On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:51:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/26/2022 5:14 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>>>>> identity cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>>>
>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>>> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
>>> at the U.S. :-)
>>
>> I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you wa
>nt with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Government retirement? Government assisted medical care? Government
>>> education loans? Government assisted housing? Government unemployment?
>>> (:-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>
>'Capitalism' is a mythical bugaboo.
>The term was invented by Marx as a pejorative for a free
>market. Free markets, as you note, do not exist in most
>areas of human endeavor now (regardless of geography).

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:50:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/26/2022 8:33 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>>>>>> identity cards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
>>>>>>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
>>>>>>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
>>>>>>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
>>>>>>>> bank each month.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
>>>>>> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
>>>>>> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
>>>>>> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
>>>>>> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
>>>>>> paid!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
>>>>>> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
>>>>>> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
>>>>>> Paid vacation and so on.
>>>> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
>>>>
>>>> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
>>>> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
>>>> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
>>>> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
>>>> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
>>>> trade.
>>>>
>>>> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
>>>> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
>>>> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
>>>> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
>>>> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.
>>>
>>> To cover this again - I calculated how much I would earn on the money I deposited in social security and with a very low interest rate I will not break even until I am 92 years old. So exactly what is socialist or communist about a system that supposedly only returns to you forced savings?
>>
>> Tom, that is how a socialistic system works. First they grab your
>> money in taxes and next they give it back when you need it.
>>
>> In the case of the U.S. Social Security I believe the original theory
>> was that it would actually make money as in many, maybe most, cases
>> the participants would pay in more then they would draw out.
>>
>>
>
>The 'Social Security' scheme was actuarily impossible as
>first designed and became exponentially worse as various
>subsequent Congresses expanded payouts while leaving
>revenues unrealistically small. What could go wrong?
>
>https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/443465-social-security-just-ran-a-9-trillion-deficit-and-nobody-noticed
>
>Note that even a democrat party Congress was unwilling to go
>as far as Roosevelt wanted until Stalin's agent in the White
>House, Harry Hopkins, provided the crucial breakthrough,
>"Let's call it insurance! Nobody understands insurance!".
>And so it was.
>
>The anodyne version here:
>https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
>
>A more circumspect view:
>https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/05/05/96_trillion_in_unfunded_us_medicare_and_social_security_benefits_775259.html#!
>
>I wish you well personally, Mr Slocumb, but this system is
>set for an inevitable implosion.

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 5:40:07 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 3:24 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 9:34:15 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Remember when I assumed that Russell was queer because of his comment and he said he was married? Why do you suppose he knows absolutely nothing about marriage were that the case?
> >
> > Tommy, you are LYING or imagining things again. You can search this forum and everywhere on the internet, until the cows come home and jump over the moon, and you will never ever find me claiming I am/was married. Nope. As for the term "queer", I like girls. I am a man in case you did not know. Heterosexual. You're not educated, so that word means boys liking girls. Why Tommy would you use this term for me? Have you been watching the supreme court nominations and Fox News and seeing your idols use CRT, and Liberal, and Woke, and ???? So you think making up lies and derogatory words about people is the right thing to do? OK.
> We still don't know if Jackson likes beer. I can't believe that they
> would ask a white male that vital question, but not a black female. She
> might be drinking some commie beer from Berkeley, like Trumer pilsner
> <https://www.trumer-international.com/>.
>
> Love this cartoon on Jackson's hearing: <https://i.imgur.com/vZpmyIL.jpg>..

Did the Republicans ask the supreme court nominee that? I can understand not asking a white man that. You would just assume it up front. Kind of like asking a man if he likes girls/women. Usually you should just assume that. Of course today maybe you cannot assume that. So instead of asking a white man if he likes girls/women, you should ask if he likes blondes or brunettes or redheads or black haired. You should just ask a man which flavor or brand of beer he likes. Guinness for me. But I have had a few other dark beer brands I like too. Rivals to Guinness. And I like the wheat beers too. They are good.

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:29:47 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >> >> >> >> >> >making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >> >> >> >> >> Really?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >> >> >> >> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >> >> >> >> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >> >> >> >> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> John B.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >> >> >> >> officially
> >> >> >> >> >say the wife was married to the man.
> >> >> >> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> >> >> >> >> license ~ noun
> >> >> >> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >> >> >> >> "license"
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> >> >> >> or
> >> >> >> >not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> >> >> >> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> >> >> >> actually tie the knot.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> >> >> >> identity cards.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
> >> >> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
> >> >> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
> >> >> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
> >> >> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
> >> >
> >> >Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
> >> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
> >> at the U.S. :-)
> >
> >I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you want
> >with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
> I've lived in about every form of government ranging from totalitarian
> dictatorships to rather loose democratic systems and overwhelming the
> people, the commonality, feel that "This" government is better then
> the "Old" government. And, at least from an outsider's view, it is.
>
> Not to advocate any political system but read a little history. What
> was life in Russia like under the Tsars and what is it like now. Or
> China under the Empire or later Western dominated Rule and what is it
> like now.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 22:54:27 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 7:36:30 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> I read that
>> "The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman
>> and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia."
>> https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Are you sure about that? I am pretty sure the old testament scholars who have traced all the people backwards from Jesus being born on December 25, 0000 back to Noah and Moses and all the way back to Adam and Eve, the FIRST MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, came up with more than 2350 years. So your 2350 B.C. is obviously wrong. First marriage was before that year.

