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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (45610)	2/24/2006 2:56:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

You can say over and over again that breaking rules does not break rules I suppose I could but since I haven't said it once your statement is rather silly. The jerk in front of me decided that he was going to go straight. Therefore, he sat through the right turn arrow and held up approximately 20 vehicles behind him for several minutes. His chief failing was holding up, and possibly even endangering others, not disregarding a sign that the government put up. When you violate these standards of right behavior you are (by definition) acting immorally. Not by any definition I accept. The law DOES hold you accountable for agreements entered into on your behalf. Of course it does. The government and the legal process in the US do a lot of things. These things may have positive or negative impacts on me. None of that means I am party to an agreement. It may mean that I will be treated as if I was party to an agreement but that is not the same thing. You cannot argue that the laws do not apply to you because you did not personally sign them into being. Certainly I could. I wouldn't and I didn't, so once again your statement is silly, but of course it would be possible to argue that. I would find it a rather silly argument myself. Laws apply to anyone the the political and legal system decides they apply to, if the government has the power to apply them. The pattern for much of this discussion has been - I say A, and your philosophical ideas or other beliefs cause you to believe that A implies B, then you attack my supposed statement of B, but I have not said B and I do not believe B. Tim