Donald Trump joins birthers!

[sjt18]

Billions of silent and speaking voices say you are wrong.

That people do not act in their own self interest? I don't think so.

 

[IPorange]

That people do not act in their own self interest? I don't think so.

People do things for the general good all the time.

 

[BeecherVol]

Does intent matter? Or is that not the point.

 

[IPorange]

Does intent matter? Or is that not the point.

He is saying most humans that follow "the rules" and laws do so out of self-interest, and that given the chance will break them every time. I find that preposterous.

 

[BeecherVol]

He is saying most humans that follow "the rules" and laws do so out of self-interest, and that given the chance will break them every time. I find that preposterous.

So you think most people follow the law simply because its the right thing to do.

 

[sjt18]

People do things for the general good all the time.

People do many, many, many more things for their own general good. We're impressed when a millionaire's wife works in a food pantry for a few hours a week. The other 90%+ of her life is spent meeting her own desires and needs.

Again, I never said that people never do good things or even self-sacrificial things. I said they do not generally sacrifice their own good as a matter of life for the sake of others. Very, very few people behave that way.

 

[IPorange]

So you think most people follow the law simply because its the right thing to do.

Yes.

 

[sjt18]

He is saying most humans that follow "the rules" and laws do so out of self-interest, and that given the chance will break them every time. I find that preposterous.

That isn't even close to what I said... and your mangling of what I said IS VERY PREPOSTEROUS.

Here is what I said in a nutshell. Rule of law is necessary because people are fallible and act generally in their own self interest.

Do you believe in "rule of law" when it comes to football? Or maybe you believe the officials should make calls to achieve an outcome they like or think is "just"? The application is different but the rationale is the same.

The rule of law is the best method for assuring that people are treated fairly. You cannot have a free and civil society without it.

BTW, I said before that I would support changing the article that ostensibly could make Obama unqualified. If I understand it correctly, I don't even agree with the original justifiation for it.

 

[BeecherVol]

Yes.

Why do we argue about laws so much? Which ones should be, which ones shouldn't. You would think if rules and laws are establish for the greater good and most are seeking the greater good everyone would agree.

 

[sjt18]

Yes.

Most people do not even think about it until obedience to the law conflicts with their perceived self interest.

 

[IPorange]

Why do we argue about laws so much? Which ones should be, which ones shouldn't. You would think if rules and laws are establish for the greater good and most are seeking the greater good everyone would agree.

I never said just "laws," you did. I think most people tend to act for the greater good. That's what I said. Sure, people have different ideas of what that is. That is very different from whatever it is sjt is claiming he said, or what he said.

 

[IPorange]

Most people do not even think about it until obedience to the law conflicts with their perceived self interest.

How do you explain the wild success of traffic lights?

 

[BeecherVol]

I never said just "laws," you did. I think most people tend to act for the greater good. That's what I said. Sure, people have different ideas of what that is. That is very different from whatever it is sjt is claiming he said, or what he said.

Agree to disagree.

 

[gsvol]

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

He is suffering from postmodernitis, there must be no discussion of anything unless it centers around postmodern propaganda.

Does intent matter? Or is that not the point.

If the intent is to lead everyone down the garden path to the Eden of cultural relativism, obfuscation may be the point.

Back to the topic:

FAC Filed in Lawsuit About Obama's Bogus Social Security Number; Newly Uncovered Documents Show that Obama Lied About Columbia University | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

26. In this First Amended Complaint Taitz provides additional information, specifically Exhibit 1 Selective Service Application for Barack Obama, showing that he uses SSN 042-68-4425 and Exhibit 2 SSNVS Social Security number Verification System, which shows that this is not a legally obtained Social Security number for Barack Obama. This is a prima facia evidence of Social Security fraud and Identity Fraud obtained from the official records of the United States Government, which coupled with the age of 121years old of the original applicant (date of birth 1890) justify release of at least redacted SS-5 information requested, such as gender, race and age of the SS5 applicant for SSN 042-68-4425 and the zip code, where the original SSN card was mailed by the social Security administration. concealment of such data will constitute aiding and abetting Social Security Fraud and Identity Theft.

27. Further records from the Student Clearing House show even more shocking evidence. In his memoirs and multiple speeches Obama wrote that he studied for two years at Columbia University September 1981-May 1983. He admitted that in summer of 1981 he traveled to Pakistan to visit his friends, but repeatedly claimed that from September 1981 until May of 1983 he resided in New York and studied at Columbia University. Taitz ran a check of his years of attendance at Columbia university and found out that Columbia official records show him attending Columbia university only for nine months September 1982-till May 1983 (Exhibit 3), which means that the President of the United States lied to the whole nation about his whereabouts for a whole year September 1981 until September 1982. One year absence is the best case scenario, as he could get his university credit by reciprocity or through extern studies.

28. As there is no record of Obama residing anywhere else in the United States from September 1981-September 1982, or attending any other university, by way of simple deduction it becomes clear that his visit to Pakistan lasted not a month or two, as he claims, but over a year.

29. In 1981-1982 Pakistan was ruled by a ruthless radical Muslim leader general Zia Ul Hac, who came to power as a result of a military coup, announced himself as a Chief Martial Law Administrator and ruled the country via the system of iron fist terror. Supreme court of Pakistan, apparently afraid for their lives found such rule to be acceptable due to a “necessity” doctrine. Based on verification of Columbia university records, Taitz found that Obama spent at least a year within the regime of general Zia Ul Hac. This revelation adds urgency in processing this complaint, as it shows that we have today an individual usurping the position of the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the whole US military, while using a stolen social security number, not possessing a valid long form U.S. birth certificate and defrauding the nation and concealing a whole year of his whereabouts.

 

[sjt18]

How do you explain the wild success of traffic lights?

Non sequitur. Who doesn't see avoiding a high speed collision as "in their self interest"? Even so, people often take liberties with the rules in their self interest by running them on yellow or rolling through a right on red.