Ok cool. I never took offense to anything you said and you never pissed me off. I am all for a good debate and I am a strong believer of what I think is right and wrong. I just have so much going on I can't keep up with this. lol
Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.
Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.
/Pouring some of my Colt .45 40 oz on the ground in memory of Duty and Urbi...taken out by Puro's Rants.
Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.
/Pouring some of my Colt .45 40 oz on the ground in memory of Duty and Urbi...taken out by Puro's Rants.
Is that what happened to Duty? Urbi too? I do tend not to comment too much on this thread just because it is so politically charged most of the time.
I have learned over a lot of time and many discussions that you can't judge people by their political views.
it is hard not to try and press your own beliefs on others when holding a good debate. Keeping it on a non personal level can be quite difficult.
Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.
/Pouring some of my Colt .45 40 oz on the ground in memory of Duty and Urbi...taken out by Puro's Rants.
Is that what happened to Duty? Urbi too? I do tend not to comment too much on this thread just because it is so politically charged most of the time.
I have learned over a lot of time and many discussions that you can't judge people by their political views.
it is hard not to try and press your own beliefs on others when holding a good debate. Keeping it on a non personal level can be quite difficult.
To Duty and Urbi... I miss those guy's. "sniff"
Not sure...I was kinda kidding. Duty did get pissed off about a thread and said he was going away for a while, never came back. Urbi kinda just faded away...told me at one point he was just extremely busy.
I agree with you, sometimes I enjoy reading the thread, but it's best for me not to comment other than to be a smartass. We all tend to suffer from know-it-all-itis when it comes to stuff like this. While some people can keep their emotions in check, I can't. I get pissed off and I don't want that, and I don't want to piss others offer. I like this forum and don't want to make a bad name for myself (or make it worse than it already is)!
Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.
/Pouring some of my Colt .45 40 oz on the ground in memory of Duty and Urbi...taken out by Puro's Rants.
Is that what happened to Duty? Urbi too? I do tend not to comment too much on this thread just because it is so politically charged most of the time.
I have learned over a lot of time and many discussions that you can't judge people by their political views.
it is hard not to try and press your own beliefs on others when holding a good debate. Keeping it on a non personal level can be quite difficult.
To Duty and Urbi... I miss those guy's. "sniff"
Not sure...I was kinda kidding. Duty did get pissed off about a thread and said he was going away for a while, never came back. Urbi kinda just faded away...told me at one point he was just extremely busy.
I agree with you, sometimes I enjoy reading the thread, but it's best for me not to comment other than to be a smartass. We all tend to suffer from know-it-all-itis when it comes to stuff like this. While some people can keep their emotions in check, I can't. I get pissed off and I don't want that, and I don't want to piss others offer. I like this forum and don't want to make a bad name for myself (or make it worse than it already is)!
But you are a Steelers fan... How much worse could your name get around here?? haha Kidding Luko, but I enjoy this thread and I hope I don't ever piss anyone off. I try to keep things from getting personal and I know Kuzi does as well. I think a good healthy debate is good for everyone. Even if it doesn't change anyone's mind, which it normally doesn't, it does help people see the point of views of others.
I am not saying this thread is THE reason Duty left, but I'm pretty certain it has something to do with it. He got very mad over the healthcare debate and the fact that he couldn't make kuzi and me agree with him and he became very angry. I feel very strongly about my beliefs, but I honestly don't care if anyone else thinks the same way I do. I don't think any less of people who disagree with me, and I don't become angry with them for having their own thoughts on any and all issues. I like pretty much everyone on this board and feel very lucky to have found this place. I hope to some day get to light up a smoke with some of you guys!
As for the great Urbi, I'm not sure why he left, but I think I heard he is living very happily in a hut on the beach down in Mexico with Rosita the Burro...
in short, a lady is suing her neighbor for smoking. they live in town homes with a 2 hour fire wall between each one.
some people will say that the lady has a right to sue. some will say that the smoker has a right to smoke.
I say the complex as a privately owned company has a right to decide if smoking as aloud on their property. since it is aloud and the lady moved into the problem by living in those town homes, its her own damn fault.
in short, a lady is suing her neighbor for smoking. they live in town homes with a 2 hour fire wall between each one.
some people will say that the lady has a right to sue. some will say that the smoker has a right to smoke.
