then al ';i invented the internet'; gore came along,and the sheep fell into his spell.
I think people make up their own minds about it. I'm sure the average citizen who is concerned with global warming has read a thing or two about it.
As for voting....again, people believe what they want to.
Global warming bull to rip people for taxes and the liberal democrats can get richer. look at the hot year were having right now. with snow all over the world and those 200 whales stuck in ice in canada,. yeah its so hot
Global warming is a farcical political movement. There is no truth to it. MANY scientists reject it.
I still think I have more money than you...
I'm so rich, I pay people to pay my people's people. I could buy your company and I would still be richer than you and Willy Gates(Me and him are buddies) put together.
we know about holbal warming but what are the ways to protect us and how did it start.
we dont know all the answer we need to know. Nor does the goverment.
Truth is no ones knows jack about global warming.
Scientists have always been doomsayers.
NBC force feeds global warming like it's absolute fact.
Well guess what morons, use your brain and do some research.
There is enough for the average person to know whats going on
Oh God, we are doomed
I'm freezing
who cares
The thing is, there aren't scientists on both sides, not climate scientists. The problem is, if you get your news from Fox or Rush or emails, you may *think* that there are scientists on both sides, but that's total bullshit.
Are you saying that scientists don't know anything?
Ooh sure. People who have studied the topic more than YOU don't know anything.
Sorry, but, I'll take their word for it over yours ANY day.
READ some books. More than one.
Meteorologists can't even predict the weather for the next day accurately. In 1974 we were expected to brace for the coming ice age. Isn't it true that the average citizen doesn't know jack sh*t about global warming?
Another case of herd mentality, similar to the Messiah's minions, clueless. Al Gore id in the process of making millions off of both the american people and american industry, He's getting legislation that will require payment for some bull s--- carbon footprints. Even Big Al can not control natural occurring events like warming trends and now they predict an ever increasing cold era. Something about a 26K year axis adjustment of our North and South poles. Lets see Gore explain this. He refuses to discuss anything concerning earth's warming or cooling. He's just a shyster, who wants to make a cheap score. Sad.
Well im not a scientist but i can tell that global warming is very real and I know there are certain things that a senator, congressman, president...etc. I believe that the way to fix this problem or at least help it starts with the average citizen such as cut down on driving if you dont have to drive dont solar panels do work they are pricey but you make that money back in 3 years. So take what you want from this but the best thing to do is to start at home.
Yes and yes, but the scientists that say there is no global warming always seem to be geologists working for oil companies or coal companies. We have even invented a new field of science for them - Enviromental Geology.
I have an enourmous online library available at my university and I have spent a great deal of time looking for credible articles that would dissuade you from believing that Global Warming is real or that it is caused by man. I have found none.
The problem we are having is that reputable sources want to be paid for allowing you to read their articles while oil, gas, and coal companies will pay to have garbage put every place they can get it. It took 50 years to get the cigarette companies to admit nicotine was addictive and that cigaretes are bad for your health.
Read Clark's Law and Asimov's corollary.
Whether either side is right or wrong, can we afford to gamble and do nothing or continue down the path we have been? Nearly every industry that has recognized it was causing some sort of pollution has been able to make money off the waste products. They just need the push to do the right thing which is odd when you think about it. The exception seems to be the coal industry. Now the Dept. of the Interior is going to let them dump slag into rivers! Let's hope that can be reversed quickly.
The average??? Quite a lot of people out there don't know nothing about global warming, you can tell by the way we still abuse this wonderful world of ours, change is a hard thing to do for a lot of people they just don't get it, its not us it will be our children and their children future we playing with, scientists? ummmmm .. makes me wonder what they really know and are doing about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! make your own mind about it, browse on the web, read books.....our weather can tell you that things are getting bad for one thing...
When there is a dispute, I think its best to use common sense. Its 27 degrees F here. Which is pretty cold for this time of year. My common sense tells me that I don't have to worry about the ice melting at the north pole. The truth is that global warming is all about control and raising taxes.
We just need to be smarter with how we do things. I don't buy into global warming so much; however, I do buy into the fact that we need to be more environmentally friendly and all.
We should all have our own take on issues because for all we know, everything around us could be lies.
Absolutely.
I think it's hilarious when I read a Q or A here stating unequivocally that global warming is/isn't fact and anyone who doesn't believe their point of view is stupid.
The truth is no one knows for sure, and if top scientists disagree on it, how does the average Y!A idiot know for sure?
Global what?
Common Sense. Al Gore invented the internet. In order to support his invention, the world had to make tons of computers that are replaced every 2 years. All these computer have caused the warming.
Thanks Al for creating and solving your own problem. You are Superman.
