One Danish opinion

Michael A Barnhart

I believe I understand you. I do not equate nationality with race. Yes we have some differences.:rose: "I will find a new sig someday."

KaRl

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I do not equate nationality with race IMO there's only one race, the human race. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Yes we have some differences. :cool: A World where anybody would be/think/act the same would be so boring! And a World where anybody would be/think/act as me would probably be a fucking mess! :rose:

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

I do agree with you, the right to free speech does not include encouraging murder or any other act that would harm someone else. But someone who is being merely offensive has to be tolerated. Certain things like child pornaography for example obviously victimize someone and are not free expression and should not be defended. I think that this is completely consistent with my personal beliefs. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Why not? I definitely don't think anyone should be able to prevent someone from entering say a public institution, but what wrong with excluding someone from your place of business? If the fool is willing to have people walk past his place of business then so be it. Personnally I would not patronize someone who had that kind of policy, but in the end who is he hurting? Why is it OK for there to be a NAACP, but a National Association for the Advancement of Caucasion People would be wrong? I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying there is no difference. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Michael A Barnhart

I am not wanting to be offensive but fear I may be borderline. Question: Define nation in your view point. 3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation. To the US power belongs to the people not the government. Now if nation is defined as the collective will of the people we agree. And How do you justify what I take to be your nations strong support for Saddam given 1 and 2. 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good. 2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. Has he not violated these issues and with your government (or industries owned by the government) going into contract with him, violate these principles? And yes I hope I am misunderstanding something. "I will find a new sig someday."

Michael A Barnhart

KaЯl wrote: IMO there's only one race, the human race. Well, If we could get everyone to start with that as a common belief we would be much better off.:rose: "I will find a new sig someday."

Michael A Barnhart

Doug Goulden wrote: I definitely don't think anyone should be able to prevent someone from entering say a public institution, but what wrong with excluding someone from your place of business? It is in how you take that step that is the issue. In most states a restaurant (for example) is legal defined as a public place. Take smoking for an example, you must have a smoke free area. Doug Goulden wrote: Why is it OK for there to be a NAACP, but a National Association for the Advancement of Caucasion People would be wrong? I agree with you on this. Both would be racist. We should just have one for the Advancement of People.:rose: "I will find a new sig someday."

Doug Goulden

I agree that the gavernment tend to see a resteraunt as a public place, but I guess I must be some sort of anarchist because I think a busines owner shouldn't be forced to be politically correct. Smoking is gross and annoying and unhealthy, but you can't save everyone from themselves. Just like you can prevent jerks from being jerks. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: We should just have one for the Advancement of People That I can agree with you on for sure.:-D Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Doesn't the idea of the UN violate article 3? The UN security council specifically overides the authority of nations......;) Actually I think after readig the link Karl posted I would have to agree with most of the principles stated in the document Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Michael A Barnhart

Back to define "nation". I hope Kari does a good job here. If it is an ever enlarging collection of "We the people", then no it does not. But I am not ready for a world government. And yes I agree with most of the principles, also. "I will find a new sig someday."

Michael A Barnhart

Doug Goulden wrote: End of Sentance ->> I guess I must be some sort of anarchist because I think a busines owner shouldn't be forced to be politically correct. I agree with your frustrations here. Sometimes a difficult division between political and social opinions. "I will find a new sig someday."

KaRl

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Question: Define nation in your view point. The Nation is the collectivity of the citizens, having the same conscience of their "political" identity. Note: It's my view point, others could disagree. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: How do you justify what I take to be your nations strong support for Saddam given 1 and 2.[...] And yes I hope I am misunderstanding something. My country doesn't support Saddam. We agree with the US on the goal, not on the method: - SH has to be desarmed, even trialed if a court has this competence - Iraqui have the right not to receive bombs on the head. http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/article.gb.asp?ART=32440 and http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030224-423466,00.html

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

How do you figure on getting KaЯl wrote: - SH has to be desarmed, even trialed if a court has this competence Without ? KaЯl wrote: - Iraqui have the right not to receive bombs on the head. Thats the trick.... BTW I don't want to drop bombs on anybodys head ... but there is no realistic way around it. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

For the disarmement part, the inspectors are the only ones who can say if they can do the job, or not. If they say they can't, the war will be the only and last solution. There's a lot of possibilities to remove someone from power. The CIA was pretty good in these games in the past (even if the man to remove was democratically elected - Chile, 1973) For a trial, the World has to agree to an International Court of Justice first

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Michael A Barnhart

Thanks for the response. We obviously will not come to a total agreement here on how to proceed. I think the goals of what we both want are basically the same. Just For Your Information. My perception of those around me (and that does include some Pro Blair Brits and myself) has a conflict with: "When a regime like Saddam's finds itself caught between certain death and abandoning its arms, I think it will make the right choice." (From the Times Article.) With the current position of no fixed date we do not feel any feeling of being "caught between certian death" exists. Again, Just what my perception of those around me is. :rose: "I will find a new sig someday."

KaRl

The US Army is the Sword of Damocles. SH has to know why it could fall, not when. If a date has to be fixed, once again, it is the role of the UN inspectors.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

No. Here it's called discrimination and it's most likely an infingement of the European Convention of Human Rights. I'm sure that any business that pulled such a stunt in the UK would be in court pretty damn quick...and facing some pretty lousy publicity which could well wreck their business. The only way I can see this guy getting away with it (which IMHO he doesn't deserve to) is if nobody complains. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

I'm absolutely gobsmacked that you wouldn't. If you were out with me and were refused entry to a restaurant because of your nationality I'd kick up a stink like you wouldn't believe. ;) Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

Michael A Barnhart

It is all in how you read it. I believe that an individual should be allowed to make political statements. Not just organized political groups. "I will find a new sig someday."

Doug Goulden

How is the guy actually hurting anyone? If he's a jerk, then people shouldn't patronize his establishment. I definitely agree that the idea of some bad publicity is good, if the locals don't patronize him he goes out of business and bothers no one... I'm of the opinion that people resort to the courts to quickly at least here in the states. (After the experiences I've had with divorce lawyers you gotta understand;) ) People should accept and try to agree to disagree instead of making evry little problem a crime. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?