A nation of laws or men?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I want my family's slaves back
Why don't you just head over to Indianapolis and pick out a half-dozen young bucks and tell 'em you're their new master; they should climb into the back of your truck.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Had Richardson believed that his position was independent of the Presidency, or that he had a legal leg to stand on, he would have refused the order and stayed in office, forcing Nixon to fire him. That would have showed him to have the courage of his convictions. By resigning, he implictly recognized the legality of Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor.
Nonsense. He did no such thing. He could have played it tougher, but resignation is a standard form of protest against illegality.
Oakman wrote:
Others did take the same course. Ruckelshaus imitated his ex-boss to a "T."
And Bork too the opposite course.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
but resignation is a standard form of protest against illegality.
Really? I did not know that. Is it written down somewhere? But did anyone tell all the governmental and corporate whistle-blowers who fought to keep or regain their jobs?
John Carson wrote:
And Bork too the opposite course
Which took great courage.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
kmg365 wrote:
Out in front of the 7-11 early in the morning?
Oh yeah. With a bullwhip and a straw hat, wearing a jacket with the Stars and Bars on the back.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
but resignation is a standard form of protest against illegality.
Really? I did not know that. Is it written down somewhere? But did anyone tell all the governmental and corporate whistle-blowers who fought to keep or regain their jobs?
John Carson wrote:
And Bork too the opposite course
Which took great courage.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Really? I did not know that.
More insincerity.
Oakman wrote:
But did anyone tell all the governmental and corporate whistle-blowers who fought to keep or regain their jobs?
"a standard form of protest" is not synonymous with "the mandatory form of protest".
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
Really? I did not know that.
More insincerity.
Oakman wrote:
But did anyone tell all the governmental and corporate whistle-blowers who fought to keep or regain their jobs?
"a standard form of protest" is not synonymous with "the mandatory form of protest".
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
More insincerity.
Nope, irony. Sometimes I can't help myself.
John Carson wrote:
a standard form of protest" is not synonymous with "the mandatory form of protest".
But aren't you concerned that the majority of whistleblowers aren't living up to your standards?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
kmg365 wrote:
Out in front of the 7-11 early in the morning?
Oh yeah. With a bullwhip and a straw hat, wearing a jacket with the Stars and Bars on the back.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
More insincerity.
Nope, irony. Sometimes I can't help myself.
John Carson wrote:
a standard form of protest" is not synonymous with "the mandatory form of protest".
But aren't you concerned that the majority of whistleblowers aren't living up to your standards?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
But aren't you concerned that the majority of whistleblowers aren't living up to your standards?
Neither is "a standard form of protest" synonymous with "the best form of protest".
John Carson
-
-
kmg365 wrote:
Out in front of the 7-11 early in the morning?
Oh yeah. With a bullwhip and a straw hat, wearing a jacket with the Stars and Bars on the back.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
The laws the law, dude. Thats all that matters. I learned that from you,oily, and Carson.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The laws the law, dude. Thats all that matters. I learned that from you,oily, and Carson.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I learned that from you
You have learned little if anything in all the time I have been reading your posts, not even how to spell. It would appear to me that you have a commitment to ignoring any truth, no matter how well proved, if it would suggest that your paranoid view of society would be brought into question.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I learned that from you
You have learned little if anything in all the time I have been reading your posts, not even how to spell. It would appear to me that you have a commitment to ignoring any truth, no matter how well proved, if it would suggest that your paranoid view of society would be brought into question.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
You have learned little if anything in all the time I have been reading your posts, not even how to spell. It would appear to me that you have a commitment to ignoring any truth, no matter how well proved, if it would suggest that your paranoid view of society would be brought into question.
Just like oily said, Jon. Every point I just made was absolutely valid. You simply have no intellectual response so you come back spewing something about my paranoia. I'm pretty sure the mensa folks would be greatly disappointed in their star member. If we maintained a greater commitment to the law than to men, my family would probably still own slaves. It was a perfectly legal, constitutionally sanctioned institution. Lincoln did the things necessary to change that. I support his leadership in doing what was necessary to resolve that, just as I support Bush's leadership to deal with terrorism. We live in an imperfect world which simply does not suffer absolutes.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You have learned little if anything in all the time I have been reading your posts, not even how to spell. It would appear to me that you have a commitment to ignoring any truth, no matter how well proved, if it would suggest that your paranoid view of society would be brought into question.
Just like oily said, Jon. Every point I just made was absolutely valid. You simply have no intellectual response so you come back spewing something about my paranoia. I'm pretty sure the mensa folks would be greatly disappointed in their star member. If we maintained a greater commitment to the law than to men, my family would probably still own slaves. It was a perfectly legal, constitutionally sanctioned institution. Lincoln did the things necessary to change that. I support his leadership in doing what was necessary to resolve that, just as I support Bush's leadership to deal with terrorism. We live in an imperfect world which simply does not suffer absolutes.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every point I just made was absolutely valid.
When you said, "The laws the law, dude. That's all that matters." you were making a point? I thought you were just trying to be snide. Are you whining because I handed back as good as I got?
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was a perfectly legal, constitutionally sanctioned institution. Lincoln did the things necessary to change that.