What do we do when we fix this hoax.Once we have fluorescent light bulbs and windmills that are sitting idle because of a calm day.We will no longer have coal fired plants because Obama put them out of business.I hope we have global warming otherwise it is going to get cold on days like this.
Global warming is BS. All the scientists saying that it is man made are all on government payrolls. Of course they say its real, if they didn't, they would be out of a job. Come on people, stop drinking the Al Gore kool-aid, the debate is never over.
It doesn't matter what they are told, most people only care about what affects them and global warming is still too theoretical for the average citizen. They've already forgotten about the possibility of $5/gallon gasoline.
global warming is a hoax.climate change yes.it is always changing.did we cause it no.in the 1970's they said we were heading into a ice age.then al ';i invented the internet'; gore came along,and the sheep fell into his spell.
I think people make up their own minds about it. I'm sure the average citizen who is concerned with global warming has read a thing or two about it.
As for voting....again, people believe what they want to.
Global warming bull to rip people for taxes and the liberal democrats can get richer. look at the hot year were having right now. with snow all over the world and those 200 whales stuck in ice in canada,. yeah its so hot
Global warming is a farcical political movement. There is no truth to it. MANY scientists reject it.
I still think I have more money than you...
I'm so rich, I pay people to pay my people's people. I could buy your company and I would still be richer than you and Willy Gates(Me and him are buddies) put together.
we know about holbal warming but what are the ways to protect us and how did it start.
we dont know all the answer we need to know. Nor does the goverment.
Truth is no ones knows jack about global warming.
Scientists have always been doomsayers.
NBC force feeds global warming like it's absolute fact.
Well guess what morons, use your brain and do some research.
There is enough for the average person to know whats going on
Oh God, we are doomed
I'm freezing
who cares
The thing is, there aren't scientists on both sides, not climate scientists. The problem is, if you get your news from Fox or Rush or emails, you may *think* that there are scientists on both sides, but that's total bullshit.
Are you saying that scientists don't know anything?
Ooh sure. People who have studied the topic more than YOU don't know anything.
Sorry, but, I'll take their word for it over yours ANY day.
READ some books. More than one.
Is it true if you are a Chinese Citizen with a US green card.....?
and you go back to visit china you will have to get another visa which is like a return back to US visa. Even though you have a legal US green card? Also they have to take your prints and stuff?
I'll appreciate the answer :] thanks.Is it true if you are a Chinese Citizen with a US green card.....?
Hi, I'm Chinese, from Hong Kong. The law isn't changed. Chinese citizen only need to bring the China passport and US greencard when he/she comes back USA. Does ur mother's friend went to China over 1 yrs without re-entry permit? or something special.
My cousin just came back from Hong Kong last month, there was the same as before. hope it can help.Is it true if you are a Chinese Citizen with a US green card.....?
No.
If you have a green card, you can come and go whenever you want.
However, you cannot be out of the US for more than 1 year without taking permission in advance.tvs
I'll appreciate the answer :] thanks.Is it true if you are a Chinese Citizen with a US green card.....?
Hi, I'm Chinese, from Hong Kong. The law isn't changed. Chinese citizen only need to bring the China passport and US greencard when he/she comes back USA. Does ur mother's friend went to China over 1 yrs without re-entry permit? or something special.
My cousin just came back from Hong Kong last month, there was the same as before. hope it can help.Is it true if you are a Chinese Citizen with a US green card.....?
No.
If you have a green card, you can come and go whenever you want.
However, you cannot be out of the US for more than 1 year without taking permission in advance.
Is it true senior citizens give up easily?
Almost everytime when I present a problem, one or more Senior citizens would tell me they are glad they wont be alive when the problem arises. If this is the case should that particular wise, strong, and noble citizen donate his/her materials and life to someone that will live to see and fix itIs it true senior citizens give up easily?
Well perhaps some of us already have. I know a great many people who, often after a lifetime of research and teaching, have donated research materials,professional libraries (myself included) in an effort to assist others to continue to build on existing knowledge in certain areas. As well as this, a great many of us have also already donated our bodies / organs to assist people seeking transplants, and to assist young people undertaking medical studies by providing the cadavers they need when the time comes. A significant number of older folks have even donated kidneys to assist family members, and even strangers. Have you done that?Is it true senior citizens give up easily?
I don't know of who you are speaking about. I am not sure what problems but ti generalize:
I am trying now to do what I can to help the problems in the future. I take voting in politicians, bonds, propersitions very seriouly and do research and study before voting. I also try to take care of the planet, try not to waste water, fuel etc... I do enviroment walks and pick up trash. Most importantly I volunteer with animals and other to groups to try a make a difference and get my grandchildren involved so they may also help and learn to volunteer and help other people.
