ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
We obviously agree to disagree but I just want my statement to be reflected accurately: I am not saying that any questions anyone asks equate to taking sides. I'm just saying that when someone asks a line of questions which are accusatory in nature, with those accusations directed at one side of the debate and not the other, then it is clear which side the questioner is on.
IMHO, it's insulting to pose an accusatory line of questions towards only one of the parties involved, then step back and say "hey I'm not taking sides." To suggest the following post is just an impartial take on the situation, and not taking sides, is patently absurd:
To pull the above ***** then say "hey I'm just asking questions, not taking sides!" is an insult to the intelligence of the members of this forum.
Equally disturbing is the slanted nature of the article. That may be what raises questions that weren't even considered in the article. It happens both ways from many media sources, and the observers who come from the opposite bias tend to ask those questions that the media ignores. We see it all the time here when the NYT writes a Pro-Obama piece and the right-slanted members jump all over it. It happened just a couple of days ago here with the Obama/ Germans/Euro economy story.
You shouldn't be so insulted. Now I can insult you if you want, but I'd rather not yet.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Equally disturbing is the slanted nature of the article. That may be what raises questions that weren't even considered in the article. It happens both ways from many media sources, and the observers who come from the opposite bias tend to ask those questions that the media ignores. We see it all the time here when the NYT writes a Pro-Obama piece and the right-slanted members jump all over it. It happened just a couple of days ago here with the Obama/ Germans/Euro economy story.
I'm not sure I agree that this article is all that slanted, unless one thinks that the simple act of reporting on this incident (where we all know that vast majority of people are going to support the guardsman over the landlady) is slanted. It seems to me to be a basic "someone's suing somebody, here's a quote from the plaintiff, here's a couple quotes from the defendant (but that's the only quote she gave us)."
Quote:
Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan
You shouldn't be so insulted. Now I can insult you if you want, but I'd rather not yet.
In Mass, you are allowed to be more selectivve about who you rent to if you live in the building and there is less than 4 units (I think that's the number). That rule is in place for this very situation and was designed to make 3-decker living more attreactive for owner-occupied landlords. At least that's how a housing court judge explained it to me. That same veteran could just as easily own a three-decker, live on the first floor and discriminate on a number of areas that another off-site landlord might not have.
you are absolutely correct....owner occupied doesn't need a reason to reject someone.....
__________________ “ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.
Taught him the ways of peace? I think I know what you're saying but she needs to also understand that we need a military.
I was being kinda sarcastic, but it seemed like that would have been her move considering her philosophy.
Not everyone needs to understand that we need a military. You can be against war and want a defensive military. Almost all countries keep their military for defense only. We don't.
She just needs to respect everyone even if they eat meat, own a gun or like the Jets...well...eat meat or own a gun anyways.
Fair play to the landlady for being open and honest. She didn't refuse him the place, she just told him that they may have a 'conflict of interests' because of her beliefs. She probably could have bitten her tongue, but if you feel strongly about something then you should air your opinion.
He'd have done better to put in an application and then complain after that voice mail if he didn't get it. Legally, it doesn't look like he has much leg to stand on if he didn't even apply. The landlady has every right to express her views and concern to a prospective tenant. Not everyone has to buy into the 'what America is doing overseas is great and every person who goes over there deserves our undying love'.
I've got massive respect to our own and other forces over there regardless of the fact I disagree with our involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan but if someone feels so strongly against it like she does I can't see why she shouldn't express that.
I love the use of the word 'discrimination' on here. FOR SHAME, she's clearly discriminating against a man because he's a member of the military...thats sounds legit
Massive respect for the dude for serving his country but I don't get why he's suing. It's a sad sue culture here int he UK but from stories I hear it's ten times worse in the U.S.
She has an opinion...one which isn't a very wide spread one...but a legit and understandable opinion on war and the armed forces and what America is doing. She has every right to say 'we may ahve a conflict of interests, maybe you should consider elsewhere'. She sent him the application form, so by not even applying and not testing her resolve on the matter, he's got no leg to stand on.
This wasn't discrimination at all...and those who would use bigot, I'd look at the way you post on here with YOUR own dogmatic nature and beliefs, then look at yourselves in the mirror Some of you are bigots in your very own sense.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
he is suing because there's an opportunity for him.....as well as some lawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by UK_Pat37
I love the use of the word 'discrimination' on here. FOR SHAME, she's clearly discriminating against a man because he's a member of the military...thats sounds legit
Massive respect for the dude for serving his country but I don't get why he's suing. It's a sad sue culture here int he UK but from stories I hear it's ten times worse in the U.S.
She has an opinion...one which isn't a very wide spread one...but a legit and understandable opinion on war and the armed forces and what America is doing. She has every right to say 'we may ahve a conflict of interests, maybe you should consider elsewhere'. She sent him the application form, so by not even applying and not testing her resolve on the matter, he's got no leg to stand on.
This wasn't discrimination at all...and those who would use bigot, I'd look at the way you post on here with YOUR own dogmatic nature and beliefs, then look at yourselves in the mirror Some of you are bigots in your very own sense.
__________________ “ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.
25Likes
Re: Disgusting Story Of Bigotry
Some of you are bigots in your very own sense.
Linear Mode
