Donald Trump joins birthers!

[therealUT]

Bump to therealUT. I am waiting for you to show how you can have a civilized and free society without rule of law.

This whole debate is about just that- Rule of Law. Do we abide by the laws that we have accepted through the process we've accepted or do we ignore the law when it suits us.

Remember therealUT, when you go this route it cuts both ways. If the letter of the law is not followed for this then you have no basis for complaining when something goes against you.

Without rule of law your are left with two options: totalitarianism and anarchy. The more rule of law is respected, the more just your society will be and the more likely it will protect the individual.

Respect for the "rule of law" is ridiculous. Respect for other persons and their property (as an extension of their life, since time equals money) should reign paramount, IMO. Aside from that, we are dealing with "delinquency" and persons who fall outside of the "acceptable norms of society".

I don't file legal complaints (and never will) about persons or events that do not cause direct harm to my person, my family, or our property.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

So who files and keeps up with baptism records, then? The church you were baptized in? What does the form even look like?

 

[rmsmith]

I thought it was a symbolic ritual? Why would recordkeeping even be necessary?

 

[NEO]

I love the fact that there are so many of us here who range widely in beliefs and all of us are like "Obama? Hell no. Not my guy. Bad option."

I just find it comical.

 

[NEO]

On a side note, my agencies hand out about 100 Certificates of Insurance to customers on a daily basis who want to make sure a business is insured before working with them.

It's amazing that a roofer would need to provide a COI before fixing a 10K roof but somehow this BC is still not been provided.

I'm just saying.

 

[IPorange]

I love the fact that there are so many of us here who range widely in beliefs and all of us are like "Obama? Hell no. Not my guy. Bad option."

I just find it comical.

It's easy to hate on the guy in front of you. I'm sure there a lot of people we'd all hate to see in charge, and few if any we'd all agree on.

 

[droski]

So who files and keeps up with baptism records, then? The church you were baptized in? What does the form even look like?

your church should keep those records. church records at one time were teh only birth records available.

 

[NEO]

It's easy to hate on the guy in front of you. I'm sure there a lot of people we'd all hate to see in charge, and few if any we'd all agree on.

I never hated Clinton.

I found it odd how everyone around him was dropping like flies but I never hated him. I actually thought he was a pretty good president and served from the center.

The fact is you have good ideas. You have bad ideas.

I have good ideas. I have bad ideas too. Just less bad ideas.

But if you and I actually sit down and try to work something out alot of times we will come up with a better idea.

He was willing to do that.

 

[sjt18]

Respect for the "rule of law" is ridiculous. Respect for other persons and their property (as an extension of their life, since time equals money) should reign paramount, IMO. Aside from that, we are dealing with "delinquency" and persons who fall outside of the "acceptable norms of society".

Without a law declaring property rights representing a contract between people governed by that law... you have no guarantee of property rights. On what basis do you declare respect for other persons and their property "paramount"? What if someone decides they don't think it is paramount? You have no recourse. There is no law that says they must respect property... so why should they?

"Delinquency"? "Persons who fall outside the acceptable norms of society"? Those terms are so ambiguous and fluid that the mean nothing and certainly do not guarantee justice.

I think you have advocated for homosexual marriage. That falls outside of "acceptable social norms". Why do you so readily contradict yourself? Many of us consider homosexuals "delinquent"... If you truly do not believe they are protected by rule of law then mistreatment of them is fine, correct? Denial of rights is OK, right?

I don't file legal complaints (and never will) about persons or events that do not cause direct harm to my person, my family, or our property.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Without rule of law you have no basis for a legal complaint. When the "authority" says harm to you is OK... it is OK... unless we are governed by law and not men.

 

[sjt18]

therealUT, in a nutshell, rule of law simply means that we recognize that all men are fallible and corruptible. Knowing that, we consent to a set of written, concrete rules that assure that justice, rights, freedom, etc are respected in a "blind" fashion.