Well, the reference did say, "recorded" which I suggest means carved
on tablets of stone or otherwise physically recorded.

I'm not going to get into a religious discussion but much of the old
testament has the validity of stories told around a campfire.

As for Jesus while there is contemporary evidence that he existed
there is no evidence of the date on which he was born or the date of
his death.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:33:55 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >> >>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >> >>>>>>>> Really?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >> >>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >> >>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >> >>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >> >>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> John B.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >> >>>>>> officially
> >> >>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
> >> >>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> >> >>>>>> license ~ noun
> >> >>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >> >>>>>> "license"
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> >> >>>> or
> >> >>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married.. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> >> >>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> >> >>>> actually tie the knot.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> >> >>>> identity cards.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
> >> >> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
> >> >> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
> >> >> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
> >> >> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
> >> >
> >> > Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
> >> >>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
> >> >>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
> >> >>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
> >> >>>> bank each month.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
> >> >> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
> >> >> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
> >> >> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers..
> >> >> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
> >> >> paid!"
> >> >>
> >> >> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
> >> >> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
> >> >> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
> >> >> Paid vacation and so on.
> >> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
> >>
> >> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
> >> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
> >> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
> >> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
> >> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
> >> trade.
> >>
> >> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
> >> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
> >> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
> >> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
> >> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.
> >
> >To cover this again - I calculated how much I would earn on the money I deposited in social security and with a very low interest rate I will not break even until I am 92 years old. So exactly what is socialist or communist about a system that supposedly only returns to you forced savings?
> Tom, that is how a socialistic system works. First they grab your
> money in taxes and next they give it back when you need it.
>
> In the case of the U.S. Social Security I believe the original theory
> was that it would actually make money as in many, maybe most, cases
> the participants would pay in more then they would draw out.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 23:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:29:47 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>> >> >> >> >> >> >making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Really?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> >> >> >> >> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> >> >> >> >> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> >> >> >> >> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> John B.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>> >> >> >> >> officially
>> >> >> >> >> >say the wife was married to the man.
>> >> >> >> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>> >> >> >> >> license ~ noun
>> >> >> >> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>> >> >> >> >> "license"
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>> >> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> >not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>> >> >> >> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>> >> >> >> actually tie the knot.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>> >> >> >> identity cards.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>> >> >> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>> >> >> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>> >> >> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>> >> >> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>> >> >
>> >> >Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>> >> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
>> >> at the U.S. :-)
>> >
>> >I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you want
>> >with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
>> I've lived in about every form of government ranging from totalitarian
>> dictatorships to rather loose democratic systems and overwhelming the
>> people, the commonality, feel that "This" government is better then
>> the "Old" government. And, at least from an outsider's view, it is.
>>
>> Not to advocate any political system but read a little history. What
>> was life in Russia like under the Tsars and what is it like now. Or
>> China under the Empire or later Western dominated Rule and what is it
>> like now.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Was the Kingdom of Libya better off from 1951 to 1969 than it was under Gaddafi's tyranny for 40+ years afterwards? Was Uganda better off under old British rule or Idi Amin's rule from 1971 to 1979? There are many other examples similar to the ones I mentioned. So, is "This" government is better then the "Old" government really true?
>
>I am not claiming every government gets better or worse over time. Governments, countries, change over time. Maybe, thankfully, we are seeing a little better government control today than previously. If you take all of the world and combine them. On average we are better than w were awhile ago. But some are worse than they were just awhile ago. There are several former Soviet satellite states that are now run by total nut jobs. Much worse than under Soviet control. The Soviets kind of collectively ran the countries poorly. But did not go out of their way to ruin the satellite. The new leaders seem to be taking it personally to ruin the countries. Are they better than under Soviet control? I'd say no.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 23:28:23 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:15:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:50:14 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/26/2022 8:33 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>> >>>>>>>>>> officially
>> >>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>> >>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>> >>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>> >>>>>>>>>> "license"
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>> >>>>>>>> or
>> >>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>> >>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>> >>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>> >>>>>>>> identity cards.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>> >>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>> >>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>> >>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>> >>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
>> >>>>>>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
>> >>>>>>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
>> >>>>>>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
>> >>>>>>>> bank each month.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
>> >>>>>> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
>> >>>>>> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
>> >>>>>> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
>> >>>>>> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
>> >>>>>> paid!"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
>> >>>>>> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
>> >>>>>> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
>> >>>>>> Paid vacation and so on.
>> >>>> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
>> >>>> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
