Does this executive order signed 3/16 nationalize industry?

I never said that Jpete, I said you can't change what happened only learn from it which is exactly my point in this case. You were trying to say that slavery was always wrong & not OK but yet how many of our F.F. owned slaves themselves & were never charged with a crime.

samhill wrote:I never said that Jpete, I said you can't change what happened only learn from it which is exactly my point in this case. You were trying to say that slavery was always wrong & not OK but yet how many of our F.F. owned slaves themselves & were never charged with a crime.

They were never charged with a crime because it was legal. Not because it was ever right or OK or moral or just.

The direction that this country is currently taking is to make the oppression and eradication of our unalienable sovereign freedom legal (by first warping it into a privilege, then at some juncture or through some cause or some perceived need, revoking the privilege). Likewise, that will not make what they are doing right or OK or moral or just. It will only make it the law of the land.

We could argue the use of the meaning of words & get no where just like this whole thing has been going. So now a law means nothing if you don't agree with it, I'm sure you could find many that agree. I personally feel that it is OK to obey the law even if I feel it isn't moral, right or just but doing so will keep me out of jail. Remember he who has the gold makes the rules.

Lets look at it this way. When Pilate crucified Jesus, what he did was perfectly 100% legal under Roman law, which was the law of the land. Had he not acted as he had, and had he been snitched out by a Roman loyalist (and their spy network was extensive), he would have certainly suffered a similar fate. Now, seeing that he was one who placed allegiance to the law over everything else, he did the right thing in following it, or did he?

Perhaps this extreme example will show that words have specific meanings and it is not merely a game of blurred semantics when one uses words such as legal and right (or OK).

samhill wrote:We could argue the use of the meaning of words & get no where just like this whole thing has been going. So now a law means nothing if you don't agree with it, I'm sure you could find many that agree. I personally feel that it is OK to obey the law even if I feel it isn't moral, right or just but doing so will keep me out of jail. Remember he who has the gold makes the rules.

Did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution?

If someone made a law that was unconstitutional, and ordered you to enforce it, what would you do?

Ever hear of the concept of nullification? Ever hear of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?

If you think it's possible to learn from history, maybe you can learn a few things from them.

English & the exact word to use was never one of my finer points professor, now you have me wondering why when I look up a word in a dictionary it normally gives several other words with like meanings.

Yes Jpete I have taken an oath to uphold & protect the United States of America & the Constitution, have you?

samhill wrote:English & the exact word to use was never one of my finer points professor, now you have me wondering why when I look up a word in a dictionary it normally gives several other words with like meanings.

Yes Jpete I have taken an oath to uphold & protect the United States of America & the Constitution, have you?

No.

So why don't you tell me what a person that HAS taken the oath should do when order to enforce an unconstitutional law.

And "I was only following orders" has been tried before but didn't work out too well so you might want to start thinking of something else.

The reason the dictionary gives several meanings is because of CONTEXT. That's why you have to look up ALL the words.

Lets put it this way Jpete, what good does taking an oath for anything do if you have ten people take the same oath but yet have ten different interpretations of what that oath means?

samhill wrote:Lets put it this way Jpete, what good does taking an oath for anything do if you have ten people take the same oath but yet have ten different interpretations of what that oath means?

So why did you ask if I took an oath? Is it important to YOU? Or did you raise your right hand and go through the motions?

Breaking an oath is a crime known as perjury. I'd want to know what it meant before I took it.

I just asked the same as you Jpete, I could care less.

samhill wrote:I just asked the same as you Jpete, I could care less.

Bad I do care.

I'm wondering how your philosophy of lawful=acceptable squares with your oath to uphold the constitution given the fact that many laws are unconstitutional.

You've made a lot of accusations but as yet answered no questions. It should be simple. Are there things that are always right or always wrong, no matter what the "law" says?

I'm getting tired of this Jpete, as I said & we are finding out every day there are a lot of different interpretations of laws & the constitution of late so who is to say that the way you interpret something is the right way? I would hate for a guy like you to be backing me up in combat, before ever thinking of helping your fellow soldier you would want to form a committee to discuss if doing so would be the proper thing to do. God Bless America, we certainly need it in these times.

"Was this what they used to imprison Japanese?" ~ that's what Jpete said.

Why would you still stick up for the Japs in WWII ? Treasonous talk all these years later. Ohh boo hooo they treated the Japs badly.
The Japs brutally murdered tens of thousands of Chinese before they attacked us, mostly with swords, shovels and bayonets. Their military was at its peak before we were drawn into the war.
How do you think the Japs were able to precision bomb Pearl and know how to identify every ship? Because they had SPIES in Pearl for years before the war, secretly feeding information back to Japan.
I can never figure out people who defend our enemies, past or present.

Once again Dann, I have to agree in times of war the gloves come off, unless there was a way of telling which one's are loyal to the U.S. how do you know. To some degree they had a way because many did serve on our side but it's better to error on the side of caution IMO.

Dann757 wrote:"Was this what they used to imprison Japanese?" ~ that's what Jpete said.

Why would you still stick up for the Japs in WWII ? Treasonous talk all these years later. Ohh boo hooo they treated the Japs badly.
The Japs brutally murdered tens of thousands of Chinese before they attacked us, mostly with swords, shovels and bayonets. Their military was at its peak before we were drawn into the war.
How do you think the Japs were able to precision bomb Pearl and know how to identify every ship? Because they had SPIES in Pearl for years before the war, secretly feeding information back to Japan.
I can never figure out people who defend our enemies, past or present.

So you approve of removing the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans because they MIGHT have done something?

You might have done something, should the government take your house and put you in prison today, or would you like to wait out the weekend?

It's simply amazing that people can't figure out that what you allow the government to do to someone else might eventually be done to you.

Tim McVey was a white, Christian male so I'm going to say you fit the profile of a terrorist. Watch your back. They lock up suspected terrorists nowadays.