Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday 71,012
Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family. Full Story
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51789 May 5, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares there is no such thing as absolute rights.
Maybe one of the smarter things you've said.

IMHO.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#51793 May 5, 2013
JOEL wrote:
Quality is inversely proportional to quantity.
And THAT includes the Number of posts one posts on these threads too!!

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51794 May 6, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why it is a farce to call it a right, it is merely a government authorized privilege.
So agree you dont have the right to bear arms?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51795 May 6, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Anarchy is absolute freedom without a ruler, id there something wrong with that?
Let me ask you, is it ok for 1 person to hold a gun to another persons head to take away their property?
Yes, if it is for the greater good. There are no absolute rights, remember?

And who defines OK? Surely not "the bible" so it is a matter of interpretation/democracy.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51796 May 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
And THAT includes the Number of posts one posts on these threads too!!
Maybe one of the smarter things you have said too.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51797 May 6, 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/my_virginity_...

My virginity mistake

I took an abstinence pledge hoping it would ensure a strong marriage. Instead, it led to a quick divorce
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51798 May 6, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
The perils of a voluntary society, of course if you are negotiating a contract you should be smart enough to include an out clause.
One is included in the US constitution , not that it is a valid contract or applicable to anyone.
An hoa is an example of a voluntary society but in a true voluntary society one would pick and choose who to do business with.
You would think one that signs a contract would determine a term with an expiration date.
Yes, with great freedom comes great responsibility.

Without Mommy and Daddy (gov't) dictating our every move, we have to think from time to time.

The perils include planning for one's financial needs in retirement, negotiating financing/contracts etc.

I do actually believe in personal responsibility.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51799 May 6, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why it is a farce to call it a right, it is merely a government authorized privilege.
Gov't is just the name for those things we've collectively (via majority or supermajority via representation) decided to do together.

Therefore we ourselves grant rights, responsibilities, and privileges.

We created our own government. Built into that system are the mechanisms for modifying, contracting, or expanding it.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51800 May 6, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Anarchy is absolute freedom without a ruler, id there something wrong with that?
I don't believe it would work.

And it's not the form of government we have choses for ourselves.

We trumpet our form of gov't around the world - which I think is overblown.

I don't personally believe in "American Exceptionalism."

Do you?
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me ask you, is it ok for 1 person to hold a gun to another persons head to take away their property?
Depends on the context.

If the property holder has millions in unpaid debts....and the creditor is attempting to make himself whole again...then, yes - it is ok if done within the law.

Recall I mentioned personal responsibility (and accountability).

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51801 May 6, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>

I don't personally believe in "American Exceptionalism."
Every nation-state, if they have any pride, believes in this for themself. So it is nothing exceptional, IMO
JOEL

Thane, India

#51802 May 6, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>

You are child like, your mind is that of a 12 year old.
LOL.

This 12 year old has far more intelligence than you can ever have.

I'm surprised that you've failed to comprehend the significance of the mind-matter model that can explain everything there's to be explained in the universe.

Anyway, carry on with your silly with the dunces on this forum.

(smiles)
Eric

Roselle, IL

#51803 May 6, 2013
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>
are you talking about an HOA telling the owner of a lot that they can't divide it?
I have never seen a case exactly on point, but I can see how it could happen. Speaking solely of Illinois, while the city can set minimum standards for subdivision improvements (lot size, building height, lot coverage, etc.), developers are permitted to set more stringent standards in the declaration of subdivision. Developers set higher standards to keep home values to a certain level. Before the advent of HOA, someone in the subdivision had to sue to enforce the declaration. Now with HOA, there is a policing body.

The Illinois Supreme Court just handed down an opinion that those who buy in a subdivision with a declaration, HOA, and HOA rules have agreed to abide by those pronouncements. It's a contractual relationship. Some attorney got pulled over for speeding by a rent-a-cop hired by the HOA. He litigated over the question of whether the HOA could establish a private police force. The IL Supreme Court said that since the attorney was a homeowner in the subdivision, he agreed by contract to abide by the HOA rules. http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/Supreme...
JOEL

Thane, India

#51804 May 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>

And THAT includes the Number of posts one posts on these threads too!!
LOL.

You've failed to understand the context and meaning of the line - "quality is inversely proportional to quantity".

Let's analyze the logic to show that you're wrong.

Here goes:

We clearly have 2 distinct sets of people in the world -

1) The intellectual elites who're as expected very few in number.

2) The masses who constitute the majority.

So, in this sense, when we talk of the masses who comprise the overwhelming majority of people, we invariably observe a dramatic drop in quality (whereas the intellectual elites who're in a minority constitute the high quality people in the world).

Now, let's push the analysis further.

