🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 01:32:04 -0400, Mike Sweeney <*NOSPAM*msweeney@lr.net> wrote:
>
>--------------6905F5CE0CDD8C785B2CA41E
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Eric Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 1998 09:43:30 -0700, "Steven Fisher" <srf@nospam.srf.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>for reasonable safety given the local conditions.  You're not going to find
>> >>that definition in any law book, but who cares about law books?
>> >
>> >
>> >Police?
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, police care, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe the laws that
>> they're enforcing are right.  I don't have anything against cops, they're just
>> regular guys doing a job for the most part.  But sometimes they seem to get
>> this attitude that The Law is some sort of unimpeachable truth...that
>> questioning it or <gasp> breaking it is some sort of unimaginable heresy.
>
>They probably do not give a flying fig if you question it, so long as you don't
>insist (like some in here) that they change it or ignore it.  Remember:  their job
>is to enforce it - - the citizen's job (if they don't agree) is to change it.
>
>> Some
>> civilians get this way too of course.  As far as I'm concerned, good laws
>> should be obeyed, and bad laws should be resisted.
>>
>> Eric
>
>Bad laws should be changed, not resisted.  Get people off their lazy asses and do
>something--protest, petition, etc.  If you get enough people involved, change is
>inevitable.  Resisting and challenging cops just makes you look like dimwits.

Change is only inevitable with a majority.  It is very difficult to work
against the "OHMYGAWDTHECHILDREN" crowd.

Politics is neither fair nor entirely rational.

>
>M
>
>
>--------------6905F5CE0CDD8C785B2CA41E
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><HTML>
>Eric Anderson wrote:
><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>On Fri, 3 Jul 1998 09:43:30 -0700, "Steven Fisher"
>&lt;srf@nospam.srf.com> wrote:
>
><P>>>for reasonable safety given the local conditions.&nbsp; You're not
>going to find
><BR>>>that definition in any law book, but who cares about law books?
><BR>>
><BR>>
><BR>>Police?
><BR>>
>
><P>Yeah, police care, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe the
>laws that
><BR>they're enforcing are right.&nbsp; I don't have anything against cops,
>they're just
><BR>regular guys doing a job for the most part.&nbsp; But sometimes they
>seem to get
><BR>this attitude that The Law is some sort of unimpeachable truth...that
><BR>questioning it or &lt;gasp> breaking it is some sort of unimaginable
>heresy.</BLOCKQUOTE>
>They probably do not give a flying fig if you question it, so long as you
>don't insist (like some in here) that <I>they </I>change it or ignore it.&nbsp;
>Remember:&nbsp; their job is to enforce it - - the citizen's job (if they
>don't agree) is to change it.
><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Some
><BR>civilians get this way too of course.&nbsp; As far as I'm concerned,
>good laws
><BR>should be obeyed, and bad laws should be resisted.
>
><P>Eric</BLOCKQUOTE>
>Bad laws should be <U>changed</U>, not resisted.&nbsp; Get people off their
>lazy asses and do something--protest, petition, etc.&nbsp; If you get enough
>people involved, change is inevitable.&nbsp; Resisting and challenging
>cops just makes you look like dimwits.
>
><P>M
><BR>&nbsp;</HTML>
>
>--------------6905F5CE0CDD8C785B2CA41E--
>


-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest or 
Pebble In The Sky http://www.informationquest.com mailto:jgarry@nospameiq.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  "See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!