>> >>>> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
>> >>>> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
>> >>>> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
>> >>>> trade.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
>> >>>> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
>> >>>> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
>> >>>> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
>> >>>> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.
>> >>>
>> >>> To cover this again - I calculated how much I would earn on the money I deposited in social security and with a very low interest rate I will not break even until I am 92 years old. So exactly what is socialist or communist about a system that supposedly only returns to you forced savings?
>> >>
>> >> Tom, that is how a socialistic system works. First they grab your
>> >> money in taxes and next they give it back when you need it.
>> >>
>> >> In the case of the U.S. Social Security I believe the original theory
>> >> was that it would actually make money as in many, maybe most, cases
>> >> the participants would pay in more then they would draw out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >The 'Social Security' scheme was actuarily impossible as
>> >first designed and became exponentially worse as various
>> >subsequent Congresses expanded payouts while leaving
>> >revenues unrealistically small. What could go wrong?
>> >
>> >https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/443465-social-security-just-ran-a-9-trillion-deficit-and-nobody-noticed
>> >
>> >Note that even a democrat party Congress was unwilling to go
>> >as far as Roosevelt wanted until Stalin's agent in the White
>> >House, Harry Hopkins, provided the crucial breakthrough,
>> >"Let's call it insurance! Nobody understands insurance!".
>> >And so it was.
>> >
>> >The anodyne version here:
>> >https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
>> >
>> >A more circumspect view:
>> >https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/05/05/96_trillion_in_unfunded_us_medicare_and_social_security_benefits_775259.html#!
>> >
>> >I wish you well personally, Mr Slocumb, but this system is
>> >set for an inevitable implosion.
>> I don't have social security. Or I guess more accurately I never paid
>> any money, that I know about, into the system, so I assume that I
>> can't draw any money out.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>No. You paid in. You stated you grew up in northeast USA as a youth. SS was established by the time you were drawing wages. So you paid in. And your foreign work in the oil and mining areas, I am guessing they had to withhold SS since you were a US citizen. Still are today, right? Or legally if your employer did not withhold SS, you were legally required to pay it in. But your military retirement is not SS. So you get paid that money under a different system. But you are eligible to receive SS too. My mother retired from the Veterans Administration system. She did not get any SS from that employment because the VA has its own separate retirement system and does not contribute to SS. But she worked at other hospitals after leaving the VA and does get SS from those jobs. Substitute your military for my mom's VA.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 14:09:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 23:28:23 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
><ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:15:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:50:14 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 3/26/2022 8:33 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>>> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> >>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> >>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> >>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>> >>>>>>>>>> officially
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>> >>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>> >>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>> >>>>>>>>>> "license"
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>> >>>>>>>> or
>>> >>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>> >>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>> >>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>> >>>>>>>> identity cards.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>> >>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>> >>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>> >>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>> >>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
>>> >>>>>>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
>>> >>>>>>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
>>> >>>>>>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
>>> >>>>>>>> bank each month.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
>>> >>>>>> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
>>> >>>>>> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
>>> >>>>>> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
>>> >>>>>> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
>>> >>>>>> paid!"
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
>>> >>>>>> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
>>> >>>>>> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
>>> >>>>>> Paid vacation and so on.
>>> >>>> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
>>> >>>> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
>>> >>>> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
>>> >>>> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
>>> >>>> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
>>> >>>> trade.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
>>> >>>> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
>>> >>>> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
>>> >>>> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
>>> >>>> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> To cover this again - I calculated how much I would earn on the money I deposited in social security and with a very low interest rate I will not break even until I am 92 years old. So exactly what is socialist or communist about a system that supposedly only returns to you forced savings?
>>> >>
>>> >> Tom, that is how a socialistic system works. First they grab your
>>> >> money in taxes and next they give it back when you need it.
>>> >>
>>> >> In the case of the U.S. Social Security I believe the original theory
>>> >> was that it would actually make money as in many, maybe most, cases
>>> >> the participants would pay in more then they would draw out.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >The 'Social Security' scheme was actuarily impossible as
>>> >first designed and became exponentially worse as various
>>> >subsequent Congresses expanded payouts while leaving
>>> >revenues unrealistically small. What could go wrong?
>>> >
>>> >https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/443465-social-security-just-ran-a-9-trillion-deficit-and-nobody-noticed
>>> >
>>> >Note that even a democrat party Congress was unwilling to go
>>> >as far as Roosevelt wanted until Stalin's agent in the White
>>> >House, Harry Hopkins, provided the crucial breakthrough,
>>> >"Let's call it insurance! Nobody understands insurance!".
>>> >And so it was.
>>> >
>>> >The anodyne version here:
>>> >https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
>>> >
>>> >A more circumspect view:
>>> >https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/05/05/96_trillion_in_unfunded_us_medicare_and_social_security_benefits_775259.html#!
>>> >
>>> >I wish you well personally, Mr Slocumb, but this system is
>>> >set for an inevitable implosion.
>>> I don't have social security. Or I guess more accurately I never paid
>>> any money, that I know about, into the system, so I assume that I
>>> can't draw any money out.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>>No. You paid in. You stated you grew up in northeast USA as a youth. SS was established by the time you were drawing wages. So you paid in. And your foreign work in the oil and mining areas, I am guessing they had to withhold SS since you were a US citizen. Still are today, right? Or legally if your employer did not withhold SS, you were legally required to pay it in. But your military retirement is not SS. So you get paid that money under a different system. But you are eligible to receive SS too. My mother retired from the Veterans Administration system. She did not get any SS from that employment because the VA has its own separate retirement system and does not contribute to SS. But she worked at other hospitals after leaving the VA and does get SS from those jobs. Substitute your military for my mom's VA.
>
>To the best of my knowledge I didn't pay social security as I worked
>some part time jobs while in school and was paid in cash. Then I
>joined the Air Force and no SS there and again worked some part time
>jobs and was paid in cash. And when I retired I went overseas and
>worked for foreign companies who certainly didn't pay SS on my
>account.

