Comment: Or

(See in situ)


willl is stuck in this definition:
an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

NOTE: the last 5 words: AND that is legally prohibited.

but, one must note definition number 4:

any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin.
the point being that the legal criminals have only made their offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin legal, but that does not mean that it is no longer an offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin as it has only become unpunishable by law.
and for some odd reason, bear things she is supposed help willl see. But depending on his/her answer I may or may not give the rationale above.

For some strange reason I do not want anyone to be a dictator, I want them to be a Friend of Liberty, but I suppose that Samuel Adams understands reality better than I:

"...go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels..."
so sadley, not everyone is going to join "the animating contest of freedom".

But why would willl be here and seemingly be a part. Maybe education is all that is necessary. Or maybe it is just a matter of semantics and I suppose if willl does not want to accept the validity of the words legal criminal or legal crime, but still wants to resist those who embody those words, well then, maybe that is still a Friend in Liberty; and maybe the light bulb will turn on.
That was a very interesting Patrick Henry quote. I am going to see if I can find out what he was talking about.
Anyways, I am going to the Still post to leave you a question. There is something I am concerned about.