"I can't breathe....Breathe Easy"

[chipbennett]

Or perhaps confiscatory tax regimes that provide incentives to run black markets for cigarettes should be abolished.

I agree with that completely. Maybe New Yorkers should stop electing the type of mayors who would ban Big Gulps and punitively tax cigarettes.

 

[Dead Duck]

Or perhaps confiscatory tax regimes that provide incentives to run black markets for cigarettes should be abolished.

Racist

***REPORTED***

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Just so we're on record, it's okay to judge other people.

If a young mother at home with her kids hears the doorbell ring and looks outside to see a large, dirty, disheveled man with a huge bloody knife in his hand, should we chastise her for not at least asking him what he wants before she calls 911?

Anybody who thinks you should never judge people must live in a much safer place than I do.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Is self protection not an inalienable right? It is. So why ask the question?

I'm just trying to ascertain if I can remain principled even though in extreme circumstances, I may do things that everyday life, I would find repulsive...if by doing those distasteful things, in order to save my life or others around me, will history (and whomever else) judge me harshly. Self protection is an inalienable right...whether on a personal level or a national one.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If a young mother at home with her kids hears the doorbell ring and looks outside to see a large, dirty, disheveled man with a huge bloody knife in his hand, should we chastise her for not at least asking him what he wants before she calls 911?

Anybody who thinks you should never judge people must live in a much safer place than I do.

There are many that think it's wrong to judge others. (Especially if that judgement is based on certain teachings that are forbidden on to be discussed on this site). I'm just wondering why it's ok if history and society get to and upon what basis they do it that it's permissable.

 

[Denny347]

I'm just trying to ascertain if I can remain principled even though in extreme circumstances, I may do things that everyday life, I would find repulsive...if by doing those distasteful things, in order to save my life or others around me, will history (and whomever else) judge me harshly. Self protection is an inalienable right...whether on a personal level or a national one.

I'm not really seeing the controversy here. We, on this board, are pretty much aligned on what rights we have (with some differences among members) and are law abiding, productive, humans beings. You are asking me questions that only you know the answer to and that I have no capability to answer. "Repulsive"? Maybe I just see self defense differently. I can only react to action. If I have to take a life, it is only as a reaction to someone else's decision to harm me or someone else. The decision was made for me and it is not repulsive, it is unfortunate. Repulsive=disgusting, sickening, nauseating, terrible, makes it seem that the action was wrong or improper. That's just me.

 

[Denny347]

There are many that think it's wrong to judge others. (Especially if that judgement is based on certain teachings that are forbidden on to be discussed on this site). I'm just wondering why it's ok if history and society get to and upon what basis they do it that it's permissable.

Whether or not I agree with "judgement" has little to do with the reality that it WILL/DOES happen. When I am dead and gone, will my kids judge me as a good person based on how I lived my life, treated other people, treated them? Will juries judge me if I am in court? Will my actions at work be judged by the world in the media or by internal affairs or by my peers? We judge people all the time, I'm not sure it can really be helped.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yes and yes. Income taxes were minimal, even when we were a nation engaged in a worldwide total war. We financed that war largely through bonds, not taxes. And yes, the act of "regulation" on the part of the federal government - and at some local levels - are an increasing imposition on the traditional personal freedoms of American citizens - often to the favor of non-citizens or criminals among us.

If you want to talk about regulations such as those which were designed to eliminate discrimination of various types among American citizens - even those regulations which were well-intended have, for the most part, either outlived their usefulness or have begun to institute reverse-discrimination which feels an awful lot like "retribution" instead of "fairness."

For the most part, our governments have reached the point where they seem to do more harm to individual freedom than they do to preserve it.

But... our President says that we shouldn't punish people for things that happened before most of us were even born (his argument for opening up relations with Cuba). (But apparently things that happened before most of our great grandparents were born are fair game.)

 

[Nodonutz]

DoggyDaddy - excellent point!

 

[Kutnupe14]

But... our President says that we shouldn't punish people for things that happened before most of us were even born (his argument for opening up relations with Cuba). (But apparently things that happened before most of our great grandparents were born are fair game.)

Dang, you musty have the youngest great grandparents on the planet. When exactly are you saying that institutionalized discrimination ended in the US?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Dang, you musty have the youngest great grandparents on the planet. When exactly are you saying that institutionalized discrimination ended in the US?

I don't believe you are so naive as to not know to what I am referring, in the context of the post to which I was replying. Attempting to eliminate institutionalized discrimination with more institutionalized discrimination (only the people being discriminated against is different) is wrong in my opinion. I am speaking primarily about affirmative action, which promotes hiring not based on qualifications but on other criteria. And my maternal grandfather was born in 1879. My great grandfather was considerably older.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't believe you are so naive as to not know to what I am referring, in the context of the post to which I was replying. Attempting to eliminate institutionalized discrimination with more institutionalized discrimination (only the people being discriminated against is different) is wrong in my opinion. I am speaking primarily about affirmative action, which promotes hiring not based on qualifications but on other criteria. And my maternal grandfather was born in 1879. My great grandfather was considerably older.

