Home Non Cigar Related

How do you justify this?

13»

Comments

  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    clearlysuspect:
    laker1963:
    kuzi16:
    phobicsquirrel:
    kuzi16:
    laker1963:
    Some folks (here included) use the term Socialist as thou it is some kind of Badge of Shame that most will repel from. NOT ME. I wear it as a badge of Honor, as I ALWAYS put people first, so I am a Socialist. It has NO POLITICAL connections to me.
    i too put people first but i tend to look at the word "socialist" not as a "people first" thing, but more as a government taking away rights thing.

    does that make sense at all?
    vs corporate interest doing the very same thing? I find that a balance of govt and private interest is needed, though some places have extremes in either way.
    corporations cannot legally take away rights. if they take away rights, they have broken the law and should be punished. the roll of the government in this situation is to uphold the rights of the individual and dole out the punishment to the people in the corporation who are responsible for the violations of rights.
    i know what you are saying now that corporations are violating rights now and not getting punished. the government has failed when this occurs.
    .... but not to place proper regulations, rather to do the job they were intended to do. this is where we are now in the US. The government, save for a few good people, has lost sight of the fact that it was set up to allow freedom for individuals. how did it lose this goal?
    corruption.

    in a socialist society, history has shown that the government will take away the rights of at least some of the people. by the very nature of socialism, it will happen. you take away from the people that are productive and give to those who will not. this is a violation of your right to keep what you earn, provided you did not violate rights to earn it. (please keep in mind that i am not talking about the injured, the handicapped, or mentally ill. they are the ones who CANNOT, not the ones who actively WILL not. )
    This thread has been morphed (as usual) into something which does NOT reflect what it started out as. Somehow (as usual) it has got turned around into a Govt./Business/Social policy issue. It is partially because of the way threads on here get steered away from some thorny issue's and ALWAYS become an arguement about the present form of government in the US, that I decided to start to add these stories on a regular basis.
    Looks like I will have to continue to add them. so as to try and keep the issue's of these stories front and center while others drive them around the block.
    I thought this WAS a Govt./Business/Social policy issue conversation. Besides, you just posted an article and told us to talk amongst ourselves. Sorry you don't like the conversation. Maybe you should have set a direction for the conversation to begin with!
    You're hilarious. If I don't comment you ***. When I do you snipe. Whatever. Good thing I am not trying to please you...it would be a losing battle. LOL
    I was reffering to the straying of the topic which I think you know quite well, but you decide to use it as a chance to snipe at me. I told you before your personal comments and critisisms run off like water off a duck's back. This news article is what THIS discussion was supposed to be about. I was commenting on how it changed. PERIOD.
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Jacksonville, FloridaPosts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    clearlysuspect:
    laker1963:
    kuzi16:
    phobicsquirrel:
    kuzi16:
    laker1963:
    Some folks (here included) use the term Socialist as thou it is some kind of Badge of Shame that most will repel from. NOT ME. I wear it as a badge of Honor, as I ALWAYS put people first, so I am a Socialist. It has NO POLITICAL connections to me.
    i too put people first but i tend to look at the word "socialist" not as a "people first" thing, but more as a government taking away rights thing.

    does that make sense at all?
    vs corporate interest doing the very same thing? I find that a balance of govt and private interest is needed, though some places have extremes in either way.
    corporations cannot legally take away rights. if they take away rights, they have broken the law and should be punished. the roll of the government in this situation is to uphold the rights of the individual and dole out the punishment to the people in the corporation who are responsible for the violations of rights.
    i know what you are saying now that corporations are violating rights now and not getting punished. the government has failed when this occurs.
    .... but not to place proper regulations, rather to do the job they were intended to do. this is where we are now in the US. The government, save for a few good people, has lost sight of the fact that it was set up to allow freedom for individuals. how did it lose this goal?
    corruption.

