I actually cannot believe that anyone would use a Michael Moore movie as a statement of fact. They are entertaining, and I've watched them, but they are loosely based on fact at best. Using one of his movies as a reference is like me using a Tom Clancy novel to prove a point. "But did you see how Jack Ryan handled that??"
I guess this has pretty much been mentioned, but not directly, that the title of this post is totally untrue and misleading as well. Nobody here has called for "no regulation." As Kuzi has mentioned many times before, regulation is needed, and only needed, to make sure a company does not violate the rights of the people.
i believe the rights of the individual should be protected at all costs. that protection of rights should come from a government system.
here is a great article that describes the concept of anarchy vs. Libertarianism. though the article does have its flaws, it does a good job of distinguishing between the two.
I actually cannot believe that anyone would use a Michael Moore movie as a statement of fact. They are entertaining, and I've watched them, but they are loosely based on fact at best. Using one of his movies as a reference is like me using a Tom Clancy novel to prove a point. "But did you see how Jack Ryan handled that??"
i was gunna let that slide. though i do not agree with Moore, i feel that he has some thoughts that are worth exploring. i like to watch his movies after the response to them is released as well. as in the best companion to Fahrenheit 9/11 is FahernHype 9/11. watching both movies gives both sides of the story. if allows someone to make up their own mind about what is in the movies.
i believe the rights of the individual should be protected at all costs. that protection of rights should come from a government system.
and people have the right to be stupid, make bad personal judgements, and others have the right to persuade these people to be stupid and capitalize from it, "Here buy this thing that you cannot or will not be able to afford and we will loan you the money that does not exist to do it" That being said, the stupids doing stupid business with stupids all have the right to live with the consequences. "too big to fail" aint no such thing, everything that does not work fails
I had a rather long answer prepared here. When re-reading it I became aware of some rather nasty comments I was about to make about another member here. Therefore I have retracted my post and will no longer get involved in these silly discussions (debates they are NOT).
Puro to you I just say that my intentions were NOT to Mislead or speak a total untruth. Your accusations are getting really old.
I had a rather long answer prepared here. When re-reading it I became aware of some rather nasty comments I was about to make about another member here. Therefore I have retracted my post and will no longer get involved in these silly discussions (debates they are NOT).
Puro to you I just say that my intentions were NOT to Mislead or speak a total untruth. Your accusations are getting really old.
Well read the title of your post. Nobody here has ever said there should be no regulation. I was just pointing out that the title was a bit extreme and misleading about the point of views of others. I wasn't accusing you of anything, just pointing out that maybe the title wasn't worded very well. If I made a post with the title "Liberalism destroying American business" or something like that I would be attacked and jumped all over.
I had a rather long answer prepared here. When re-reading it I became aware of some rather nasty comments I was about to make about another member here. Therefore I have retracted my post and will no longer get involved in these silly discussions (debates they are NOT).
Puro to you I just say that my intentions were NOT to Mislead or speak a total untruth. Your accusations are getting really old.
Well read the title of your post. Nobody here has ever said there should be no regulation. I was just pointing out that the title was a bit extreme and misleading about the point of views of others.
Again Puro, you should read what YOU say first. You said...
PuroFreak:
I guess this has pretty much been mentioned, but not directly, that the title of this post is totally untrue and misleading as well. Nobody here has called for "no regulation." As Kuzi has mentioned many times before, regulation is needed, and only needed, to make sure a company does not violate the rights of the people.
How has that now become you pointing out the title for a post as being "a bit extreme and misleading".
I'm tired of trying to talk with someone who accuses people of different things constantly, and then also tries to play the "hey that's not fair" card all the time as well. Grow up Puro.
I had a rather long answer prepared here. When re-reading it I became aware of some rather nasty comments I was about to make about another member here. Therefore I have retracted my post and will no longer get involved in these silly discussions (debates they are NOT).
Puro to you I just say that my intentions were NOT to Mislead or speak a total untruth. Your accusations are getting really old.
Well read the title of your post. Nobody here has ever said there should be no regulation. I was just pointing out that the title was a bit extreme and misleading about the point of views of others.
Again Puro, you should read what YOU say first. You said...
PuroFreak:
I guess this has pretty much been mentioned, but not directly, that the title of this post is totally untrue and misleading as well. Nobody here has called for "no regulation." As Kuzi has mentioned many times before, regulation is needed, and only needed, to make sure a company does not violate the rights of the people.
