🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Henry wrote:
> 
> dsprad@stservices.com (David B. Spradlin) Said this:
> 
> >In article <4qjd78$ftl@news2.cais.com>, packer@cais.cais.com (Charles
> >Packer) wrote:
> 
> >> I don't think you really wanted to say that. I call your attention
> >> to laws involving three substances: alcohol, tobacco, marijuana.
> >> Are all the laws up to date with respect to society's attitudes
> >> toward the substances?
> 
> >Unless I missed something, those laws were passed by people that were
> >elected by the society you refer to.  Did you mean to say that you
> >disagree with those laws and therefore they must be wrong?  What it dose
> >mean is that the majority of the people that make up society support those
> >laws, therefore they exist.  Since you were not specific, I cannot say
> >which laws you are refering to that I agree or disagree with.  What I do
> >know is this, whether I like a law or not, I still have to obey it.  If I
> >feel strongly enough against it, I lobby to have it changed through the
> >system.
> 
> Oh geez.  You really bought the whole thing, hook line and sinker.
> Maybe you need to do a little investigating.  Don't assume that since
> they taught you this in high school Civics class, that it is the way
> of the world.  The things they taught you in high school about this
> being a free country, OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people,
> well, that's the IDEAL, not the REALITY.  Pay attention to your
> elected officials.  They give away the reality if you watch closely.
> 
> Explain to me how a congressman will knowingly vote for a law that is
> OVERTLY flouting the constitution, assuming that the other two
> branches of government can take care of it later, in hopes that it
> might just slip by, thus subverting the constitution through legal
> precedence somewhere down the road??
> 
> Money talks, and those who SHOUT get their way.  Explain to me why you
> can have a tax added to a cellular phone in Montgomery county, when
> most people did not want it.  It was enacted by the very same people
> who "they voted for."  Get real.  With the numbers of people in
> society now, it is impossible for equal representation.  The idea of a
> democratic society falls apart when you reach certain levels of
> population. It is made worse when the population is fragmented like
> ours.
> 
> The government has reached a point where it maintains control, NOT
> BECAUSE WE ALLOW IT, but because we allowed it in the past.  Legal
> precedence, and all that crap.  There is no hope of you ever changing
> a law that you disagree with.   At least not on the federal level.
> Maybe you can change a meals tax, or a zoning law.  but that's about
> it.  Your chances decrease as you reach the higher levels.  You get to
> the state level, no chance.
> 
> Of course, I don't believe anyone should break any law, regardless of
> their delusional rationalizations. (oxymoron??)  We still have to
> follow the order as it is prescribed.  If not, we have an
> unconstitutional government AS WELL AS anarchy.  That's a scary
> prospect.

I wonder if Dr. King realized he couldn't change the Jim Crow laws?