On 3/26/2022 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:51:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/26/2022 5:14 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>>>>>> identity cards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>>>> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
>>>> at the U.S. :-)
>>>
>>> I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you
wa
>> nt with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Government retirement? Government assisted medical care? Government
>>>> education loans? Government assisted housing? Government unemployment?
>>>> (:-)
>>>>
>>
>> 'Capitalism' is a mythical bugaboo.
>> The term was invented by Marx as a pejorative for a free
>> market. Free markets, as you note, do not exist in most
>> areas of human endeavor now (regardless of geography).
>
>
> I think you missed a beat there with Marx originating the term, but he
> certainly used the term.
>
> But "capitalism", the exchange of goods and services for some tamable
> item or service, is practiced in the most primitive cultures. I
> suspect that it is probably the basis of civilization, in the sense of
> a group formed because it is a more efficient way of life.
>

On 3/27/2022 2:02 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 23:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:29:47 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>>>>>>> identity cards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>>>>> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
>>>>> at the U.S. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you want
>>>> with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
>>> I've lived in about every form of government ranging from totalitarian
>>> dictatorships to rather loose democratic systems and overwhelming the
>>> people, the commonality, feel that "This" government is better then
>>> the "Old" government. And, at least from an outsider's view, it is.
>>>
>>> Not to advocate any political system but read a little history. What
>>> was life in Russia like under the Tsars and what is it like now. Or
>>> China under the Empire or later Western dominated Rule and what is it
>>> like now.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> Was the Kingdom of Libya better off from 1951 to 1969 than it was under Gaddafi's tyranny for 40+ years afterwards? Was Uganda better off under old British rule or Idi Amin's rule from 1971 to 1979? There are many other examples similar to the ones I mentioned. So, is "This" government is better then the "Old" government really true?
>>
>> I am not claiming every government gets better or worse over time. Governments, countries, change over time. Maybe, thankfully, we are seeing a little better government control today than previously. If you take all of the world and combine them. On average we are better than w were awhile ago. But some are worse than they were just awhile ago. There are several former Soviet satellite states that are now run by total nut jobs. Much worse than under Soviet control. The Soviets kind of collectively ran the countries poorly. But did not go out of their way to ruin the satellite. The new leaders seem to be taking it personally to ruin the countries. Are they better than under Soviet control? I'd say no.
>
> I can only repeat what I wrote:
> I've lived in about every form of government ranging from
> totalitarian dictatorships to rather loose democratic systems and
> overwhelming the people, the commonality, feel that "This" government
> is better then the "Old" government. And, at least from an outsider's
> view, it is.
>
> As for Libya, I don't know, I didn't live there and unless you
> actually lived there and experienced it you don't know either.
>
> And yes. I'm sure that you saw the news and formed an opinion but that
> is an opinion formed based on what is usually lurid and deliberately
> inflammatory reporting. I've been in too many places where something
> was going on and read about it in the news and what was reported just
> wasn't true, or was vastly exaggerated.
>
> Example: I just read an article titled: "New sanctions imposed as
> generals who seized power in February 2021 coup continue assault on
> civilians"
> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/26/us-uk-canada-target-myanmar-airforce-arms-dealers
> But this is hardly NEWS. Ethnic groups in Burma, now known as Myanmar,
> have been slaughtering each other since before the British took
> control of the country in 1886.
>

On 3/26/2022 10:45 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

> Did the Republicans ask the supreme court nominee that? I can understand not asking a white man that. You would just assume it up front. Kind of like asking a man if he likes girls/women. Usually you should just assume that. Of course today maybe you cannot assume that. So instead of asking a white man if he likes girls/women, you should ask if he likes blondes or brunettes or redheads or black haired. You should just ask a man which flavor or brand of beer he likes. Guinness for me. But I have had a few other dark beer brands I like too. Rivals to Guinness. And I like the wheat beers too. They are good.