How has that now become you pointing out the title for a post as being "a bit extreme and misleading".
I'm tired of trying to talk with someone who accuses people of different things constantly, and then also tries to play the "hey that's not fair" card all the time as well. Grow up Puro.
Well if you can point out one time on this entire forum where someone has said there should be NO REGULATION at all, then I will retract my statement. As it stands, the title is untrue and misleading.
I had a rather long answer prepared here. When re-reading it I became aware of some rather nasty comments I was about to make about another member here. Therefore I have retracted my post and will no longer get involved in these silly discussions (debates they are NOT).
Puro to you I just say that my intentions were NOT to Mislead or speak a total untruth. Your accusations are getting really old.
Well read the title of your post. Nobody here has ever said there should be no regulation. I was just pointing out that the title was a bit extreme and misleading about the point of views of others.
Again Puro, you should read what YOU say first. You said...
PuroFreak:
I guess this has pretty much been mentioned, but not directly, that the title of this post is totally untrue and misleading as well. Nobody here has called for "no regulation." As Kuzi has mentioned many times before, regulation is needed, and only needed, to make sure a company does not violate the rights of the people.
How has that now become you pointing out the title for a post as being "a bit extreme and misleading".
I'm tired of trying to talk with someone who accuses people of different things constantly, and then also tries to play the "hey that's not fair" card all the time as well. Grow up Puro.
Well if you can point out one time on this entire forum where someone has said there should be NO REGULATION at all, then I will retract my statement. As it stands, the title is untrue and misleading.
Are you sure it isn't "a little extreme and misleading"? I will run any future titles to my post' by you first Puro. Maybe I could just get you to critique them before I post them so as to avoid making any extreme or untrue statements? How would that be?
I had a rather long answer prepared here. When re-reading it I became aware of some rather nasty comments I was about to make about another member here. Therefore I have retracted my post and will no longer get involved in these silly discussions (debates they are NOT).
Puro to you I just say that my intentions were NOT to Mislead or speak a total untruth. Your accusations are getting really old.
Well read the title of your post. Nobody here has ever said there should be no regulation. I was just pointing out that the title was a bit extreme and misleading about the point of views of others.
Again Puro, you should read what YOU say first. You said...
PuroFreak:
I guess this has pretty much been mentioned, but not directly, that the title of this post is totally untrue and misleading as well. Nobody here has called for "no regulation." As Kuzi has mentioned many times before, regulation is needed, and only needed, to make sure a company does not violate the rights of the people.
How has that now become you pointing out the title for a post as being "a bit extreme and misleading".
I'm tired of trying to talk with someone who accuses people of different things constantly, and then also tries to play the "hey that's not fair" card all the time as well. Grow up Puro.
Well if you can point out one time on this entire forum where someone has said there should be NO REGULATION at all, then I will retract my statement. As it stands, the title is untrue and misleading.
Are you sure it isn't "a little extreme and misleading"? I will run any future titles to my post' by you first Puro. Maybe I could just get you to critique them before I post them so as to avoid making any extreme or untrue statements? How would that be?
You have the right to title any post whatever you want, but part of being an open forum means that anyone can dispute your claims.
I had a rather long answer prepared here. When re-reading it I became aware of some rather nasty comments I was about to make about another member here. Therefore I have retracted my post and will no longer get involved in these silly discussions (debates they are NOT).
Puro to you I just say that my intentions were NOT to Mislead or speak a total untruth. Your accusations are getting really old.
Well read the title of your post. Nobody here has ever said there should be no regulation. I was just pointing out that the title was a bit extreme and misleading about the point of views of others.
Again Puro, you should read what YOU say first. You said...
PuroFreak:
I guess this has pretty much been mentioned, but not directly, that the title of this post is totally untrue and misleading as well. Nobody here has called for "no regulation." As Kuzi has mentioned many times before, regulation is needed, and only needed, to make sure a company does not violate the rights of the people.
How has that now become you pointing out the title for a post as being "a bit extreme and misleading".
I'm tired of trying to talk with someone who accuses people of different things constantly, and then also tries to play the "hey that's not fair" card all the time as well. Grow up Puro.
Well if you can point out one time on this entire forum where someone has said there should be NO REGULATION at all, then I will retract my statement. As it stands, the title is untrue and misleading.
Are you sure it isn't "a little extreme and misleading"? I will run any future titles to my post' by you first Puro. Maybe I could just get you to critique them before I post them so as to avoid making any extreme or untrue statements? How would that be?