    in a socialist society, history has shown that the government will take away the rights of at least some of the people. by the very nature of socialism, it will happen. you take away from the people that are productive and give to those who will not. this is a violation of your right to keep what you earn, provided you did not violate rights to earn it. (please keep in mind that i am not talking about the injured, the handicapped, or mentally ill. they are the ones who CANNOT, not the ones who actively WILL not. )
    This thread has been morphed (as usual) into something which does NOT reflect what it started out as. Somehow (as usual) it has got turned around into a Govt./Business/Social policy issue. It is partially because of the way threads on here get steered away from some thorny issue's and ALWAYS become an arguement about the present form of government in the US, that I decided to start to add these stories on a regular basis.
    Looks like I will have to continue to add them. so as to try and keep the issue's of these stories front and center while others drive them around the block.
    I thought this WAS a Govt./Business/Social policy issue conversation. Besides, you just posted an article and told us to talk amongst ourselves. Sorry you don't like the conversation. Maybe you should have set a direction for the conversation to begin with!
    You're hilarious. If I don't comment you ***. When I do you snipe. Whatever. Good thing I am not trying to please you...it would be a losing battle. LOL
    I was reffering to the straying of the topic which I think you know quite well, but you decide to use it as a chance to snipe at me. I told you before your personal comments and critisisms run off like water off a duck's back. This news article is what THIS discussion was supposed to be about. I was commenting on how it changed. PERIOD.
    I think you're hilarious too Laker. Guess that makes two of us. You post an article with nothing to guide how the conversation goes, you say that all you want is for us to comment, and when we do comment, you *** about our comments. If you don't agree with our views, you tell us we're wrong or we're straying from the point. I didn't think there was a right and wrong. I thought it was just supposed to be opinions. If we ask you to explain your comments, you say we're making the forum about you and call it deflection. When I made a valid comment about the article, these are the kinds of things you had to say:

    laker1963:
    I would point out however that it is kind of off base to ask if he would meet the building requirements which you may have come across........ then I don't think your points are even valid.....Your questions seem only to muddy the waters with "what if's" rather then deal with the facts of this particular case......


    Funny you use the words "facts" here as if you were there and no exactly what happened. Cause everything you find on the internet on in the media is "facts!" The only "fact" in all this is that you know as little about this man's situation as the rest of us, but our views are off point and only muddying the waters. Guess you were right, we can be as "WRONG" as we want to be.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    clearlysuspect:
    laker1963:
    kuzi16:
    phobicsquirrel:
    kuzi16:
    laker1963:
    Some folks (here included) use the term Socialist as thou it is some kind of Badge of Shame that most will repel from. NOT ME. I wear it as a badge of Honor, as I ALWAYS put people first, so I am a Socialist. It has NO POLITICAL connections to me.
    i too put people first but i tend to look at the word "socialist" not as a "people first" thing, but more as a government taking away rights thing.

    does that make sense at all?
    vs corporate interest doing the very same thing? I find that a balance of govt and private interest is needed, though some places have extremes in either way.
    corporations cannot legally take away rights. if they take away rights, they have broken the law and should be punished. the roll of the government in this situation is to uphold the rights of the individual and dole out the punishment to the people in the corporation who are responsible for the violations of rights.
    i know what you are saying now that corporations are violating rights now and not getting punished. the government has failed when this occurs.
    .... but not to place proper regulations, rather to do the job they were intended to do. this is where we are now in the US. The government, save for a few good people, has lost sight of the fact that it was set up to allow freedom for individuals. how did it lose this goal?
    corruption.