<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/brett-kavanaugh-likes-beer>.

On 3/26/2022 9:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 7:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 11:20:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2022 9:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2022 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to
>>>>>>>>> date back
>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the
>>>>>>>> 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world,
>>>>>>>> meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs
>>>>>>>> and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need
>>>>>>>> for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law
>>>>>>>> was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done.
>>>>>>>> Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies,
>>>>>>>> everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's
>>>>>>>> brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of
>>>>>>>> the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters
>>>>>>>> and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife
>>>>>>>> inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife
>>>>>>>> owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned
>>>>>>>> intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife
>>>>>>>> property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>> officia
>>>>>>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article.
>>>>>> He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with
>>>>>> what he would like to be the case.  Marriage is over 4500 years old
>>>>>> and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always
>>>>>> argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love
>>>>>> they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of
>>>>>> ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
>>>>> derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
>>>>> CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
>>>>> blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
>>>>> frequently do.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ??
>>>> It's Latin and ancient, from matrimonium
>>>
>>> Which, I'm sure, had even older roots. If we had the means, we might
>>> trace it back to Cro Magnon times. Or if you prefer, to the Tower of
>>> Babel.
>>
>> I read that
>> "The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman
>> and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia."
>> https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
>>
>
> Was she hot?

That would be a tricky question. The standard for "hotness" has varied
remarkably over time and across cultures, not to mention individual tastes!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:50:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 8:33 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> John B.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >>>>>>>>> officially
> >>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
> >>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> >>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
> >>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >>>>>>>>> "license"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married.. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> >>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> >>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> >>>>>>> identity cards.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
> >>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
> >>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
> >>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
> >>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
> >>>>>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
> >>>>>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
> >>>>>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
> >>>>>>> bank each month.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
> >>>>> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
> >>>>> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
> >>>>> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers..
> >>>>> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
> >>>>> paid!"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
> >>>>> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
> >>>>> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
> >>>>> Paid vacation and so on.
> >>> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
> >>>
> >>> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
> >>> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
> >>> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
> >>> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
> >>> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
> >>> trade.
> >>>
> >>> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
> >>> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
> >>> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
> >>> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
> >>> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.
> >>
> >> To cover this again - I calculated how much I would earn on the money I deposited in social security and with a very low interest rate I will not break even until I am 92 years old. So exactly what is socialist or communist about a system that supposedly only returns to you forced savings?
> >
> > Tom, that is how a socialistic system works. First they grab your
> > money in taxes and next they give it back when you need it.
> >
> > In the case of the U.S. Social Security I believe the original theory
> > was that it would actually make money as in many, maybe most, cases
> > the participants would pay in more then they would draw out.
> >
> >
> The 'Social Security' scheme was actuarily impossible as
> first designed and became exponentially worse as various
> subsequent Congresses expanded payouts while leaving
> revenues unrealistically small. What could go wrong?
>
> https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/443465-social-security-just-ran-a-9-trillion-deficit-and-nobody-noticed
>
> Note that even a democrat party Congress was unwilling to go
> as far as Roosevelt wanted until Stalin's agent in the White
> House, Harry Hopkins, provided the crucial breakthrough,
> "Let's call it insurance! Nobody understands insurance!".
> And so it was.
>
> The anodyne version here:
> https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
>
> A more circumspect view:
> https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/05/05/96_trillion_in_unfunded_us_medicare_and_social_security_benefits_775259.html#!
>
> I wish you well personally, Mr Slocumb, but this system is
> set for an inevitable implosion.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/26/2022 9:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> I've lived in about every form of government ranging from totalitarian
> dictatorships to rather loose democratic systems and overwhelming the
> people, the commonality, feel that "This" government is better then
> the "Old" government. And, at least from an outsider's view, it is.
>
> Not to advocate any political system but read a little history. What
> was life in Russia like under the Tsars and what is it like now. Or
> China under the Empire or later Western dominated Rule and what is it
> like now.

Let me interject that any changes between conditions today and
conditions hundreds of years ago are likely dominated by technology and
by other worldwide societal changes, not by the local government.

Jared Diamond, one of my favorite authors, has pointed out that by any
rational standard our current society is extremely WEIRD, and that we
easily forget how very WEIRD it is. He means it's Westernized, Educated,
Industrial, Rich and Democratic. (Even the poor countries of today are
rich by the standards of the prior 50,000 years.)