You have the right to title any post whatever you want, but part of being an open forum means that anyone can dispute your claims.
Well that is how flame wars get started and forums get ruined. PETTINESS.
I'm done with this thread Puro. I've learned that with you this could go on forever. Free and open forums, also come with a degree of responsibility for ones behaviour, at least if they are worth not destroying, in order to forward your personal views. Particularly a CIGAR forum, Puro. Think about it. I have and that is why I will not discuss ANYTHING political with you in the future, on this forum.
Now I totally expect you to come back with some comments about me not being able to handle the discussion, or you still being right...whatever, I'm OK with that Puro. NOT PISSED, don't need to calm down, Just want to discuss CIGARS at this CIGAR forum, and will only do so in the future.
I just don't understand how me attempting to "forward your personal views" is any different than you doing the same thing on here... So freedom to post your personal views only applies if you agree with them? Seriously read your post man. You do the same thing and post about your personal views, but when we do it you go off the handle. Why is there any difference? And no I don't think you are pissed or need to calm down, but if you feel you shouldn't debate here then i respect that and wish you well.
I just don't understand how me attempting to "forward your personal views" is any different than you doing the same thing on here... So freedom to post your personal views only applies if you agree with them? Seriously read your post man. You do the same thing and post about your personal views, but when we do it you go off the handle. Why is there any difference? And no I don't think you are pissed or need to calm down, but if you feel you shouldn't debate here then i respect that and wish you well.
It is not forwarding your personal views that is the problem Puro. It is the length you are willing to go not to lose an arguement. It seems very important to you that you win.
I was NOT saying you don't have a right to forward your views. That should have been very apparent Puro.
Again you label me, and then comment on the label that you give me. What makes you think I go off the handle, anymore then you do? You use these labels as a way of controlling an arguement. People are constantly reacting to the labels you place on them , and that detracts from the actual issues. You do this too much for it to be accidental Puro. THAT, is why I believe it is very important to you that you seem to win.
Your closing comments go directly against what you said of me in earlier posts Puro regarding not being pissed and needing to calm down, but I will take your well wishes and leave you with exactly the same sentiment
kuzi is at it again...u shud run for office kuzi..
i respectfully decline.
You wouldn't last anyway. You seem to have morals and stand up for what you believe in. Not many people like that in Washington anymore.... For either party!
Comments
i am a libertarian.
i believe the rights of the individual should be protected at all costs. that protection of rights should come from a government system.
here is a great article that describes the concept of anarchy vs. Libertarianism. though the article does have its flaws, it does a good job of distinguishing between the two.
as in
the best companion to Fahrenheit 9/11 is FahernHype 9/11.
watching both movies gives both sides of the story. if allows someone to make up their own mind about what is in the movies.
It also boosts the economy
HA!
Puro to you I just say that my intentions were NOT to Mislead or speak a total untruth. Your accusations are getting really old.
How has that now become you pointing out the title for a post as being "a bit extreme and misleading".
I'm tired of trying to talk with someone who accuses people of different things constantly, and then also tries to play the "hey that's not fair" card all the time as well. Grow up Puro.
Well that is how flame wars get started and forums get ruined. PETTINESS.
I'm done with this thread Puro. I've learned that with you this could go on forever. Free and open forums, also come with a degree of responsibility for ones behaviour, at least if they are worth not destroying, in order to forward your personal views. Particularly a CIGAR forum, Puro. Think about it. I have and that is why I will not discuss ANYTHING political with you in the future, on this forum.
Now I totally expect you to come back with some comments about me not being able to handle the discussion, or you still being right...whatever, I'm OK with that Puro. NOT PISSED, don't need to calm down, Just want to discuss CIGARS at this CIGAR forum, and will only do so in the future.
It is not forwarding your personal views that is the problem Puro. It is the length you are willing to go not to lose an arguement. It seems very important to you that you win.
I was NOT saying you don't have a right to forward your views. That should have been very apparent Puro.
Again you label me, and then comment on the label that you give me. What makes you think I go off the handle, anymore then you do? You use these labels as a way of controlling an arguement. People are constantly reacting to the labels you place on them , and that detracts from the actual issues. You do this too much for it to be accidental Puro. THAT, is why I believe it is very important to you that you seem to win.
Your closing comments go directly against what you said of me in earlier posts Puro regarding not being pissed and needing to calm down, but I will take your well wishes and leave you with exactly the same sentiment