I know exactly what your were referencing. However, you're response was to Blackhawk, in which his was clearly talking about discrimination. I think you used Blackhawk's post about discrimination to incorrectly interject slavery into the conversation. Discrimination was certainly thriving when you said your first words or took your first steps on this planet. As for affirmative action it's interesting how it's not ok when it applies to some, by quite alright when it applies to others. What types of affimative actions, named specifically, grinds your gears?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I know exactly what your were referencing. However, you're response was to Blackhawk, in which his was clearly talking about discrimination. I think you used Blackhawk's post about discrimination to incorrectly interject slavery into the conversation. Discrimination was certainly thriving when you said your first words or took your first steps on this planet. As for affirmative action it's interesting how it's not ok when it applies to some, by quite alright when it applies to others. What types of affimative actions, named specifically, grinds your gears?

No, it's not.

 

[chipbennett]

As for affirmative action it's interesting how it's not ok when it applies to some, by quite alright when it applies to others. What types of affimative actions, named specifically, grinds your gears?

All and every type of affirmative action are wrong, and "grind my gears". First, they are a violation of equal protection; second, they are a remedy for those who have not been injured, at the cost of those who have injured none.

The Law should view and treat everyone equally, at all times.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, it's not.

Veteran's Preference Points | Military.com

So write your congressman.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I believe so too. But why is it that the 'Murica crowd argues that rights only apply to American citizens out of one side of their mouths while saying that rights aren't granted by the the U.S. government out of the other?

What kind of girl would you want ?

Would you want the kind of girl that's only been around the block a time or two or the girl that's been around the county ? Same thing with this country .

Part of what made it a special place was our freedom to exercise our rights in somewhat of a collective manner with shared values . = The girl that's only been around the block a time or two , she's special .

I believe that everyone is born with God given , " natural rights " but that doesn't mean every other nation has to or will believe it also and they will treat their people in whatever manner they see fit .

Usually it's what we'd think of as dictatorial in nature and thus breeds a **** hole country .

Plenty of those people brought up in that **** hole will go on to sneak across our borders turning this country into a **** hole by exercising what they believe is their " rights " in a not so collective manner because they don't share our values . = the county girl , she gives it away like candy so there's nothing special about her .


In short , there are plenty of places where the people have rights but there are few where folks have the freedom to express them

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I know exactly what your were referencing. However, you're response was to Blackhawk, in which his was clearly talking about discrimination. I think you used Blackhawk's post about discrimination to incorrectly interject slavery into the conversation. Discrimination was certainly thriving when you said your first words or took your first steps on this planet. As for affirmative action it's interesting how it's not ok when it applies to some, by quite alright when it applies to others. What types of affimative actions, named specifically, grinds your gears?

Affirmative action which is based on sex or race primarily. Basically the things that we aren't allowed to discriminate on, should conversely not be used as criteria for preferential treatment (think hiring quotas).

But you are correct that I was interjecting slavery (and perhaps this was the wrong thread or forum to do so), but mainly as it applies to what Blackhawk said about "retribution" vs. "fairness". When a group of people blames another group of people for what happened between their respective ancestors and uses that to foment entitlement or preferential treatment I just don't think it's productive. You don't raise one group up by bringing the other group down. I just found it ironic that Obama used the statement he did in regards to Cuban relations when that very same principle is used domestically in order to "correct" something that happened in the fairly distant past due to some sense of misplaced guilt.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Veteran's Preference Points | Military.com

So write your congressman.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's OK which is to the point of your comment that I responded to.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Veteran's Preference Points | Military.com

So write your congressman.

Preference based on merit (ie. serving one's country) I don't have a problem with. In fact, I recently applied for a position at work and was told up front that if a veteran applied for the same job, they would have to give the position to them automatically. I had no problem with that. I feel that they earned it. It's preference shown due to pedigree or the number of X or Y chromosomes a person has that I have a problem with.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Preference based on merit (ie. serving one's country) I don't have a problem with. In fact, I recently applied for a position at work and was told up front that if a veteran applied for the same job, they would have to give the position to them automatically. I had no problem with that. I feel that they earned it. It's preference shown due to pedigree or the number of X or Y chromosomes a person has that I have a problem with.

So like I said affirmative action is not so big a deal, as long as you're ok with the group receiving the benefit? How else is one supposed to read your post? And I thank you for being candid, and providing a real world example, in your response.