Somehow you seem to think that the civil war was fought to end slavery. It wasn't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I support his leadership in doing what was necessary to resolve that
He never even began to end slavery in the United States. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation covered only the slaves of a country that did not recognize him and specifically recognized and supported the continuance of slavery in the country he governed. For someone who claims to have studied the Civil War you show no understanding of the forces involved or the action taken during it. Your ignorance of what happened is astounding.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We live in an imperfect world which simply does not suffer absolutes
No shit.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every point I just made was absolutely valid.
When you said, "The laws the law, dude. That's all that matters." you were making a point? I thought you were just trying to be snide. Are you whining because I handed back as good as I got?
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was a perfectly legal, constitutionally sanctioned institution. Lincoln did the things necessary to change that.
Somehow you seem to think that the civil war was fought to end slavery. It wasn't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I support his leadership in doing what was necessary to resolve that
He never even began to end slavery in the United States. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation covered only the slaves of a country that did not recognize him and specifically recognized and supported the continuance of slavery in the country he governed. For someone who claims to have studied the Civil War you show no understanding of the forces involved or the action taken during it. Your ignorance of what happened is astounding.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We live in an imperfect world which simply does not suffer absolutes
No shit.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
When you said, "The laws the law, dude. That's all that matters." you were making a point? I thought you were just trying to be snide. Are you whining because I handed back as good as I got?
The law's the law. If Carson is right about Bush he is right about Lincoln and I want my slaves back. Is consistency too much to ask for?
Oakman wrote:
Somehow you seem to think that the civil war was fought to end slavery. It wasn't.
Oakman wrote:
He never even began to end slavery in the United States. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation covered only the slaves of a country that did not recognize him and specifically recognized and supported the continuance of slavery in the country he governed. For someone who claims to have studied the Civil War you show no understanding of the forces involved or the action taken during it. Your ignorance of what happened is astounding.
Slavery leads to secession, secession leads to war, war leads to defeat of the south (thanks in large part to Lincoln's anti-constitutional terror regime), defeat of the south leads to 13th amendment. I'm actually pretty damned sure that is a perfectly valid interpretation of history generally accepted by most Americans for well over a century now.
Oakman wrote:
No sh*t.
Yeah, no shit, thats why libertarianism does not work.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
When you said, "The laws the law, dude. That's all that matters." you were making a point? I thought you were just trying to be snide. Are you whining because I handed back as good as I got?
The law's the law. If Carson is right about Bush he is right about Lincoln and I want my slaves back. Is consistency too much to ask for?
Oakman wrote:
Somehow you seem to think that the civil war was fought to end slavery. It wasn't.
Oakman wrote:
He never even began to end slavery in the United States. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation covered only the slaves of a country that did not recognize him and specifically recognized and supported the continuance of slavery in the country he governed. For someone who claims to have studied the Civil War you show no understanding of the forces involved or the action taken during it. Your ignorance of what happened is astounding.
Slavery leads to secession, secession leads to war, war leads to defeat of the south (thanks in large part to Lincoln's anti-constitutional terror regime), defeat of the south leads to 13th amendment. I'm actually pretty damned sure that is a perfectly valid interpretation of history generally accepted by most Americans for well over a century now.
Oakman wrote:
No sh*t.
Yeah, no shit, thats why libertarianism does not work.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Is consistency too much to ask for?
Utter idiocy. Your family - if they ever owned slaves, and somehow I doubt they ever had that kind of money - lost them because they were citizens of a state that had declared its independence of the U.S. and was then occupied by it. The fact that the state was later readmitted into the union does not give you a leg to stand on. The US is no more required to restore good taken from your familay when they were engaged in the criminal act of rebeliion that it is required to pay recompense to Saddam Husseins surviving family for the places it took away from him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm actually pretty damned sure that is a perfectly valid interpretation of history generally accepted by most Americans for well over a century now.
Is that the best you can do? "That's what they teach in the fourth grade?" Thus endeth your claim to know shit about the Civil War.
Stan Shannon wrote:
thats why libertarianism does not work
At least it exists which is more than can be said for your fantasies of going back to an agrarian economy where your family can own slaves again.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every point I just made was absolutely valid.
When you said, "The laws the law, dude. That's all that matters." you were making a point? I thought you were just trying to be snide. Are you whining because I handed back as good as I got?
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was a perfectly legal, constitutionally sanctioned institution. Lincoln did the things necessary to change that.
Somehow you seem to think that the civil war was fought to end slavery. It wasn't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I support his leadership in doing what was necessary to resolve that
He never even began to end slavery in the United States. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation covered only the slaves of a country that did not recognize him and specifically recognized and supported the continuance of slavery in the country he governed. For someone who claims to have studied the Civil War you show no understanding of the forces involved or the action taken during it. Your ignorance of what happened is astounding.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We live in an imperfect world which simply does not suffer absolutes
No shit.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Your ignorance of what happened is astounding.
The volume with which you pump out attacks such as this puts you on par with illion. I'll be personally astounded if you don't respond to this criticism with more insults. But I'm not holding my breath.
This statement is false
-
Oakman wrote:
Your ignorance of what happened is astounding.
The volume with which you pump out attacks such as this puts you on par with illion. I'll be personally astounded if you don't respond to this criticism with more insults. But I'm not holding my breath.
This statement is false