Southern_Man

When my son was a toddler we would motivate him to do things by making everything into a race. Otherwise he would just be very, very slow at everything. This worked great until one day I was with him at the grocery store and was racing him to find some food item of other and he starts yelling at the top of his lungs, "Don't beat me daddy, don't beat me" "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Kinky is using a feather. Perverse is when you use the whole chicken. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You are doing something wrong. I got about a 40% response rate. About 1/2 of those eventually led to a date. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

This is not faith, there is a lot of evidence to support this assertion. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Do you have a cite for that? It's a little odd, since Maryland's early settlers included a large number of Catholics. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

This is a far better argument for getting rid of EMTALA then it is for Obama's healthcare system. You will still be paying for most of those people under the Obama system. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

RSL? Skyhook? Did you pull your own reserve handle or did one of these devices get to it before you did? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

This is what you get for blowing up an oil rig, killing workers, and endangering public health: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-official-decries-safety-bonuses-awarded-to-rig-company-executives-in-gulf-oil-spill/2011/04/04/AFprmzbC_story.html "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Lying is a much bigger turn-off. Look, dating is a matching game. If you don't want kids that means a woman who wants kids is not a good match for you. Sure, it will limit who you can date, as will any other criteria you choose. That's OK, you don't need to date every woman, you just need to date enough to find one who is right for you. Don't lie about anything. Don't compromise on what you want. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

They're like sex in a canoe. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I would guess fabric price is an extremely small part of the cost of a finished canopy and would be dwarfed by other expenses possibly including: Research and design Marketing (all those sponsored skydivers and adds) Labor facility and equipment costs Not sure what else would go on that list. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Try a Paulaner. It was the first Hefeweizen I ever had and still my favorite. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I don't have an exact quote but I believe Nixon moved to change some government programs to direct cash handouts because he felt it would cause political backlash for some of the Great Society programs. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

hopsecutioner by Terrapin beer company. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You should be sceptical of these claims. I know you indicated you are in canada but the labeling here in the U.S. can be extremely misleading. Free-range chickens, for instance, have very, very likely never been outside of the chicken house. To qualify for that label they have to have had "access" to a small plot of grass outside the chicken house for a limited portion of their life. The only way to really know the cconditions of a particular farm is to buy local and see the conditions for youself. Unfortunately that is not very practical for many people. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Speaker's Corner would shut down. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

How do you all think Vick will do this season? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Listening to Pandora last night and this Bluegrass version of You Shook Me All Night Long came on: Hayseed dixie also plays bluegrass covers of other AC/DC songs, Strawberry Fields, Ceterfold, Ace of Spades, Walk This Way, Fat Bottomed Girls, and many others. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I am just a newbie, so I am open to correction on any of this but my understand is that coaches are not allowed to sign off on or instruct on the canopy portions of student training jumps. The only logical reason to require canopy course for coaches would be so they could instruct students better but this is not an area they are allowed to instruct in. I think it makes more sense to tie any move towards greater canopy coaching to a license, not a coach rating. Unless they are going to change the whole structure and privledges of coaches regarding canopy flight. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You are painting with a broad brush here. I have some libertarian leanings and am against the state being involved in regulating relationships between adults (including marriage as a default civil contract). I believe couples should make their own contracts between themselves if they wish. I also believe the government should treat people equally as individuals. I do not support these things because I am somehow otherwise against gay marriage. I have stated that I would prefer state and federal government recognize gay marriage rather than continue the unequal treatment that exists now. I believe that time is surely coming quickly. I also realize that the state doing away with marriage is fairly unlikely. That doesn't mean I have to stop supporting it as the preferred outcome which is consistent with my personal beliefs and philosophy. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Looks like Watson v. Jones (1871) [80 U.S. 679, 680] was the original case on which the Deference Doctrine was established. Jones v. Wolf 443 U.S. 595 (1979). looks to be the best precdent for the Neutral principles of law approach. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Courts can and have taken two different approaches to religious disputes involving religious law and doctrine. One approach is called the Deference approach. This is the older sort of approach as I understand it, being first enunciated by the Supreme Court in the 19th centure. It appears to be what the judge is doing here. It basically means seeing and enforcing the religions own internal code as a sort of subset of contract law, as Billvon has indicated. The other approach is called Neutral Principles of law approach. That appears to be what the defendants are asking for in this trial. It would decide the ownership of church property (in this case) by applying common civil law questions about what the deeds read, what the articles of incorporation read, etc. without reference to the religions own internal code and as if the mosque was a small business (which of course in many ways it is, especially legally if it is incorporated). Both these approaches have been applied in a variety of cases and have been in the religious news a lot in regards to church property ownership disputes in some mainline denominations such as Episcopal and Presbyterian and the trust clauses that those denominations have in their own internal religious documents, but not necessarily in civi trust documents. Both approaches have been considered valid in different courts with parties to suits arguing for the application of one of the other depending on their interests and the particulars of the case. I'm sorry I can't pull up the exact precedents. I used to follow this sort of stuff much more closely. But my answer to your question is that yes, the judge can do this and they have been doing it for many years. The only thing that makes this comment worthy is that it involves Islamic law and Mosque not Christian Doctrine and Church. Caveat: I am not a lawyer and it is possible that Andy or lawrocket could have a much more informed opinion about such things. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

But, but, I can still tell people right? I mean, how else will they know I am cool? Tell her whatever you want, if you think it will help you get into her pants.... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Domestic partnerships and civil unions are not recognized at all by the national government. Thus, they are ineligible for federal tax benefits, Social Security survivior benefits, and other benefits of FEDERAL law. All of those benefits are tied to marriage, which in federal law has to be between a man and a woman. Different STATES have different levels of reconition of "domestic partnerships", "civil unions", and "same sex marriages". My state does not recognize any status of domestic partnership except one man-one woman marriage. Most of the states the do recognize such relationships (as I understand it) intend for all of the State-Level benefits of marriage to apply to same-sex couples. I could not speak to the legal documentation or how well states are realizing that intent, probably differs widely by state. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Well, we got the Brits on here giving crap to the Irish Americans. May I remind them that England's patron saint, Saint George, was a guy who was not a Briton and never set foot anywhere near Britain. Depending on the source you look at St. George may well have been an Arian heretic and the dragon he slew might be a representation of Athanasius, a champion of Orthodoxy who earned the sobriquet the Lion of Nicea. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"