    in a socialist society, history has shown that the government will take away the rights of at least some of the people. by the very nature of socialism, it will happen. you take away from the people that are productive and give to those who will not. this is a violation of your right to keep what you earn, provided you did not violate rights to earn it. (please keep in mind that i am not talking about the injured, the handicapped, or mentally ill. they are the ones who CANNOT, not the ones who actively WILL not. )
    This thread has been morphed (as usual) into something which does NOT reflect what it started out as. Somehow (as usual) it has got turned around into a Govt./Business/Social policy issue. It is partially because of the way threads on here get steered away from some thorny issue's and ALWAYS become an arguement about the present form of government in the US, that I decided to start to add these stories on a regular basis.
    Looks like I will have to continue to add them. so as to try and keep the issue's of these stories front and center while others drive them around the block.
    I thought this WAS a Govt./Business/Social policy issue conversation. Besides, you just posted an article and told us to talk amongst ourselves. Sorry you don't like the conversation. Maybe you should have set a direction for the conversation to begin with!
    Now why would you want me to "guide" this discussion Suspect? It seems we are all having our say yet I am supposed to guide the discussion without stating my opinions which you asked for? Merry Christmas bro'. This isn't going anywhere and is certainly not discussing the issue I had hoped the article would generate.
  • laker1963:
    clearlysuspect:
    laker1963:
    kuzi16:
    phobicsquirrel:
    kuzi16:
    laker1963:
    Some folks (here included) use the term Socialist as thou it is some kind of Badge of Shame that most will repel from. NOT ME. I wear it as a badge of Honor, as I ALWAYS put people first, so I am a Socialist. It has NO POLITICAL connections to me.
    i too put people first but i tend to look at the word "socialist" not as a "people first" thing, but more as a government taking away rights thing.

    does that make sense at all?
    vs corporate interest doing the very same thing? I find that a balance of govt and private interest is needed, though some places have extremes in either way.
    corporations cannot legally take away rights. if they take away rights, they have broken the law and should be punished. the roll of the government in this situation is to uphold the rights of the individual and dole out the punishment to the people in the corporation who are responsible for the violations of rights.
    i know what you are saying now that corporations are violating rights now and not getting punished. the government has failed when this occurs.
    .... but not to place proper regulations, rather to do the job they were intended to do. this is where we are now in the US. The government, save for a few good people, has lost sight of the fact that it was set up to allow freedom for individuals. how did it lose this goal?
    corruption.

    in a socialist society, history has shown that the government will take away the rights of at least some of the people. by the very nature of socialism, it will happen. you take away from the people that are productive and give to those who will not. this is a violation of your right to keep what you earn, provided you did not violate rights to earn it. (please keep in mind that i am not talking about the injured, the handicapped, or mentally ill. they are the ones who CANNOT, not the ones who actively WILL not. )
    This thread has been morphed (as usual) into something which does NOT reflect what it started out as. Somehow (as usual) it has got turned around into a Govt./Business/Social policy issue. It is partially because of the way threads on here get steered away from some thorny issue's and ALWAYS become an arguement about the present form of government in the US, that I decided to start to add these stories on a regular basis.
    Looks like I will have to continue to add them. so as to try and keep the issue's of these stories front and center while others drive them around the block.
    I thought this WAS a Govt./Business/Social policy issue conversation. Besides, you just posted an article and told us to talk amongst ourselves. Sorry you don't like the conversation. Maybe you should have set a direction for the conversation to begin with!
    Now why would you want me to "guide" this discussion Suspect? It seems we are all having our say yet I am supposed to guide the discussion without stating my opinions which you asked for? Merry Christmas bro'. This isn't going anywhere and is certainly not discussing the issue I had hoped the article would generate.
    So what exactly is the thorny issue here? the plight of this arab and the seemingly harsh and un waranted treatment of him by a village council? aparthied in Isreal? US involvement in the Mid-East peace process? I think most dont see the the revealancy of the orignal post (and others) as other than fodder against Isreal.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    I think perhaps the lesson from the posts should be the fodder the world has against Isreal, and meanwhile the US turns a blind eye to their ways. It shows our viewpoint and the fact we back Isreal no matter what...instead of being open and honest about the fact they are no better than the Palestinians. Also, that we have been conditioned to believe their cause is somehow more noble and that its our duty to support them because they are an opressed country who is always fighting for their very survival. Many other countries have the same issues, but we choose to look at Isreal as the great martyr who only does good in the world and deserves our help and special treatment.
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Jacksonville, FloridaPosts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    I think perhaps the lesson from the posts should be the fodder the world has against Isreal, and meanwhile the US turns a blind eye to their ways. It shows our viewpoint and the fact we back Isreal no matter what...instead of being open and honest about the fact they are no better than the Palestinians. Also, that we have been conditioned to believe their cause is somehow more noble and that its our duty to support them because they are an opressed country who is always fighting for their very survival. Many other countries have the same issues, but we choose to look at Isreal as the great martyr who only does good in the world and deserves our help and special treatment.
    You know Vulchor, you're on the right path here. I think more people see it than you think. It's just in a time of political correctness and sensitivity toward everything, no one wants to talk about it for fear of being villainized. The big question behind your statement above is why? Why do we always side with Israel? There is an answer to this other than the obviousness of us being allies.