Rule of law guarantees your rights by guaranteeing the rights of others who might exercise them differently or even in a way that you disagree with. The 1st Amendment guarantees the street preacher the right to speak in the public square and NAMBLA's right to protest.

This is rule of law. If we forsake it then we are destined for anarchy or totalitarianism.

 

[sjt18]

So who files and keeps up with baptism records, then? The church you were baptized in? What does the form even look like?

I got a little certificate. It was recorded in the church minutes.

I think the RCC and others have something more formal than that.

 

[therealUT]

Without a law declaring property rights representing a contract between people governed by that law... you have no guarantee of property rights. On what basis do you declare respect for other persons and their property "paramount"? What if someone decides they don't think it is paramount? You have no recourse. There is no law that says they must respect property... so why should they?

"Delinquency"? "Persons who fall outside the acceptable norms of society"? Those terms are so ambiguous and fluid that the mean nothing and certainly do not guarantee justice.

I think you have advocated for homosexual marriage. That falls outside of "acceptable social norms". Why do you so readily contradict yourself? Many of us consider homosexuals "delinquent"... If you truly do not believe they are protected by rule of law then mistreatment of them is fine, correct? Denial of rights is OK, right?



Without rule of law you have no basis for a legal complaint. When the "authority" says harm to you is OK... it is OK... unless we are governed by law and not men.

I don't find "delinquency" and "persons who live outside of social norms" to be criminal, offensive, or threatening. I said that aside from direct harm against persons and property, that is all that the "rule of law" deals with.

Crimes, philosphically, consist of the perpetrators and victims. The notion of "the rule of law" abolishes the latter by trying to state that there is a general victim of untoward acts that it defines as "society".

You still have yet to respond to my question concerning Jesus, who consistently ignored "the rule of law".

For my part, I will continue to make my decisions based upon Kantian morality and not legislation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

therealUT, in a nutshell, rule of law simply means that we recognize that all men are fallible and corruptible. Knowing that, we consent to a set of written, concrete rules that assure that justice, rights, freedom, etc are respected in a "blind" fashion.

You are right. I tend to believe that the majority of humanity has good intentions and I refuse to follow anything blindly.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

The lack of transparency is just one of many
issues, one of the most disturbing aspects
though of this never-ending charade is the
disdain and utter contempt that Mr. Soetoro
has, not just for his political adversaries but f
or America and the American people.
-------------------------------

There is no shame in questioning Mr. Soetoro's
background, loyalty or nationality, nor is there
any shame in demanding that he produce his
birth certificate.

 

[gsvol]

How do the birthers explain the newspapers? Time travel?

Easy enough, that is an electronic record.

Electronic records can be tampered with.

Besides, anyone could have phoned in the
announcement and the paper would have
printed it.

Obama's 'birth hospital' hides White House letter

Obama's alleged birth hospital has locked in a
storage vault a letter President Obama purportedly
wrote to the hospital on Jan. 24, 2009, declaring it
his birthplace.

For the past month, Hawaii State Senator Sam
Slom, the only Republican in the Hawaiian State
Senate, has been trying to get answers from
Kapi'olani Medical Center executives as to why
the hospital has chosen to put under lock and
key a letter from the White House that the
hospital should have been proud to receive
and display publicly.

A supposed pic of the letter appears in the link.

Was this letter dated the day after Barry took office??

Do you find that strange at all?

 

[sjt18]

I don't find "delinquency" and "persons who live outside of social norms" to be criminal, offensive, or threatening. I said that aside from direct harm against persons and property, that is all that the "rule of law" deals with.

I tend to agree with that though I would definitely expand "harm against persons" to the protections specifically spelled out in the USC. Rule of law is vital for freedom.

Am I to suppose from what you said here that you oppose imposition of your values on a business owner, state population, or other private interest?

If you think rule of law applies then why did you say it was ridiculous and a relic of the 1700's?

Rule of law as it applies to Constitutional qualifications for office is important. I would agree to changing the law... but you can't just disregard it.

