Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (402403)	5/3/2003 3:40:39 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

So then, as a bovine-eyed Clinton Cultist, you oppose the laws against perjury and obstruction? Or are you only against them when your porn star hero has one foot in a jail cell and the other on a banana peel?...

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (402403)	5/3/2003 4:48:44 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I wonder if you are being honest here, Steve. You certainly are not being reasonable. The rule of law is indeed in effect even with laws that, though on the books, do not necessarily result in the incarceration of every technical violator. The law in many cases can inform a judge of the motives of the state and yet be flexible enough to allow the judge to mitigate punishment for its violation due to extenuating circumstances. Generally, laws can exist to inform members of society of the state’s will, though they may not consistently result in punishments for violators. Mentioning the rule of law in cases of clear perjury, is quite appropriate because perjury is a POLITICAL crime in the Constitutional sense of the meaning of the word “political.” Sodomy, though a crime against natural human identity and against any state that aims to promote human identity, is not political in every case, especially when it occurs in the confines of one’s private bedroom. When the political crime of perjury occurs by the topmost law enforcement officer in the nation, then adherence, even a rigid adherence to the rule of law becomes of utmost importance, and for obvious reasons. No one is claiming here that we have laws on the books that are not meant to be enforced. I am claiming that there are laws on the books, the violation of which will not necessarily compel the state to mete out the same punishment, or any at all, in every case and that yet are valid in that they codify the identity of society. Anti-sodomy laws are such laws. If such laws are stricken for the entire nation, then America will have lost its legal identity as a heterosexual society. And when that happens the abominations of polygamy and bestiality become precisely as acceptable to our society as homosexuality. I have discussed this with very many legal scholars and not one, not a single one, has been able to deny this point without implying a radical change to human existence the world over. The Republican managers need not change a thing, because as with their appeal to the rule of law in Clinton’s case, they are being most reasonable and consistent if they should maintain a hostile, but largely theoretical posture against homosexuality.