    A couple years ago I was sitting in my brothers apartment having a conversation with him about this exact same thing. He made a statement that I couldn't believe came out of his mouth. He said, "The United States is not in a war against terror. They're in a war against Islam." I didn't even want to except his arguement as valid, but then I began to think about it. Politically and socially, Islam poses a blockade against every agenda the United States has: western philosophy and technology, women's sufferage, democracy, seperation of church and state. I could go on, but I won't. Plus, the biggest part of all this is, and don't think our leaders making our military decisions don't understand this, we are the infidel.

    So the answer to this question of why is the United States has always sided with whoever is fighting the one's who want to kill the infidel. That simple. Is this a pleasant answer? No. Is it a politically correct answer? No. Is this what's actually going on? Since longer than any of us have been alive, yes.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    Good observation Suspect. I think its a little more than that with Isreal specifically, but it is a well made point...short, sweet, and honest.
  • These post are spefically pointed at Isreal, this example meant to prove the existance of apartheid? The Rabbis recommendation of not following orders, meant to prove religious zealousy? The Hannakuh stories, bashing on Judaism itself?
    The separation of church and state has turned in to separating Christ from Christmas and removing offensive "Christtian Cult Symbols" all over the place, so really what did that article have to say about Isreal, This stuff going is on here too. led more by Atheist than Jews.
    Jewish soldiers and commanders have the right to refuse lawful orders based on their theology, this is not new nor is it neccasarily evil. Imagine our pilots and artillery commanders refusing to execute their missions becuse they personally could not stomach the collateral damage or didnt think the target deserved bombing.
    The fact of the matter is that Isreal's neighbors dont want them there, and their theology commands wiping them off the face of earth. This is the point of view of the Hamas led Palestine Authority and Hezoballah both terrorist organizations and both backed and supported by Iran and we all know how their government feels towards the existance of Isreal. Isreal became a nation, the next day all of its neighbors declared war, Isreal won. Isreal has managed to make peace with a few of those, this shows Isreals ability to make peace and become new good nieghbors, but those remained decided to try it agian, Isreal won again, this time taking contol of these disputed territories. Arab muslims want to blow up Jews, Jews dont want to be blown up. Isreal defends and protect Jews from this by any and all means necessary. War aint pretty.
    I beleive Isreal is a proponent of peace and coexistance, they seem to be willing to use their bulldozers against its own citzens to make this happen. but really when all their opponents want is the death of all jews, what is there to negotiate?
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    I think this is a very rosy view of a country who has people who have blown people up as well and doesnt want people in the West Bank anymore than people want them anywhere. We helped to prop this country into existence for no other reason than to have an ally in the region and help our interests...even though our support of Isreal is named as part reason for things like 9/11. That is not to say I am for the destruction of Isreal, so please do not misquote me. I merely wish (as with the Saudis) we had the same standard or view of all our allies
  • I dont think Jewish people or the government of Isreal support, condone or advocate for genocide.
  • I do not believe the State of Isreal was created to give the U.S. a stronghold in the Middle East.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    mustluvcigars:
    I dont think Jewish people or the government of Isreal support, condone or advocate for genocide.
    Nor do I. And by saying they were only for a stronghold, I was probably being too harsh and foot in mouth there.
Sign In or Register to comment.