Again, those massive changes dominate.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:18:54 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:51:34 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/26/2022 5:14 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey..org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >>>>>>>>>> officially
> >>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
> >>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U..S.
> >>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
> >>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >>>>>>>>>> "license"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> >>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> >>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> >>>>>>>> identity cards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
> >>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
> >>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
> >>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
> >>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
> >>>> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
> >>>> at the U.S. :-)
> >>>
> >>> I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you
> wa
> >> nt with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Government retirement? Government assisted medical care? Government
> >>>> education loans? Government assisted housing? Government unemployment?
> >>>> (:-)
> >>>>
> >>
> >> 'Capitalism' is a mythical bugaboo.
> >> The term was invented by Marx as a pejorative for a free
> >> market. Free markets, as you note, do not exist in most
> >> areas of human endeavor now (regardless of geography).
> >
> >
> > I think you missed a beat there with Marx originating the term, but he
> > certainly used the term.
> >
> > But "capitalism", the exchange of goods and services for some tamable
> > item or service, is practiced in the most primitive cultures. I
> > suspect that it is probably the basis of civilization, in the sense of
> > a group formed because it is a more efficient way of life.
> >
> The pejorative aspect of the term (and his work generally)
> is to overly weight capital inputs while fully discounting
> the more human factors of innovation, intellectual property
> and risk. Those are the significant casualties of a
> socialist/communist system, with resulting production declines.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/27/2022 10:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:18:54 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/26/2022 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:51:34 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/26/2022 5:14 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>>>>>>>> identity cards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>>>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>>>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>>>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>>>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>>>>>> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
>>>>>> at the U.S. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you
>> wa
>>>> nt with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Government retirement? Government assisted medical care? Government
>>>>>> education loans? Government assisted housing? Government unemployment?
>>>>>> (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'Capitalism' is a mythical bugaboo.
>>>> The term was invented by Marx as a pejorative for a free
>>>> market. Free markets, as you note, do not exist in most
>>>> areas of human endeavor now (regardless of geography).
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you missed a beat there with Marx originating the term, but he
>>> certainly used the term.
>>>
>>> But "capitalism", the exchange of goods and services for some tamable
>>> item or service, is practiced in the most primitive cultures. I
>>> suspect that it is probably the basis of civilization, in the sense of
>>> a group formed because it is a more efficient way of life.
>>>
>> The pejorative aspect of the term (and his work generally)
>> is to overly weight capital inputs while fully discounting
>> the more human factors of innovation, intellectual property
>> and risk. Those are the significant casualties of a
>> socialist/communist system, with resulting production declines.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> There is a problem with a Congress that is over normal retirement age and still being re-elected. The stay because they are paid to stay and not by high salaries. Every one of these corrupt SOB's is paid off to work for the interests of a minority of the businesses in this country. They are heavily working against the Free Enterprise system and as long as they are getting rich, to hell with this country. And the FBI tasked with prevention of this are controlled by an upper echelon that are the same people
>

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 8:52:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/27/2022 10:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:18:54 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/26/2022 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:51:34 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/26/2022 5:14 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers.. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> officially
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "license"
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> >>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> >>>>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> >>>>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> >>>>>>>>>> identity cards.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
> >>>>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
> >>>>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
> >>>>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
> >>>>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
> >>>>>> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
> >>>>>> at the U.S. :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you
> >> wa
> >>>> nt with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Government retirement? Government assisted medical care? Government
> >>>>>> education loans? Government assisted housing? Government unemployment?
> >>>>>> (:-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Capitalism' is a mythical bugaboo.
> >>>> The term was invented by Marx as a pejorative for a free
> >>>> market. Free markets, as you note, do not exist in most
> >>>> areas of human endeavor now (regardless of geography).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think you missed a beat there with Marx originating the term, but he
> >>> certainly used the term.
> >>>
> >>> But "capitalism", the exchange of goods and services for some tamable
> >>> item or service, is practiced in the most primitive cultures. I
> >>> suspect that it is probably the basis of civilization, in the sense of
> >>> a group formed because it is a more efficient way of life.
> >>>
> >> The pejorative aspect of the term (and his work generally)
> >> is to overly weight capital inputs while fully discounting
> >> the more human factors of innovation, intellectual property
> >> and risk. Those are the significant casualties of a
> >> socialist/communist system, with resulting production declines.
> >> --
> >> Andrew Muzi
> >> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> >
> > There is a problem with a Congress that is over normal retirement age and still being re-elected. The stay because they are paid to stay and not by high salaries. Every one of these corrupt SOB's is paid off to work for the interests of a minority of the businesses in this country. They are heavily working against the Free Enterprise system and as long as they are getting rich, to hell with this country. And the FBI tasked with prevention of this are controlled by an upper echelon that are the same people
> >
> Ahh, that.
>
> Which brings to mind Mike Royko, who frequently asked 50
> years ago regarding Chicago Aldermanic elections, "Who would
> spend a quarter million dollars on an election for a job
> that pays $30,000 a year?"

