On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:04:05 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

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?

The President's oath of office?

wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:04:05 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

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?

The President's oath of office?



Shhhhhhhhhh. Don't let that get out...someone might remind President
Idiot of it.

The POTUS is legally and morally bound to obey the laws of this country.
He swears an oath to do so.

Dubya, obviously, doesn't believe these laws apply to his Administration.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:04:05 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

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?

The President's oath of office?



Shhhhhhhhhh. Don't let that get out...someone might remind President Idiot
of it.

The POTUS is legally and morally bound to obey the laws of this country.
He swears an oath to do so.

Dubya, obviously, doesn't believe these laws apply to his Administration.

Politicians.... if they're not corrupt when they go into office, many sure
slide the slippery slope under party influence.
A past prime minister of ours (celebrated Ronnie Reagan bum boy), is back in
the news again. I wish these guys could be nailed for what they do.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/moneytruthandspin/

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:


The POTUS is legally and morally bound to obey the laws of this country.

So are you and I and the ATC.

Stop your stupid spin machine. It's not working.

Eisboch