I say the complex as a privately owned company has a right to decide if smoking as aloud on their property. since it is aloud and the lady moved into the problem by living in those town homes, its her own damn fault.
like apples? how bout them apples?
I would LOVE to see the proof that cigarette smoke caused the damage. I wouldn't doubt that she somehow wins this case, no matter how outrageous or ridiculous the claims may be.
I have a feeling that because she re-signed her lease 6 months after she started complaining about the smoker next door that she screwed her claim. She had the opportunity to move then but decided not to. I think this says it right here...
Managers replaced air filters repeatedly, installed sealant-type electrical plates and – at the Daniels' request – used an industrial-grade roofing sealant to caulk pipes under their kitchen cabinet.
When that didn't work, managers tried to negotiate a move for both tenants within the community.
Restraining order
Williams, the smoker, finally moved to another unit in June after a judge issued a temporary restraining order forbidding her from lighting up in her home.
"We've done more for these people than we've ever done for anyone else," Lott said. "I don't think it's possible to satisfy them."
This woman figures it's alright to move into a smoking building and then have everyone around her not smoke so as not to interfere with HER rights. Sounds like she's the type that used to hold her breath until she got what she wanted.
On the other hand, doesn't look like common sense will prevail. I mean the judge had ordered the other woman to move from her place into another after being forbidden by the courts to smoke in her own unit.
While this is a great example of an individuals rights VS collective rights, and we can all agree that she seems to be in the wrong here... the courts have already forced the move of "the smoker" and I would not be surprised if they don't give in to her demands. This may be a stretch but I also feel that this case demonstrates what happens in a system, with out proper (any) regulations, where you are free to sue someone over the most rediculous things... and win. In effect her rights as a non smoking person with a medical condition over rides the rights of smokers to live in their own home and smoke in a building where smoking is permitted. In this case it seems that at least up until now this individuals right are more protected then the rights of everyone else who lives in that complex.
While this is a great example of an individuals rights VS collective rights, and we can all agree that she seems to be in the wrong here... the courts have already forced the move of "the smoker" and I would not be surprised if they don't give in to her demands. This may be a stretch but I also feel that this case demonstrates what happens in a system, with out proper (any) regulations, where you are free to sue someone over the most rediculous things... and win. In effect her rights as a non smoking person with a medical condition over rides the rights of smokers to live in their own home and smoke in a building where smoking is permitted. In this case it seems that at least up until now this individuals right are more protected then the rights of everyone else who lives in that complex.
I still think its actually about the rights of the owner of the apartment complex. its close to the smoking in restaurants issue. if the owner of the restaurant permits smoking in his establishment then the people who dont smoke that go there have no right to complain about the smokers. they should go elsewhere. if the owner of the establishment runs it as a smoke free establishment then the smokers have no right to complain. they should go elsewhere. it isnt their business, they dont run it, or own it. they patronize businesses they like. if you dont like the policy, go elsewhere. its the right of the property owner to run his establishment the way he sees fit so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
in this case, if the lady applied to be a resident of the complex and told her it was a smoke free environment and then the guy was smoking, and they did nothing about it, then it would be a different story.
i think you are right though laker, her actions have screwed her. she re-signed the lease. she knew the smoke was there and stayed. she had the opportunity to move but didnt. it was her right to have the option to move at the end of her contract. she waved that right. i dont have any sympathy for her or her case.
While this is a great example of an individuals rights VS collective rights, and we can all agree that she seems to be in the wrong here... the courts have already forced the move of "the smoker" and I would not be surprised if they don't give in to her demands. This may be a stretch but I also feel that this case demonstrates what happens in a system, with out proper (any) regulations, where you are free to sue someone over the most rediculous things... and win. In effect her rights as a non smoking person with a medical condition over rides the rights of smokers to live in their own home and smoke in a building where smoking is permitted. In this case it seems that at least up until now this individuals right are more protected then the rights of everyone else who lives in that complex.