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 11:34:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/26/2022 9:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> I've lived in about every form of government ranging from totalitarian
>> dictatorships to rather loose democratic systems and overwhelming the
>> people, the commonality, feel that "This" government is better then
>> the "Old" government. And, at least from an outsider's view, it is.
>>
>> Not to advocate any political system but read a little history. What
>> was life in Russia like under the Tsars and what is it like now. Or
>> China under the Empire or later Western dominated Rule and what is it
>> like now.
>
>Let me interject that any changes between conditions today and
>conditions hundreds of years ago are likely dominated by technology and
>by other worldwide societal changes, not by the local government.
>
>Jared Diamond, one of my favorite authors, has pointed out that by any
>rational standard our current society is extremely WEIRD, and that we
>easily forget how very WEIRD it is. He means it's Westernized, Educated,
>Industrial, Rich and Democratic. (Even the poor countries of today are
>rich by the standards of the prior 50,000 years.)
>
>Again, those massive changes dominate.

Not to argue with your basic premise but the Russian "revolution" and
civil war ended in 1923 and the Chinese "revolution" and civil war in
1949.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 10:52:17 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/27/2022 10:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:18:54 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2022 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 18:51:34 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/26/2022 5:14 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>>>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>>>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>>>>>>>>> identity cards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>>>>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>>>>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>>>>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>>>>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>>>>>>> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
>>>>>>> at the U.S. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you
>>> wa
>>>>> nt with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Government retirement? Government assisted medical care? Government
>>>>>>> education loans? Government assisted housing? Government unemployment?
>>>>>>> (:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Capitalism' is a mythical bugaboo.
>>>>> The term was invented by Marx as a pejorative for a free
>>>>> market. Free markets, as you note, do not exist in most
>>>>> areas of human endeavor now (regardless of geography).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you missed a beat there with Marx originating the term, but he
>>>> certainly used the term.
>>>>
>>>> But "capitalism", the exchange of goods and services for some tamable
>>>> item or service, is practiced in the most primitive cultures. I
>>>> suspect that it is probably the basis of civilization, in the sense of
>>>> a group formed because it is a more efficient way of life.
>>>>
>>> The pejorative aspect of the term (and his work generally)
>>> is to overly weight capital inputs while fully discounting
>>> the more human factors of innovation, intellectual property
>>> and risk. Those are the significant casualties of a
>>> socialist/communist system, with resulting production declines.
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>
>> There is a problem with a Congress that is over normal retirement age and still being re-elected. The stay because they are paid to stay and not by high salaries. Every one of these corrupt SOB's is paid off to work for the interests of a minority of the businesses in this country. They are heavily working against the Free Enterprise system and as long as they are getting rich, to hell with this country. And the FBI tasked with prevention of this are controlled by an upper echelon that are the same people
>>
>
>
>Ahh, that.
>
>Which brings to mind Mike Royko, who frequently asked 50
>years ago regarding Chicago Aldermanic elections, "Who would
>spend a quarter million dollars on an election for a job
>that pays $30,000 a year?"

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 11:24:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/26/2022 9:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/26/2022 7:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 11:20:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/25/2022 9:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/2022 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to
>>>>>>>>>> date back
>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the
>>>>>>>>> 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world,
>>>>>>>>> meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs
>>>>>>>>> and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need
>>>>>>>>> for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law
>>>>>>>>> was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done.
>>>>>>>>> Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies,
>>>>>>>>> everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's
>>>>>>>>> brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of
>>>>>>>>> the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters
>>>>>>>>> and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife
>>>>>>>>> inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife
>>>>>>>>> owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned
>>>>>>>>> intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife
>>>>>>>>> property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>>> officia
>>>>>>>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article.
>>>>>>> He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with
>>>>>>> what he would like to be the case.  Marriage is over 4500 years old
>>>>>>> and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always
>>>>>>> argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love
>>>>>>> they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of
>>>>>>> ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
>>>>>> derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
>>>>>> CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
>>>>>> blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
>>>>>> frequently do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ??
>>>>> It's Latin and ancient, from matrimonium
>>>>
>>>> Which, I'm sure, had even older roots. If we had the means, we might
>>>> trace it back to Cro Magnon times. Or if you prefer, to the Tower of
>>>> Babel.
>>>
>>> I read that
>>> "The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman
>>> and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia."
>>> https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
>>>
>>
>> Was she hot?
>
>That would be a tricky question. The standard for "hotness" has varied
>remarkably over time and across cultures, not to mention individual tastes!

Well... after giving the matter some thought I believe that any woman
is "hotter" then no woman so logically all women must be considered as
"hot" (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 17:14:48 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 2:24:08 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >
>> >To the best of my knowledge I didn't pay social security as I worked
>> >some part time jobs while in school and was paid in cash. Then I
>> >joined the Air Force and no SS there and again worked some part time
>> >jobs and was paid in cash. And when I retired I went overseas and
>> >worked for foreign companies who certainly didn't pay SS on my
>> >account.
>> I was wrong. I checked my A.F. Identification Card and it has a Social
>> Security number on it. So apparently I did pay SS for the last few
>> years I was in the A.F.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Having a government ID with a social security number on it an paying money into social security are not the same thing. Based on the retirement system my Mom as a federal employee was under, I would guess military service retirement is not part of social security. With the Veterans Administration, in the last few years they have gone to a social security retirement system. Not a separate plan. Maybe the military has also gone to that now too so it is involved with social security instead of being completely separate. But you retired from the military long ago so I doubt it was part of social security.
>
I really don't know. I probably did but it's been so long that if I
did know I've forgotten.When I left the States I still had some
dependents living there so I simply left my military retirement pay
that was being sent to my bank account as it was and any monies I
received from my Military retirement or SS was paid into that account.

