how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
754 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to TheWickerMan
Re: Benny said it all said by TheWickerMan:said by fAcEtIOUs: Read some history. Franklin Roosevelt ignored the Constitution thru almost his entire time in office. Bush is a piker in comparison. So what you're saying is that two wrongs make a right? To me, what it means is that maybe it's not always wrong to exceed the law when necessary, and that it's proven justified if the law is amended to accommodate for those pragmatic actions (instead of, say, impeaching the President and indicting co-conspirators).
I.e., maybe it's not automatically "two wrongs" but just the reality that society, government, etc. aren't perfect. And, that you are deriving the benefit of past expediencies while arguing for a degree of perfection that never existed, and perhaps is the reason we have the degree (always an imperfect degree) of freedom we have today.
It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, anachronistically interpreting history. Ascribing sainthood to the Founders. An absolute level of freedom and respect for freedoms to the founding period. But, it's never been that way. And, there's a strong possibility that we have our union today because of it.
It seems like a reason to be humble and respect the system (work to change it) rather than rant and rave in absolute terms about how it's not working, and using these ravings as justification to essentially operate outside the system (civil lawsuits as an expedient alternative).
Mark | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to TheWickerMan
said by TheWickerMan:said by amigo_boy: I assume you're equating campaign contributions to bribery? Almost everyone knows that they're one in the same. Campaign contributions are nothing more than legalized bribery. If it's "legal" it's not one in the same. Like I mentioned in an immediately prior post, this seems to be a common theme among self-styled freedom fighters. They wrap themselves in terms like "it's essential the law is followed," then conveniently select their adoration of the law (or the system of laws).
If anyone else exhibits similar selectivity (such as saying the system is imperfect, and this immunity deal isn't too bad) they're met with caustic charges of selling out liberties, etc.
Self-styled freedom fighters seem self-serving this way. They assume a level of past perfection which didn't exist, and which may have played an important role in the preservation of the liberties we have today. They claim to be the sole heirs to "respect for the law, and freedoms." But, when it comes to actually abiding by the system, and the existing laws, they're very selective -- while not tolerating similar selectivity among others.
Like I said. I'm glad they're participating in the process. It's better than 90% of the public who don't care.
Mark | |
| Maybe I'm thrown off by the fact that you used "that phrase" twice in the same post, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that if something's legal, that means it's right. Slavery was once legal. Doesn't mean it was right. | |
|