I still think its actually about the rights of the owner of the apartment complex. its close to the smoking in restaurants issue. if the owner of the restaurant permits smoking in his establishment then the people who dont smoke that go there have no right to complain about the smokers. they should go elsewhere. if the owner of the establishment runs it as a smoke free establishment then the smokers have no right to complain. they should go elsewhere. it isnt their business, they dont run it, or own it. they patronize businesses they like. if you dont like the policy, go elsewhere. its the right of the property owner to run his establishment the way he sees fit so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
in this case, if the lady applied to be a resident of the complex and told her it was a smoke free environment and then the guy was smoking, and they did nothing about it, then it would be a different story.
i think you are right though laker, her actions have screwed her. she re-signed the lease. she knew the smoke was there and stayed. she had the opportunity to move but didnt. it was her right to have the option to move at the end of her contract. she waved that right. i dont have any sympathy for her or her case.
I agree Kuzi, that it SHOULD be about the owner of the building and his right to allow or not allow smoking. However if that were true, and the case was about that then she would have been told to leave and that would have been that.
The fact that she stayed, went to court and even had the smoker moved from their home (if they wanted to continue to smoke) tells me that this is about her rights over the collective rights of the other tenants.
I totally agree that it should be the rights of the building owner, however considering what has already transpired... it looks like the building owner as well as the other tenants have had their rights relegated to somewhere below her rights. At least up until now. Have to see what the court decides.
Why do you think this is a case of the building owners rights? If it was that simple, would he not have just asked her to leave, or NOT allow her to sign another lease? I think his hands must be tied as well, or he could have just turffed her when he had the chance, and there wouldn't be a problem.
The fact that she stayed, went to court and even had the smoker moved from their home (if they wanted to continue to smoke) tells me that this is about her rights over the collective rights of the other tenants.
people have a right to life. ... not a right to live where ever they want. she has no "right" to live in that particular apartment unit. she CHOSE to live there ...TWICE. she is renting a good or service from another. nobody has a right to a good or service. you only have a right to pursue that good or service.
so though we are on the same side of this issue (that shes an idiot) we are there for different reasons.
thanks for fixing that.... it was a ton of bold... ha!
i guess his hands had to have been tied at some point.
... though they shouldnt have been.
You know what? This brings up a good point about our discussions. I think after some reflection that I know why sometimes we seem so opposed to each other's positions on some things.
When I talk with my son, who is a little younger then you Kuzi, I find that he speaks from a position of the way things aught to be while I speak from the position of the way I see things as they are now in the world.(not saying I see things right, while he see things wrong)
It isn't that I disagree with his beliefs or feelings on a certain matter. It's just that from our different perspectives it can appear that way. Once we have discussed the issues and smooth over the contentious points, we usually find that we believe pretty much the same things, but we approach the solution to these things differently.
In this case, where you see this as a owner's rights thing, (AND i AGREE IT SHOULD BE) I tended to focus on the womans' rights being given priority over the collective rights of the other tenants and the building owner.
We don't disagree, but our perspectives and our method of explaining our positions can seem to be disagreement. I wonder how often this happens in other discussions we have, as well?
Oh yeah and that formatting thing is a pain. I wish someone would start a thread in which people who know how to format post' could leave little pointers to those of us who can't do it to save our lives !
thanks for fixing that.... it was a ton of bold... ha!
i guess his hands had to have been tied at some point.
... though they shouldnt have been.
You know what? This brings up a good point about our discussions. I think after some reflection that I know why sometimes we seem so opposed to each other's positions on some things.
When I talk with my son, who is a little younger then you Kuzi, I find that he speaks from a position of the way things aught to be while I speak from the position of the way I see things as the are now in the world.
It isn't that I disagree with his beliefs or feelings on a certain matter. It's just that from our different perspectives it can appear that way. Once we have discussed the issues and smooth over the contentious issues, we usually find that we believe pretty much the same things, but we approach the solution to these things differently.
In this case where you see this as a owner's rights thing, (AND i AGREE IT SHOULD BE) I tended to focus on the womans' rights being given priority over the collective rights of the other tenants and the building owner.
We don't disagree, but our perspectives and our method of explaining our positions can seem to be disagreement. I wonder how often this happens in other discussions we have, as well?
Oh yeah and that formatting thing is a pain. I wish someone would start a thread in which people who know how to format post' could leave little pointers to those of us who can't do it to save our lives !
i can see this point.
i DO tend to view societal issues as how they should be... i do know that things are not perfect. i look at equal individual rights as a perfection that will never be realized but should always be worked for. i do wholly believe that man should be free to do as they see fit to run their lives so long as their actions do not violate the right of others to run their lives they way they see fit. the only roll of the government in this perfect scenario is for the government to uphold those individual rights and never violate the rights of anyone, no matter how small the minority.