I don't know that I will live long enough to fix or see it fixed but I can teach others to take my place
Would that person that is going to solve the world's problems be you? Maybe the ';one or more senior citizens'; that you have presented these problems to are just blowing you off. Because what they said to you is a lot like what I say to someone who starts discussing some issue with an accusation that all the problems in the world have been caused by the previous generation.
No that statement is not true at all.
These particular Senior Citizens - aged over 60 are the
ones who picked up the pieces after WW2, saw the invention
of TV, jet engines, a man on the moon. I wouldn't consider
that giving up.
When you get to a certain age, things matter less, you have
less time left to enjoy and only sweat the big stuff. I don't call
this giving up just putting the time left to the best use.
Its up to the young ones now to ponder on problems, and I have
to admit I am glad I won't be alive to see some of the ones they
have to face. I have done my share!!
I've never heard that said, myself. Whether the topic is actual factual or of some lofty imagining everyone I encounter is up for a lively discussion if not downright debate.
Perhaps it depends on where you're from.
Maybe I just know a stubborn group of folks. They'll fight you-to the death!!!
I don't think that is giving up, but rather resignation that there is nothing they can do at their age to improve the situation in the future, maybe because they don't think they will even be alive to see it. IMO
I am 73 and living my life fully. I came to China two years ago to teach english to children and adults.
Science says that we live longer. I am not ready to be old or to grow up.
I don't give up easily , But I'm not sure that I would trust anyone else to do any better with with my materials and life and certainly not to someone who was so presumptuous and Judgemental
Donate their life? I don't think it works that way. I also don't know who would answer that way. I'm just as stubborn and determined as I ever was.
most of us seniors are too worn out to have serviceable parts or so full of medication that a transplant might kill the donee.
Give me an example. I've never heard anyone say that. I'm sick though so I'm goofy and maybe didn't notice.
I'm not sure what you mean. How can someone donate their life to someone to fix a problem?
Hey,We don't give up easy, that is the reason we are still here/
You mean you want me to put you in my will?
Well perhaps some of us already have. I know a great many people who, often after a lifetime of research and teaching, have donated research materials,professional libraries (myself included) in an effort to assist others to continue to build on existing knowledge in certain areas. As well as this, a great many of us have also already donated our bodies / organs to assist people seeking transplants, and to assist young people undertaking medical studies by providing the cadavers they need when the time comes. A significant number of older folks have even donated kidneys to assist family members, and even strangers. Have you done that?Is it true senior citizens give up easily?
I don't know of who you are speaking about. I am not sure what problems but ti generalize:
I am trying now to do what I can to help the problems in the future. I take voting in politicians, bonds, propersitions very seriouly and do research and study before voting. I also try to take care of the planet, try not to waste water, fuel etc... I do enviroment walks and pick up trash. Most importantly I volunteer with animals and other to groups to try a make a difference and get my grandchildren involved so they may also help and learn to volunteer and help other people.
I don't know that I will live long enough to fix or see it fixed but I can teach others to take my place
Would that person that is going to solve the world's problems be you? Maybe the ';one or more senior citizens'; that you have presented these problems to are just blowing you off. Because what they said to you is a lot like what I say to someone who starts discussing some issue with an accusation that all the problems in the world have been caused by the previous generation.
No that statement is not true at all.
These particular Senior Citizens - aged over 60 are the
ones who picked up the pieces after WW2, saw the invention
of TV, jet engines, a man on the moon. I wouldn't consider
that giving up.
When you get to a certain age, things matter less, you have
less time left to enjoy and only sweat the big stuff. I don't call
this giving up just putting the time left to the best use.
Its up to the young ones now to ponder on problems, and I have
to admit I am glad I won't be alive to see some of the ones they
have to face. I have done my share!!
I've never heard that said, myself. Whether the topic is actual factual or of some lofty imagining everyone I encounter is up for a lively discussion if not downright debate.
Perhaps it depends on where you're from.
Maybe I just know a stubborn group of folks. They'll fight you-to the death!!!
I don't think that is giving up, but rather resignation that there is nothing they can do at their age to improve the situation in the future, maybe because they don't think they will even be alive to see it. IMO
I am 73 and living my life fully. I came to China two years ago to teach english to children and adults.
Science says that we live longer. I am not ready to be old or to grow up.
I don't give up easily , But I'm not sure that I would trust anyone else to do any better with with my materials and life and certainly not to someone who was so presumptuous and Judgemental
Donate their life? I don't think it works that way. I also don't know who would answer that way. I'm just as stubborn and determined as I ever was.
most of us seniors are too worn out to have serviceable parts or so full of medication that a transplant might kill the donee.
Give me an example. I've never heard anyone say that. I'm sick though so I'm goofy and maybe didn't notice.
I'm not sure what you mean. How can someone donate their life to someone to fix a problem?
Hey,We don't give up easy, that is the reason we are still here/
You mean you want me to put you in my will?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)