The intellectual elites are always in a minority but usually it's seen that whatever they think, say or do is usually of a consistently high quality and so logically speaking we set up a direct proportion for this relationship - a top notch intellectual is highly productive and so the number of his high quality thoughts, words and deeds number a lot and as these are consistently of a high quality thus the output (number of high quality thoughts, words and deeds) of a top-end intellectual is high and since these are usually of a high quality thus there exists a direct relationship (proportion) between the two.

So, to reiterate the point, we see a direct proportionality between the large number of an intellectual's thoughts, words and deeds and the high quality of the same.

So, you're wrong in your reasoning as usual.

ROFL.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51805 May 6, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Every nation-state, if they have any pride, believes in this for themself. So it is nothing exceptional, IMO
Well, now you're going to have me arguing for the other side...

But if you look at the origin and real meaning of the term - not how many people use it - there is an argument to be made. But I resist it nonetheless.

There is too much to do yet.

Most of us know we like it here, ATF notwithstanding.

:))
Voluntarist

United States

#51806 May 6, 2013
JOEL wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
This 12 year old has far more intelligence than you can ever have.
I'm surprised that you've failed to comprehend the significance of the mind-matter model that can explain everything there's to be explained in the universe.
Anyway, carry on with your silly with the dunces on this forum.
(smiles)
.

Your mind matter is spread all over your pillow after you spawned some knuckle children
Voluntarist

United States

#51807 May 6, 2013
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never seen a case exactly on point, but I can see how it could happen. Speaking solely of Illinois, while the city can set minimum standards for subdivision improvements (lot size, building height, lot coverage, etc.), developers are permitted to set more stringent standards in the declaration of subdivision. Developers set higher standards to keep home values to a certain level. Before the advent of HOA, someone in the subdivision had to sue to enforce the declaration. Now with HOA, there is a policing body.
The Illinois Supreme Court just handed down an opinion that those who buy in a subdivision with a declaration, HOA, and HOA rules have agreed to abide by those pronouncements. It's a contractual relationship. Some attorney got pulled over for speeding by a rent-a-cop hired by the HOA. He litigated over the question of whether the HOA could establish a private police force. The IL Supreme Court said that since the attorney was a homeowner in the subdivision, he agreed by contract to abide by the HOA rules. http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/Supreme...
Sounds voluntary.
Voluntarist

United States

#51808 May 6, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe it would work.
And it's not the form of government we have choses for ourselves.
We trumpet our form of gov't around the world - which I think is overblown.
I don't personally believe in "American Exceptionalism."
Do you?
<quoted text>
Depends on the context.
If the property holder has millions in unpaid debts....and the creditor is attempting to make himself whole again...then, yes - it is ok if done within the law.
Recall I mentioned personal responsibility (and accountability).
Ok so is it moral to you for someone to provide a service by force?

Is it moral to you for someone to take property by force in order to hand it to someone else absent a contractual breach?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51809 May 6, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so is it moral to you for someone to provide a service by force?
Is it moral to you for someone to take property by force in order to hand it to someone else absent a contractual breach?
I don't agree with everything my gov't does.

I didn't believe in W using my tax dollars to invade the wrong country in 2002.

That was a taking of my property (my money) for a reason I didn't agree with. This was also enriching private contractors - Halliburton etc. Why should I line the pockets of Cheney's friends and colleagues?

But you asked me if it was moral. Moral - no. But ethical, strictly speaking - yes. It was within the law.

Laws under a form of gov't with which I agree. I have no better form of gov't to propose.

I don't believe in allowing the perfect becoming the enemy of the good.

Do believe in social contracts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

In political philosophy the social contract or political contractis a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#51810 May 6, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
So agree you dont have the right to bear arms?
rabbee: yes and when in the forrest, you have the right to bear arms too. and your name, could be forever changed to clawed too.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#51811 May 6, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if it is for the greater good. There are no absolute rights, remember?
And who defines OK? Surely not "the bible" so it is a matter of interpretation/democracy.
rabbee: well people tend to forget, the representatives of this nation are not the government.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pinos Altos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you have VERIZON and you didn't have service... Dec 13 yankeedudell 2
Experience Victorian Christmas tonight at Silve... (Dec '09) Dec 9 billie 4
Dr. Twana Sparks (Dec '09) Dec 9 MSGT Don 49
* the Silver City Daily Press * Dec 9 billie 1
Getting into the spirit of Christmas, a look at... Dec 9 billie 1
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) Dec 7 Insect Trust 44
Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Nov '14 Realist 615
Pinos Altos Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Pinos Altos People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Pinos Altos News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pinos Altos

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:32 pm PST

NBC Sports 3:32PM
Seahawks road favorites over Cards on SNF - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Broncos vs. Bengals: TV Info, Spread, Injury Updates, Game Time and More
Bleacher Report10:01 AM
Emmanuel Sanders Illness: Updates on Broncos Star's Status and Return
Bleacher Report11:04 AM
Peyton (Thigh) Questionable vs. Bengals
NFL11:07 AM
Peyton Manning (thigh) questionable vs. Bengals