I wish someone would start a thread in which people who know how to format post' could leave little pointers to those of us who can't do it to save our lives !
thanks for fixing that.... it was a ton of bold... ha!
i guess his hands had to have been tied at some point.
... though they shouldnt have been.
You know what? This brings up a good point about our discussions. I think after some reflection that I know why sometimes we seem so opposed to each other's positions on some things.
When I talk with my son, who is a little younger then you Kuzi, I find that he speaks from a position of the way things aught to be while I speak from the position of the way I see things as the are now in the world.
It isn't that I disagree with his beliefs or feelings on a certain matter. It's just that from our different perspectives it can appear that way. Once we have discussed the issues and smooth over the contentious issues, we usually find that we believe pretty much the same things, but we approach the solution to these things differently.
In this case where you see this as a owner's rights thing, (AND i AGREE IT SHOULD BE) I tended to focus on the womans' rights being given priority over the collective rights of the other tenants and the building owner.
We don't disagree, but our perspectives and our method of explaining our positions can seem to be disagreement. I wonder how often this happens in other discussions we have, as well?
Oh yeah and that formatting thing is a pain. I wish someone would start a thread in which people who know how to format post' could leave little pointers to those of us who can't do it to save our lives !
i can see this point.
i DO tend to view societal issues as how they should be... i do know that things are not perfect. i look at equal individual rights as a perfection that will never be realized but should always be worked for. i do wholly believe that man should be free to do as they see fit to run their lives so long as their actions do not violate the right of others to run their lives they way they see fit. the only roll of the government in this perfect scenario is for the government to uphold those individual rights and never violate the rights of anyone, no matter how small the minority.
Ok that's it Kuzi. We have just agreed on two things on the same day in very short order. I think it's time to get off here now, before one of us thinks of something else to talk about. Cause it's inevitable that we will find something to argue over LMAO.
Ok, seriously, this has got to be the biggest joke I've ever heard of. The validity of the Nobel Peace Price was seriously injured when Al Gore won it, but with the award going to President Obama for 2009, it is officially dead. The Nobel Peace prize is supposed to go to someone who has made major accomplishments that have helped the world and President Obama has done nothing to help the world... If you call the government taking over the auto industry and raising taxes on tobacco products helping the world, then he has done a lot... Other than that... No so much. The Nobel Peace Prize has become a lame political award that has absolutely no meaning... Who's next? Hugo Chavez?
"Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent..."
"...the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace."
"The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words. "
There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan
"The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished. "
"...in office less than nine months — and only for 12 days before the Nobel nomination deadline last February..."
"The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance. Work on the president's ambitious agenda, both at home and abroad, is barely underway, much less finished. He has no standout moment of victory that would seem to warrant a verdict as sweeping as that issued by the Nobel committee."
"And what about peace? Obama is running two wars in the Muslim world — in Iraq and Afghanistan "
"He has pushed for new efforts to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. But he's received little cooperation from the two sides."
"And what about Obama's global prestige? It seemed to take a big hit last week when he jetted across the Atlantic to lobby for Chicago to get the 2016 Olympics — and was rejected with a last-place finish."
"The Nobel committee, it seems, had the audacity to hope that he'll eventually produce a record worthy of its prize."
""So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far," former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983"
"It is just too soon," said Siv Jensen, leader of Norway's main opposition party, the Progress Party. "It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results."
"They've (The Nobel committee) also been slammed for their omissions. Mahatma Gandhi, the iconic leader of the Indian independence movement and a symbol of nonviolence, never won the Nobel, though he was nominated five times."
Obama and not Gandhi? seriously? the Nobel Peace prize is a joke.
... I thought it was bad when Al Goer won it for GLOBAL WARMING.
...not that i have to worry about getting nominated or anything...
I don't know, it looks like they'll take just about anybody these days. Don't be so sure about that, lol.
no.. i dont have the right qualifications. i do not promote a socialist/fascist agenda I do not suck up to dominating dictators like Chavez. i dont want to force people to "go green" im not considering not funding my army that is in a country where if the military loses an oppressive Islamo-fascist group will move in, kill every one it doesnt like and force its religious beliefs on everyone while simultaneously destroying anything from other religions
so no... i will never be nominated for a peace prize. ...im not peaceful enough.
