On 5/7/2017 4:29 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>> The literal answer is because you are Americans. But I know what you
>> mean.
>> Actually my personal opinion is that you would have been better off with
>> the Danes. I worked on a Danish Oil Exploration rig for about six
>> months. I really liked the people I met there. Importantly their sense
>> of humour is similar to ours. But on the other hand. Could you trust
>> them to keep you? The gave away the Shetland Islands to the King of
>> Scotland (No, not Idi Amin) Because the then King of Denmark was too
>> poor to buy his sister a weeding present.
>
> Good point.  I am a diehard republican (with a small 'r');

I am too, although our present Queen does a good job. But for the rest, 
the French had the right idea. ;)

> I do not
> understand how one person deserves sovereignty over an entire nation
> just because they emerged from some special vagina.

You have got it all wrong. It is the farther that is important. The 
women are only there if there are no men.
And it was a long time ago about 500 years. And it was the Norwegian 
Kink not the Danish one.

> A constitutional
> monarchy such as Denmark would be tolerable, though; possibly more
> tolerable than a de jure republic whose sovereignty has been usurped by
> a small class of people just because they have more money.
>

Or like the Netherlands. Those Royals keep a low profile. Ours play for 
Brand Britain.
"You want to buy anti personal weapons, Mr Saudi?
"Well as long as you don't use them on persons. The price will be right."


> I assume you mean "wedding" present.  When people complain about us
> redefining marriage or protest that the government should get out of the
> marriage business and leave it to the churches, I remind them that
> marriage started out as a contract for exchange of merchandise, namely
> the bride.  Payment could be in the form of such things as, say, the
> Shetland Islands.

You will be a big hit at parties, I would imagine. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2017-05-07 02:31 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/7/2017 4:29 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> I assume you mean "wedding" present.  When people complain about us
>> redefining marriage or protest that the government should get out of the
>> marriage business and leave it to the churches, I remind them that
>> marriage started out as a contract for exchange of merchandise, namely
>> the bride.  Payment could be in the form of such things as, say, the
>> Shetland Islands.
>
> You will be a big hit at parties, I would imagine. :)

If they don't let gay people in, what kind of party would it be?

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2017 7:03 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-05-07 02:31 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/7/2017 4:29 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> I assume you mean "wedding" present.  When people complain about us
>>> redefining marriage or protest that the government should get out of the
>>> marriage business and leave it to the churches, I remind them that
>>> marriage started out as a contract for exchange of merchandise, namely
>>> the bride.  Payment could be in the form of such things as, say, the
>>> Shetland Islands.
>>
>> You will be a big hit at parties, I would imagine. :)
>
> If they don't let gay people in, what kind of party would it be?
>

Duller, I suppose.
I've never thought of it. I don't think the situation has ever arisen.
Altho' when I've gone back to Scotland. It gives me a strange feeling 
seeing hardly any black people. But that is my age group and demographics.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 2017-05-07 14:31, also sprach Stephen:

>> I do not
>> understand how one person deserves sovereignty over an entire nation
>> just because they emerged from some special vagina.
>
> You have got it all wrong. It is the farther that is important. The
> women are only there if there are no men.
> And it was a long time ago about 500 years. And it was the Norwegian
> Kink not the Danish one.
>

It's still a special vagina; it belongs to the king.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2017 9:16 AM, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2017-05-07 14:31, also sprach Stephen:
>
>>> I do not
>>> understand how one person deserves sovereignty over an entire nation
>>> just because they emerged from some special vagina.
>>
>> You have got it all wrong. It is the farther that is important. The
>> women are only there if there are no men.
>> And it was a long time ago about 500 years. And it was the Norwegian
>> Kink not the Danish one.
>>
>
> It's still a special vagina; it belongs to the king.
>
>
Yes and a few people have lost their heads on that point. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> For a non academic or interest group, I know a bit about the slave
> trade. I've worked at the three points of the slave triangle.
> So I've laid myself open to it. :)

Did you ever meet Redbud, of Redbud?

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
When people complain about us
> redefining marriage or protest that the government should get out of the
> marriage business and leave it to the churches, I remind them that
> marriage started out as a contract for exchange of merchandise, namely
> the bride.  Payment could be in the form of such things as, say, the
> Shetland Islands.

Bothe churches and the government ought to get out of the marriage business, and
leave it to the people who want to be married to each other.

Marriage licenses came about to prevent miscegenation.

There's a reason Patrick Henry gave his famous speech - and it was due to ---
licenses.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2017 12:49 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> For a non academic or interest group, I know a bit about the slave
>> trade. I've worked at the three points of the slave triangle.
>> So I've laid myself open to it. :)
>
> Did you ever meet Redbud, of Redbud?
>
>
>
Nope! I can't find any reference to it other than the tree.

Ah! VPN'ing in from the States gives me a different set of results. I 
can see that Redbud is mentioned in quite a few slave's tales. I did not 
see them when I am located in the UK.

I give in. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2017 1:03 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> When people complain about us
>> redefining marriage or protest that the government should get out of the
>> marriage business and leave it to the churches, I remind them that
>> marriage started out as a contract for exchange of merchandise, namely
>> the bride.  Payment could be in the form of such things as, say, the
>> Shetland Islands.
>
> Bothe churches and the government ought to get out of the marriage business, and
> leave it to the people who want to be married to each other.
>
Yes, I agree.

> Marriage licenses came about to prevent miscegenation.
>

In America, maybe. The English have had them since the 14th Cent.




-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"It means being so devoted to freedom that you are willing to give up your own
.... be a beggar ... or a slave ... or die - that freedom may live."


Worth reading the entire book just for that sentence.

_Citizen of the Galaxy_

Post a reply to this message