On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

That's not an answer - as a voter and as a citizen, you are obligated
to hold yourself to the same standard.

Now answer the question - what is the difference between your view
that breaking laws is morally acceptable as a functioning citizen of
the United States as opposed to the President, it would not be
acceptable.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.
Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

That's not an answer - as a voter and as a citizen, you are obligated
to hold yourself to the same standard.

Now answer the question - what is the difference between your view
that breaking laws is morally acceptable as a functioning citizen of
the United States as opposed to the President, it would not be
acceptable.


A. There's no oath operative in this state require a voter to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution, and therefore there is no
obligation to do same.

B. The POTUS swears an oath to obey the law, and not just the law he likes.


When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I
anticipated I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for
trying to end segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he
doesn't like, he knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court
will for the most part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?

"HK" wrote in message
...



When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I anticipated
I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for trying to end
segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he doesn't like, he
knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court will for the most
part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?


This whole discussion just became a waste of time.

Let's drop it.

Eisboch

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:41:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...



When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I anticipated
I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for trying to end
segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he doesn't like, he
knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court will for the most
part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?


This whole discussion just became a waste of time.

Let's drop it.

Not yet. I remember at the time not having much sympathy for PATCO,
because it was partly a stickup for money, and they could have played
it smarter with Ronnie, a known anti-union wacko.
At the time I had been laid off from my first IT job. 1982.
We had the highest unemployment since the Great Depression.
In 1983, after working some time as a helper for plumber, I went to
work running packaging machines, because the plumbing work was spotty
after I demurred from toking up with my boss.
I had formerly been a packaging machine mechanic. Started the new
operator job at 5.50 an hour, about what I had been making 15 years
prior. To the point. I daily ate lunch with a QC inspector making
the same as me - 5.50 - who had 10 years experience as an ATC before
Ronnie fired him. He had 3 kids and was about to lose his house.
He had stuck with his union leadership, as many did.
He still had some hope to get his ATC job back, but when I left to go
back into IT he was still there.
Ronnie never would let any of these guys be rehired, baldly showing a
mean streak and a disconnect from the "common man."
At the same time him and Nancy were attending ostentatiously lavish
balls.
Although I never hated Ronnie, I don't have much affection for him
either. Nowadays, I really miss Dick Nixon.

--Vic

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:57:14 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.
Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

That's not an answer - as a voter and as a citizen, you are obligated
to hold yourself to the same standard.

Now answer the question - what is the difference between your view
that breaking laws is morally acceptable as a functioning citizen of
the United States as opposed to the President, it would not be
acceptable.

A. There's no oath operative in this state require a voter to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution, and therefore there is no
obligation to do same.

Ok, I'll give you that one. Goes to show you how long ago I
registered to vote. :)

B. The POTUS swears an oath to obey the law, and not just the law he likes.

Um...you, as a citizen, have certain obligations to the state in which
you live. To wit: paying taxes, serving in the country's armed forces
when called upon, obeying the civil/criminal laws enacted by one's
government, demonstrating commitment and loyalty to the democratic
political community and state, constructively criticizing the
conditions of political and civic life, participating to improve the
quality of political and civic life, respecting the rights of others,
defending one's own rights and the rights of others against those who
would abuse them.

That's right out of a basic civil law textbook.

What you are stating is an oath of office.

This is the Oath of Citizenship.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a
subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution
and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by
law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of
the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work
of national importance under civilian direction when required by the
law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I'm sure you agree to that oath.

So, Ill ask the original question again - What is the difference
between your philosophy of morally compelled to break laws you
disagree with and, in theory, the President being morally compelled to
do the same?

When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I
anticipated I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for
trying to end segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he
doesn't like, he knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court
will for the most part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?

Non sequitur.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:57:14 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.
Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."
That's not an answer - as a voter and as a citizen, you are obligated
to hold yourself to the same standard.

Now answer the question - what is the difference between your view
that breaking laws is morally acceptable as a functioning citizen of
the United States as opposed to the President, it would not be
acceptable.
A. There's no oath operative in this state require a voter to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution, and therefore there is no
obligation to do same.

Ok, I'll give you that one. Goes to show you how long ago I
registered to vote. :)

B. The POTUS swears an oath to obey the law, and not just the law he likes.

Um...you, as a citizen, have certain obligations to the state in which
you live. To wit: paying taxes, serving in the country's armed forces
when called upon, obeying the civil/criminal laws enacted by one's
government, demonstrating commitment and loyalty to the democratic
political community and state, constructively criticizing the
conditions of political and civic life, participating to improve the
quality of political and civic life, respecting the rights of others,
defending one's own rights and the rights of others against those who
would abuse them.

That's right out of a basic civil law textbook.

What you are stating is an oath of office.

This is the Oath of Citizenship.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a
subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution
and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by
law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of
the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work
of national importance under civilian direction when required by the
law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I'm sure you agree to that oath.

So, Ill ask the original question again - What is the difference
between your philosophy of morally compelled to break laws you
disagree with and, in theory, the President being morally compelled to
do the same?

When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I
anticipated I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for
trying to end segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he
doesn't like, he knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court
will for the most part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?

Non sequitur.


A. Other than paying taxes on income and not breaking the law, there are
no other obligations of an ordinary citizen.

B. The oath of citizenship is not taken by native-borns.

C. The POTUS takes an oath. Whatever his moral compulsion, he cannot
legally take steps that interfere with his oath.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:45:19 -0500, HK wrote:


A. Other than paying taxes on income and not breaking the law, there are
no other obligations of an ordinary citizen.

Yes there are - the fact that you refuse to adhere to them is not
relevant.
B. The oath of citizenship is not taken by native-borns.

It is implied as a condition of citizenship. If it were not implied
for native borns, then it would not be required of non-citizens who
wish to become citizens.

Look up the case law.

C. The POTUS takes an oath. Whatever his moral compulsion, he cannot
legally take steps that interfere with his oath.

And you are the ultimate rationalizer. I have said before and I'll
say it again - you have a remarkable ability to rationalize anything
as long as it suits your individual view point.

In some ways, that is admirable.

I am finished here.