>You are issued a social security number when born. Or thereabouts. Its an identification number. Its related of course to the social security payment retirement system in the USA. But having the number does not matter for paying into or receiving money. Everyone gets a social security number.

Nope. I never had a SS number until the Air Force gave me one, in
,about, the end of the 1960's some time.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 17:01:20 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 2:02:49 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 23:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:29:47 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> >> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Really?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> John B.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>> >> >> >> >> >> officially
>> >> >> >> >> >> >say the wife was married to the man.
>> >> >> >> >> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>> >> >> >> >> >> license ~ noun
>> >> >> >> >> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>> >> >> >> >> >> "license"
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>> >> >> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> >> >not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>> >> >> >> >> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>> >> >> >> >> actually tie the knot.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>> >> >> >> >> identity cards.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>> >> >> >> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>> >> >> >> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>> >> >> >> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>> >> >> >> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>> >> >> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
>> >> >> at the U.S. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you want
>> >> >with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
>> >> I've lived in about every form of government ranging from totalitarian
>> >> dictatorships to rather loose democratic systems and overwhelming the
>> >> people, the commonality, feel that "This" government is better then
>> >> the "Old" government. And, at least from an outsider's view, it is.
>> >>
>> >> Not to advocate any political system but read a little history. What
>> >> was life in Russia like under the Tsars and what is it like now. Or
>> >> China under the Empire or later Western dominated Rule and what is it
>> >> like now.
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> >Was the Kingdom of Libya better off from 1951 to 1969 than it was under Gaddafi's tyranny for 40+ years afterwards? Was Uganda better off under old British rule or Idi Amin's rule from 1971 to 1979? There are many other examples similar to the ones I mentioned. So, is "This" government is better then the "Old" government really true?
>> >
>> >I am not claiming every government gets better or worse over time. Governments, countries, change over time. Maybe, thankfully, we are seeing a little better government control today than previously. If you take all of the world and combine them. On average we are better than w were awhile ago. But some are worse than they were just awhile ago. There are several former Soviet satellite states that are now run by total nut jobs. Much worse than under Soviet control. The Soviets kind of collectively ran the countries poorly. But did not go out of their way to ruin the satellite. The new leaders seem to be taking it personally to ruin the countries. Are they better than under Soviet control? I'd say no.
>> I can only repeat what I wrote:
>> I've lived in about every form of government ranging from
>> totalitarian dictatorships to rather loose democratic systems and
>> overwhelming the people, the commonality, feel that "This" government
>> is better then the "Old" government. And, at least from an outsider's
>> view, it is.
>> As for Libya, I don't know, I didn't live there and unless you
>> actually lived there and experienced it you don't know either.
>
>John, this is the same kind of logic Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia when she appears at Nazi fund raising parties. You were not there at Auschwitz. Therefore, you have no idea if it was bad or actually fun and enjoyable and pleasant for the guests there. The Nazis were kind to the Jews. Everything written about the Nazi concentration camps is a LIE!!!!!!!!! Nazis loved the Jews. And Muammar Gaddafi was a wonderful and gentle soul. Do Not try to tell be differently, you were not there so you are wrong. Neither you John or I was at Auschwitz, so we cannot know anything about that place. Right?
>

Am 26.03.2022 um 04:35 schrieb John B.:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:55:15 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>> Yes, inheritance is a critical property right for these
>> purposes. Do not discount the public nature of a marriage
>> contract which bears not only on property transfer at death
>> but equally important to establish progeny (for estate
>> disposition and other important areas).
>
> Actually I'm not sure about the "establish progeny" as I'm fairly sure
> that the U.S. birth certificate has the name of both the mother and
> father listed which I think might well be the determining factor.
> Rather then who was married to whom.

Well, my niece according to her Birth Certificate due to German law was
not my niece.
According to German law, the mother's husband is the established father
of the child at birth;
Only once the "original birth certificate" is issued, a man other than
the mother's husband can claim to be the real father and an "adjusted
birth certificate" is issued in a separate legal act.

Am 25.03.2022 um 22:46 schrieb russellseaton1@yahoo.com:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay
>> for the license but you have to wait for some period before you
>> can actually tie the knot.
>
> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage
> licenses. Days or weeks.

In Germany, it's called a "marriage proposal" and it has to be not only
issued but on public display for a few days.
The traditional purpose of this waiting period was to minimize the
chance nnulling the marriage due to bigamy or incest (when the father
was unknown):
'If anybody has legal objections to this marriage, they should speak now
or stay silent for ever'.