Posted on 03/11/2011 4:27:30 PM PST by jamese777
meant to say “Thus for Great Britain to hold the claim of treason under the law of nations & treaty of 1870,”
Yesterday you copped to believing moral equivalence. It is an imbecilic concept embraceable ONLY by those who have purposefully lobotomized their intellectual and moral brain functions. It is also anathema to conservatives. I am calling you immature because there is no more immature concept hatched in the modern liberal mind than moral equivalence. And I am calling you dishonest because you infest a conservative site while embracing the exclusively far left liberal dogma of moral equivalence.
Law of Nations
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.
Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country or the society of which he is a member.(60)
— 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it, on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favour,1 and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it. A man's obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form of law or by violence.
2. As soon as the son of a citizen attains the age of manhood, and acts as a citizen, he tacitly assumes that character; his obligations, like those of others who expressly and formally enter into engagements with society, become stronger and more extensive: but the case is very different with respect to him of whom we have been speaking. When a society has not been formed for a determinate time, it is allowable to quit it, when that separation can take place without detriment to the society. A citizen may therefore quit the state of which he is a member, provided it be not in such a conjuncture when he cannot abandon it without doing it a visible injury. But we must here draw a distinction between what may in strict justice be done, and what is honourable and conformable to every duty — in a word, between the internal, and the external obligation. Every man has a right to quit his country, in order to settle in any other, when by that step he does not endanger the welfare of his country. But a good citizen will never determine on such a step without necessity, or without very strong reasons. It is taking a dishonourable advantage of our liberty, to quit our associates upon slight pretences, after having derived considerable advantages from them; and this is the case of every citizen, with respect to his country.
3. As to those who have the cowardice to abandon their country in a time of danger, and seek to secure themselves, instead of defending it, they manifestly violate the social compact, by which all the contracting parties engaged to defend themselves in a united body, and in concert; they are infamous deserters, whom the state has a right to punish severely.
Yesterday you copped to believing moral equivalence. It is an imbecilic concept embraceable ONLY by those who have purposefully lobotomized their intellectual and moral brain functions. It is also anathema to conservatives. I am calling you immature because there is no more immature concept hatched in the modern liberal mind than moral equivalence. And I am calling you dishonest because you infest a conservative site while embracing the exclusively far left liberal dogma of moral equivalence.
“Moral equivalence” is your label, not mine. You seem to enjoy setting up your own strawmen, then knocking them down.
If that’s your hobby, enjoy! But it has nothing to do with me.
I thanked you for giving an honest opinion, in the case in which you condemned homosexual clergy. I still thank you for it. It is refreshing whenever you give a straightforward answer, and if you ever do it again, I’ll thank you then too.
Moral equivalence is being unable to pronounce Christianity superior, morally and otherwise, to Islam. If you’re ready to affirm that Christianity is infinitely superior to the bloody death cult of the madman pedophile Mohammed, then I will (1) applaud your about face, and (2) affirm that you no longer embrace moral equivalence.
You just outted a FReeper!
He did no such thing.
Butter has repeatedly admitted to accidentally releasing personal info about herself. In some of her own postings she included her own real first name. And once she decided to appear before the Nebraska Legislators, she isn't exactly in the witness protection program.
The full faith and credit clause requires a manner for proving the legitimacy of the public records of the various states. Obama even voted for a federal requirement in 2005 that issuing agencies have to verify the validity of birth records. So far, Hawaii has not done this for Obama's jpg. You know this and pretend otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.