Crimes, philosphically, consist of the perpetrators and victims.

No. Crimes OBJECTIVELY consist of rules that have been agreed to or imposed that have been violated. In their just form, the protect people both directly by outlawing those who commit crimes against people and indirectly by creating a well ordered society that prevents more subtle and indirect forms of abuse.

The notion of "the rule of law" abolishes the latter by trying to state that there is a general victim of untoward acts that it defines as "society".

Your premise was categorically incorrect therefore your conclusion is too.

You still have yet to respond to my question concerning Jesus, who consistently ignored "the rule of law".

Sorry. I didn't notice the question. Not sure how I missed it but I did.

You probably need to read the gospels again and maybe a good commentary along side. Jesus NEVER ignored rule of law. Just the exact opposite. He condemned "rule of men". He CONSTANTLY clarified the "Law" by discarding man made "traditions".

For my part, I will continue to make my decisions based upon Kantian morality and not legislation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I think that's foolish but would die to defend your right to do so... but it is in fact Rule of Law that enables you to make such a statement. However our "contract" under the USC is that you respect my right to disagree AND to act accordingly.

 

[sjt18]

You are right. I tend to believe that the majority of humanity has good intentions and I refuse to follow anything blindly.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You do realize your statement is an oxymoron, right? You premise your worldview on a statement that cannot be proven and has a mass weight of evidence against it then declare you refuse to follow anything blindly.

All of humanity has a choice. The natural instinct is to act in self interest. Many cultures, philosophies, and religions feed that urge rather than suppress it.

I am not sure you can say most have "good intentions" since self interest may or may not be benign or even good for others. I am sure that the vast majority of humanity will do what they think is best for themselves or at a minimum will not do things that are genuinely self sacrificial.

 

[therealUT]

You do realize your statement is an oxymoron, right? You premise your worldview on a statement that cannot be proven and has a mass weight of evidence against it then declare you refuse to follow anything blindly.

All of humanity has a choice. The natural instinct is to act in self interest. Many cultures, philosophies, and religions feed that urge rather than suppress it.

I am not sure you can say most have "good intentions" since self interest may or may not be benign or even good for others. I am sure that the vast majority of humanity will do what they think is best for themselves or at a minimum will not do things that are genuinely self sacrificial.

I cannot express how much I disagree with such a ludicrous statement. Evidence throughout all epochs of history proves that the vast majority of the human population does not steal from others, assault others, and/or murder others.

I have no problem with the indirect results of a person who is looking out for their best interests. I would still view their acts as done with good intent.

 

[therealUT]

Am I to suppose from what you said here that you oppose imposition of your values on a business owner, state population, or other private interest?

Correct.

If you think rule of law applies then why did you say it was ridiculous and a relic of the 1700's?

When did I say that the rule of law should apply there? I can choose based on morality and ethics, not rule of law. I never said that everyone should be kept from imposing their values.

Rule of law as it applies to Constitutional qualifications for office is important. I would agree to changing the law... but you can't just disregard it.

If you disagree with the law, why not? Jurors used to be instructed to both weigh the evidence and decide whether or not the act is criminal. Now, they are just told to weigh the evidence. I guarantee that a randomly selected group of twelve Americans would fail to convict Obama of any wrongdoing.

No. Crimes OBJECTIVELY consist of rules that have been agreed to or imposed that have been violated.

Agreed to by the powers that be. I do appreciate your use of the word "imposed", though.

...indirectly by creating a well ordered society that prevents more subtle and indirect forms of abuse.

So, we are talking about "pre-crime" now. Would you like to be judged guilty because you might be 15% more likely to commit an actual crime? How about 50% more likely? 75%? 99%?

Jesus NEVER ignored rule of law. Just the exact opposite. He condemned "rule of men". He CONSTANTLY clarified the "Law" by discarding man made "traditions".

In this case, I will also decide to ignore the "rule of men" and choose to be guided by my own "higher insights".

