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."

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 in message
news
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?

Donkey ears is conditioned by his handlers to speak the party line. You are
asking too much of him Tom.

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?

Jim wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
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?

Donkey ears is conditioned by his handlers to speak the party line. You
are asking too much of him Tom.


Ahh, Jim the Idiot is still with us.

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
. ..
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".

Eisboch


This nation runs on greed, not law.

Sounds like Patco.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..




This nation runs on greed, not law.

I see. I also see that it's worthless to continue this discussion.
I have to go outside and de-ice the driveway anyway.

Eisboch


Ice on the driveway? How can you live like that? ;) Cold here last
night. Was 45 when driving home from mom's at 10 pm.