...not that i have to worry about getting nominated or anything...
I don't know, it looks like they'll take just about anybody these days. Don't be so sure about that, lol.
no.. i dont have the right qualifications. i do not promote a socialist/fascist agenda I do not suck up to dominating dictators like Chavez. i dont want to force people to "go green" im not considering not funding my army that is in a country where if the military loses an oppressive Islamo-fascist group will move in, kill every one it doesnt like and force its religious beliefs on everyone while simultaneously destroying anything from other religions
so no... i will never be nominated for a peace prize. ...im not peaceful enough.
Comments
I do tend not to comment too much on this thread just because it is so politically charged most of the time.
I have learned over a lot of time and many discussions that you can't judge people by their political views.
it is hard not to try and press your own beliefs on others when holding a good debate. Keeping it on a non personal level can be quite difficult.
To Duty and Urbi... I miss those guy's. "sniff"
I agree with you, sometimes I enjoy reading the thread, but it's best for me not to comment other than to be a smartass. We all tend to suffer from know-it-all-itis when it comes to stuff like this. While some people can keep their emotions in check, I can't. I get pissed off and I don't want that, and I don't want to piss others offer. I like this forum and don't want to make a bad name for myself (or make it worse than it already is)!
I am not saying this thread is THE reason Duty left, but I'm pretty certain it has something to do with it. He got very mad over the healthcare debate and the fact that he couldn't make kuzi and me agree with him and he became very angry. I feel very strongly about my beliefs, but I honestly don't care if anyone else thinks the same way I do. I don't think any less of people who disagree with me, and I don't become angry with them for having their own thoughts on any and all issues. I like pretty much everyone on this board and feel very lucky to have found this place. I hope to some day get to light up a smoke with some of you guys!
As for the great Urbi, I'm not sure why he left, but I think I heard he is living very happily in a hut on the beach down in Mexico with Rosita the Burro...
its not so much that you dont get it... i think its more that i am not explaining it.
i went on to explain in the next post, but this was worded very poorly.
in short, a lady is suing her neighbor for smoking.
they live in town homes with a 2 hour fire wall between each one.
some people will say that the lady has a right to sue. some will say that the smoker has a right to smoke.
I say the complex as a privately owned company has a right to decide if smoking as aloud on their property. since it is aloud and the lady moved into the problem by living in those town homes, its her own damn fault.
like apples?
how bout them apples?
Managers replaced air filters repeatedly, installed sealant-type electrical plates and – at the Daniels' request – used an industrial-grade roofing sealant to caulk pipes under their kitchen cabinet. When that didn't work, managers tried to negotiate a move for both tenants within the community.
Restraining order
Williams, the smoker, finally moved to another unit in June after a judge issued a temporary restraining order forbidding her from lighting up in her home. "We've done more for these people than we've ever done for anyone else," Lott said. "I don't think it's possible to satisfy them."
This woman figures it's alright to move into a smoking building and then have everyone around her not smoke so as not to interfere with HER rights. Sounds like she's the type that used to hold her breath until she got what she wanted.
On the other hand, doesn't look like common sense will prevail. I mean the judge had ordered the other woman to move from her place into another after being forbidden by the courts to smoke in her own unit.
While this is a great example of an individuals rights VS collective rights, and we can all agree that she seems to be in the wrong here... the courts have already forced the move of "the smoker" and I would not be surprised if they don't give in to her demands.
This may be a stretch but I also feel that this case demonstrates what happens in a system, with out proper (any) regulations, where you are free to sue someone over the most rediculous things... and win. In effect her rights as a non smoking person with a medical condition over rides the rights of smokers to live in their own home and smoke in a building where smoking is permitted. In this case it seems that at least up until now this individuals right are more protected then the rights of everyone else who lives in that complex.
its the right of the property owner to run his establishment the way he sees fit so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
in this case, if the lady applied to be a resident of the complex and told her it was a smoke free environment and then the guy was smoking, and they did nothing about it, then it would be a different story.
i think you are right though laker, her actions have screwed her. she re-signed the lease. she knew the smoke was there and stayed. she had the opportunity to move but didnt. it was her right to have the option to move at the end of her contract. she waved that right. i dont have any sympathy for her or her case.
laker, you said:
"...this case demonstrates what happens in a system, with out proper (any) regulations..."
just how exactly would you regulate this situation?
