On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:39:18 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

confabulation

Ok, I'll admit it - I had to look that one up.

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.

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

Now while I have a very successful career, and have many professional and
personal achievements I am proud about, I don't think it is necessary to
discuss them in a recreational forum.


Since 99% of the posters here are anti-labor, it is unlikely they're going
to be impressed with my labor union history.


Out voted again. :-)

Eisboch

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

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf
of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United
States and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I
were offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan
Administration and then offered the same jobs again in 1984.
Independently, we both said no both times.
Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your principal
independently said no, both times. That and the "largest labor
contract ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to
You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major postal unions
bargained together in committee fashion. The committees were very small
at the main sessions, where I participated, but the craft session
committees were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.


I think your just ****ed off because you've come to realize that your
girl, Hillary, is going to get her ass kicked.

Eisboch
She's not my first choice and never has been. Neither is Obama.

Don't tell me you are a Kucinich backer!




You know what? I really like Dennis. Not as a potential president, of
course, but as a really interesting, funny guy. And I think he has a
dish as a wife. I like Dennis' good-humored zaniness.

None of the Dems I would like to get the nomination have a chance. I
prefer Biden, Richardson or Dodd.

If Hillary is nominated, she will wipe the floor with any of the
Republican hopefuls. None of them has the set of balls she has, and all
of them have more fatal flaws than she. But I have no clue as to whether
she will be the nominee.

Rudy - corruption, and really strange family life.

Romney - the model on which all flip-floppers are based.

Thompson - dead and ready for burial.

Huckabee - the candidate from Jesus.

Paul - still crazy after all these years.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:39:18 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

confabulation

Ok, I'll admit it - I had to look that one up.

That is the WOD.

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."

I vaguely remember a recent incident revolving around a sex act.
No way I could count the times I heard his opponents say:
"The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the land."
Just a vague memory.

--Vic

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:15 -0500, HK wrote:

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s

No kidding?

You must know my good friend Mike Tobias then.


No bells are ringing here.

Vic Smith 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."

I vaguely remember a recent incident revolving around a sex act.
No way I could count the times I heard his opponents say:
"The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the land."
Just a vague memory.

--Vic


Indeed. A sex act. With a woman of legal age. Quite a bit different than
lying us into a war with Iraq. or trying to lie us into a war with Iran,
or any of the other horrific acts perpetrated by the Bush Administration.

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

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on
behalf of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in
the United States and as a result of success in that area, my
principal and I were offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the
incoming Reagan Administration and then offered the same jobs again
in 1984. Independently, we both said no both times.
Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your
principal independently said no, both times. That and the "largest
labor contract ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to
You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many
years, and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee
twice, during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s
and early 1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major
postal unions bargained together in committee fashion. The committees
were very small at the main sessions, where I participated, but the
craft session committees were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.

I think your just ****ed off because you've come to realize that your
girl, Hillary, is going to get her ass kicked.

Eisboch
She's not my first choice and never has been. Neither is Obama.
Don't tell me you are a Kucinich backer!

You know what? I really like Dennis. Not as a potential president, of
course, but as a really interesting, funny guy. And I think he has a dish
as a wife. I like Dennis' good-humored zaniness.

He is an idiot. No doubt about it.


None of the Dems I would like to get the nomination have a chance. I
prefer Biden, Richardson or Dodd.

If Hillary is nominated, she will wipe the floor with any of the
Republican hopefuls. None of them has the set of balls she has, and all of
them have more fatal flaws than she. But I have no clue as to whether she
will be the nominee.

A perfect Christmas gift for you:

http://www.prankplace.com/hillary_nu...FRuhFQod9Hac7w




I ordered one of those for my wife: she's a Hillary fan.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:56:24 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:15 -0500, HK wrote:

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s

No kidding?

You must know my good friend Mike Tobias then.

No bells are ringing here.

Hmmm - that's odd.

Oh well...