Monday December 22, 2014
Jump to content
Tom, It takes a great deal of perspective, foresight, vision, knowledge and empathy to make decisions that at times involve the public good v. private good. In certain circumstances I could envision the needs/wants of the public taking precedence over the rights of private property owners. Perhaps an example is the establishment of public parks or public facilities purchased by right of eminent domain (which, by the way, can and has been) abused. In other circumstances I place many public v. private disputes in the category of narrow "I wants". In the case of the Granite Dells property, most of the "anti" arguments appear to fit into the last category.
Mr. Spatti, Why do we not have the courtesy to admit that all people who disagree with our point of view are not varlots, imbeciles, haters, and bigots? Try it sometime and you might be surprised at what can be learned.
Tom, "What in the world would prompt an adult man to play a "prank" like that...?" To get an answer see the definition of "weird" or "wierd". :)
Thank you and "right back at 'ya". :)
Tom, From the information that you provided, it seems that the SLE can do what it is chartered to do. Also , it seems that the two bodies that formed the SLE can by mutual agreement decide what the SLE should do. Should the SLE decide that it is independent and can do as it wishes it would appear that the bodies that formed could (in unison) alter, amend or cancel the duties of SLE. It only seems reasonable....
Tom, Sorry to say that I disagree. A person can not talk to a rock in good faith.Most of the Islamists want to annihilate and obliterate Israel. Period. One Palestinian leader recently asked if he could live Jews He said "yes". He was then asked if he could live with a Jewish state. He said, "No'.
Tom, Beautiful ! Thank you for sharing your joy.
Tom, You did understand me , and then went on to improve what I said, Well done!
It seems that our society has come to the point where many believe that each person is qualified to be the arbiter and judge of his/her own actions. The corollaries to that are that 1. Society has little or no right to establish and maintain moral codes. 2. Each/most person(s ) have the capacity to know what is best for the individual and for others. 3. Norms and folkways have no overriding value, because they are simply the product of those in power. To paraphrase: My body and mind are mine and I can do with them what I wish to do. The foolishness of that philosophy is clear to some of us and impossible for some of us to accept unless something changes our mind. Most of us "elders" have had events that changed our points of view on a good many things, but speaking to "youngers" often is like speaking to a rock.
Tom, I would want to know more about the circumstances before taking final action. However, I would charge the man with the crime in order to make certain that he was investigated and not running away.
My friend, who was raised in New Hampshire, told me about a town in which a local resident had no permanent residence. Each and every fall the old fellow threw a rock through a window of some local business in order to be sent to the nice, warm jail. Apparently the local police became very accommodating and expected the old man's "crime spree" each year. The old man, after all, was a part of the population :)
Last login: Tuesday, November 18, 2014