The fact that she stayed, went to court and even had the smoker moved from their home (if they wanted to continue to smoke) tells me that this is about her rights over the collective rights of the other tenants.
I totally agree that it should be the rights of the building owner, however considering what has already transpired... it looks like the building owner as well as the other tenants have had their rights relegated to somewhere below her rights. At least up until now. Have to see what the court decides.
Why do you think this is a case of the building owners rights? If it was that simple, would he not have just asked her to leave, or NOT allow her to sign another lease? I think his hands must be tied as well, or he could have just turffed her when he had the chance, and there wouldn't be a problem.
i guess his hands had to have been tied at some point.
... though they shouldnt have been.
so though we are on the same side of this issue (that shes an idiot) we are there for different reasons.
I think after some reflection that I know why sometimes we seem so opposed to each other's positions on some things.
When I talk with my son, who is a little younger then you Kuzi, I find that he speaks from a position of the way things aught to be while I speak from the position of the way I see things as they are now in the world.(not saying I see things right, while he see things wrong)
It isn't that I disagree with his beliefs or feelings on a certain matter. It's just that from our different perspectives it can appear that way. Once we have discussed the issues and smooth over the contentious points, we usually find that we believe pretty much the same things, but we approach the solution to these things differently.
In this case, where you see this as a owner's rights thing, (AND i AGREE IT SHOULD BE) I tended to focus on the womans' rights being given priority over the collective rights of the other tenants and the building owner.
We don't disagree, but our perspectives and our method of explaining our positions can seem to be disagreement. I wonder how often this happens in other discussions we have, as well?
Oh yeah and that formatting thing is a pain. I wish someone would start a thread in which people who know how to format post' could leave little pointers to those of us who can't do it to save our lives !
i DO tend to view societal issues as how they should be...
i do know that things are not perfect. i look at equal individual rights as a perfection that will never be realized but should always be worked for. i do wholly believe that man should be free to do as they see fit to run their lives so long as their actions do not violate the right of others to run their lives they way they see fit. the only roll of the government in this perfect scenario is for the government to uphold those individual rights and never violate the rights of anyone, no matter how small the minority.
Good discussion Kuzi. Thank you.
wanna fight about it? !?!?
So YES I wanna fight about it !LMAO
absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
"Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent..."
"...the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace."
"The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words. "
There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan
"The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished. "
Analysis: He won, but for what?
"...in office less than nine months — and only for 12 days before the Nobel nomination deadline last February..."
"The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance. Work on the president's ambitious agenda, both at home and abroad, is barely underway, much less finished. He has no standout moment of victory that would seem to warrant a verdict as sweeping as that issued by the Nobel committee."
"And what about peace? Obama is running two wars in the Muslim world — in Iraq and Afghanistan "
"He has pushed for new efforts to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. But he's received little cooperation from the two sides."
"And what about Obama's global prestige? It seemed to take a big hit last week when he jetted across the Atlantic to lobby for Chicago to get the 2016 Olympics — and was rejected with a last-place finish."
"The Nobel committee, it seems, had the audacity to hope that he'll eventually produce a record worthy of its prize."
Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy
""So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far," former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983"
"It is just too soon," said Siv Jensen, leader of Norway's main opposition party, the Progress Party. "It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results."
"They've (The Nobel committee) also been slammed for their omissions. Mahatma Gandhi, the iconic leader of the Indian independence movement and a symbol of nonviolence, never won the Nobel, though he was nominated five times."
Obama and not Gandhi? seriously? the Nobel Peace prize is a joke.
... I thought it was bad when Al Goer won it for GLOBAL WARMING.
I hope i never win the Nobel Peace Prize.
i do not promote a socialist/fascist agenda
I do not suck up to dominating dictators like Chavez.
i dont want to force people to "go green"
im not considering not funding my army that is in a country where if the military loses an oppressive Islamo-fascist group will move in, kill every one it doesnt like and force its religious beliefs on everyone while simultaneously destroying anything from other religions
so no... i will never be nominated for a peace prize.
...im not peaceful enough.