The Hebrew Laws were broken repeatedly by Jesus; he found himself and his followers to be above that law: therefore, he disregarded the rule of law as it applied to him and his followers. It is pretty cut and dry.

I think that's foolish but would die to defend your right to do so... but it is in fact Rule of Law that enables you to make such a statement. However our "contract" under the USC is that you respect my right to disagree AND to act accordingly.

This is absurd. The Rule of Law in no way enables me to make such statements. It may allow me to make such statements and keep my life; but it would not keep me from making the statements.

 

[IPorange]

I cannot express how much I disagree with such a ludicrous statement. Evidence throughout all epochs of history proves that the vast majority of the human population does not steal from others, assault others, and/or murder others.

I have no problem with the indirect results of a person who is looking out for their best interests. I would still view their acts as done with good intent.

I have to agree. The reality is humans are social creatures that generally work as a cooperative for the greater good of the group.

And generally, individuals (I stress the word) do the right thing.

 

[sjt18]

Agreed to by the powers that be. I do appreciate your use of the word "imposed", though.
.

Monarchs don't ask.... neither do liberals much of the time. They just shop judges til they get a ruling.

 

[sjt18]

This is absurd. The Rule of Law in no way enables me to make such statements. It may allow me to make such statements and keep my life; but it would not keep me from making the statements.

You are this determined to be disagreeable just for the sake of being disagreeable?

 

[sjt18]

So, we are talking about "pre-crime" now. Would you like to be judged guilty because you might be 15% more likely to commit an actual crime? How about 50% more likely? 75%? 99%?

No. But I would like for qualifications to remain in place so that problems are avoided. We aren't even talking about "guilt".

Are you really trying to argue that there should be no pre-qualifiers for a job and that people should be hired/elected blindly then fired/impeached if guilt is discovered later?

In this case, I will also decide to ignore the "rule of men" and choose to be guided by my own "higher insights".

Fine... so long as your "higher insights" do not directly or indirectly do harm to my rights, correct?

The Hebrew Laws were broken repeatedly by Jesus; he found himself and his followers to be above that law: therefore, he disregarded the rule of law as it applied to him and his followers. It is pretty cut and dry.

Where, specifically, do you find that Jesus broke the Mosaic Law? He rejected the interpretations and traditions of the Jews that had been layered on top of the Law. He did NOT violate the Law of Moses.

 

[sjt18]

I cannot express how much I disagree with such a ludicrous statement. Evidence throughout all epochs of history proves that the vast majority of the human population does not steal from others, assault others, and/or murder others.

Over 100 million silent voices from the 20th century alone say you are wrong. The history of human civilization is replete with examples of people banding together to take from others. Far from being the utopia many envision, the Americas prior to white settlement were not peaceful. The various tribes fought often. Some tribes were nothing more than raiders that waited for others to produce so they could take it.

What do we see all over Africa now? We see tribal violence.

I met a young man from Kenya the other day. He was concerned because tribal violence is threatening to break out into civil war.

History demonstrates clearly that man is frequently willing to do harm to others for selfish interests.

All this does not mean that the "vast majority of the human population" is constantly engaged in criminal behavior toward others. That isn't what I said but rather a straw man you constructed. I simply said that people act in what they perceive as their own best interest by natural impulse. It is contrary to the nature of people to act against their interests or self-sacrificially. I NEVER said nor insenuated that the "vast majority" commit criminal acts against each other.

However the failure of various socialist and communist models demonstrates decisively that people will not "do good" en masse just because they are social creatures.

I have no problem with the indirect results of a person who is looking out for their best interests. I would still view their acts as done with good intent.

So a manufacturer who pollutes the stream that runs through your town in the process of producing a lower cost product is OK? The religious person who is offended by X-rated stores gets an ordinance passed to close the business that should be OK too?

There are examples large and small to demonstrate that you cannot possibly be consistent on this.

 

[IPorange]

Over 100 million silent voices from the 20th century alone say you are wrong.

Billions of silent and speaking voices say you are wrong.