Now here is someone I can agree with.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia ! ;

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.
Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians'.

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'. 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture...'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Of course our illustrious elected dingbats lack the gonads to stand for anything, much less to have the gonads to say what Mr. Rudd said.

I agree with him completely

How many of American Indian heritage feel the same way about those in North America of white European heritage as Rudd does about those in Australia of Muslim heritage?

Some day, when Muslims are in the majority, they will have their own Prime Minister of Australia. Will you still agree with the Prime Minister then?

ziggy wrote:How many of American Indian heritage feel the same way about those in North America of white European heritage as Rudd does about those in Australia of Muslim heritage?

Some day, when Muslims are in the majority, they will have their own Prime Minister of Australia. Will you still agree with the Prime Minister then?

So I guess your solution would be to to bow down and kiss their behinds and then allow the muslim thugs to rape, pillage and murder, simply because of being afraid of offending them. Mr. Rudd also made the following statement, 'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' I guess you overlooked that statement and its meaning.

Mr. Rudd also made the following statement, 'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' I guess you overlooked that statement and its meaning.

No. On the contrary, I try to apply it to more than just today- to both yesteryear and tomorrow, when the shoe was, and will again be, on the other foot.

ziggy wrote:

Mr. Rudd also made the following statement, 'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' I guess you overlooked that statement and its meaning.

No. On the contrary, I try to apply it to more than just today- to both yesteryear and tomorrow, when the shoe was, and will again be, on the other foot.

You believe what you want, pal. I still agree with Mr. Rudd. In fact, you can thank your lucky stars I ain't the one calling the shots. The world would be quite different if I was, since I'm not concerned about who I offend. I live in the present. If you are fool enough to think for one minute you can appease your way to peace and brotherly love, feel free to indulge yourself. Let me know how that works out for you.

.................. In fact, you can thank your lucky stars I ain't the one calling the shots. The world would be quite different if I was, since I'm not concerned about who I offend. I live in the present.

If we are not concerned about who we offend, then why should we expect others to care about what offends us?

Those who fail to heed the hard learned lessons of the past are bound to repeat them in the future.

ziggy wrote:

.................. In fact, you can thank your lucky stars I ain't the one calling the shots. The world would be quite different if I was, since I'm not concerned about who I offend. I live in the present.

If we are not concerned about who we offend, then why should we expect others to care about what offends us?

Those who fail to heed the hard learned lessons of the past are bound to repeat them in the future.

I really don't give a tinkers damn who I offend. A lot of things offend me, however, unlike the garbage you seem to now be defending, I don't run around killing people. As far as hard lessons goes, I'd say the odds are fairly good we are going to learn a very hard lesson thanks to our appeasement policies and yellow bellied politicians

ziggy wrote:If we are not concerned about who we offend, then why should we expect others to care about what offends us?

And just who in hell has been or currently are those "others" that care about offending the US?

Those who fail to heed the hard learned lessons of the past are bound to repeat them in the future.

You got that right. And the "those" you speak of are people like yourself.

Tell me Big Boy, ...... just why in hell would a person migrate to a new country and immediately start trying to change the socio-political-religious climate to be exactly like the country they migrated from?

Is that because of ignorance, ....... stupidity, ........ hate and jealousy ....... have a mindset like yourself ...... or are they Religious Missionaries in disguise?

.

Tell me Big Boy, ...... just why in hell would a person migrate to a new country and immediately start trying to change the socio-political-religious climate to be exactly like the country they migrated from?

I don't know. Why have white Europeans been doing that in the "western world" over the past 5 or so centuries?

Same old same old.

I really don't give a tinkers damn who I offend.

Well then, don't expect others to care about offending you/us.

I don't run around killing people.

Sure you do- through your government that tries to patrol the whole world to its liking, and including killing people when it is convenient to someone or other's purposes. And I do not hear you grumbling much about that. A few public beheadings by some deranged Muslims invites more pissin' amd moanin' from your ilk (to use a Catoism) than does the killing hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere with U.S. military troops and hardware.

ziggy wrote:

I really don't give a tinkers damn who I offend.

Well then, don't expect others to care about offending you/us.

I don't much care about what others think or say. They are more than welcome to think whatever they want, so long as they don't use froce to make me comply witht heir thinking.

Ziggy wrote:

Sure you do- through your government that tries to patrol the whole world to its liking, and including killing people when it is convenient to someone or other's purposes. And I do not hear you grumbling much about that. A few public beheadings by some deranged Muslims invites more pissin' amd moanin' from your ilk (to use a Catoism) than does the killing hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere with U.S. military troops and hardware.

First, of all, let's be clear on one issue, what is in DC isn't my government. I didn't vote for the bastards and they certainly don't even come close to representing me or my views.

As far as the muslim community goes, I don't care if they kill each other, neither do I care if they and Israel go at it. I do care about the ragheads killing Americans especially civilians. So I guess they need to get their deranged Muslims under control or we need to do it for them. If that means collateral damage and death, sorry about their tough luck.

Hi Ziggy,

Is a given citizen responsible for the actions of his or her government? If so, why?

Although a given citizen will suffer for those actions, or for the actions of others, to be sure. Haiti's leaders have doomed the average citizen quite effectively, but surely it is not the fault of the particular citizen, outside of voting in a given creep.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

I really don't give a tinkers damn who I offend.

Well then, don't expect others to care about offending you/us.

I don't much care about what others think or say. They are more than welcome to think whatever they want, so long as they don't use froce to make me comply witht heir thinking.

Ziggy wrote:

Sure you do- through your government that tries to patrol the whole world to its liking, and including killing people when it is convenient to someone or other's purposes. And I do not hear you grumbling much about that. A few public beheadings by some deranged Muslims invites more pissin' amd moanin' from your ilk (to use a Catoism) than does the killing hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere with U.S. military troops and hardware.

First, of all, let's be clear on one issue, what is in DC isn't my government. I didn't vote for the bastards and they certainly don't even come close to representing me or my views.

In 2003, when America invaded Iraq, you argued here (on the predecessor Gazette forum) that the time for debate about that war was over, that all that mattered now was winning- and that no cost to the people of Iraq was too great if it made the difference between the U.S. losing or winning that war. You can't have it both ways. You either support what is being done in the name of America, or you don't. Unless you are willing to recant your earlier support for the U.S. going to war against Iraq, then yes, "the bastards" did and still do represent your views on that.

SheikBen wrote:Hi Ziggy,

Is a given citizen responsible for the actions of his or her government? If so, why?

Unless that citizen affirmatively registers objection to the actions of the government, then yes, he or she is responsible.

"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy": Charles de Montesquieu

ziggy wrote:

In 2003, when America invaded Iraq, you argued here (on the predecessor Gazette forum) that the time for debate about that war was over, that all that mattered now was winning- and that no cost to the people of Iraq was too great if it made the difference between the U.S. losing or winning that war. You can't have it both ways. You either support what is being done in the name of America, or you don't. Unless you are willing to recant your earlier support for the U.S. going to war against Iraq, then yes, "the bastards" did and still do represent your views on that.

The one and only legitmate purpose of government is to defend in our liberties from foreign and domestic threats. We pay for that afterall through our taxes. So, in that sence, yes I support what was done in Irag and in Afganistan, even thought I still believe that it far too little and far too late.

So I guess your solution would be to to bow down and kiss their behinds and then allow the muslim thugs to rape, pillage and murder, simply because of being afraid of offending them. Mr. Rudd also made the following statement, 'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' I guess you overlooked that statement and its meaning.

Ziggy made a very reasonable point, to which I would have added that the aborigines probably wish Mr. Rudd and his ancestors would have followed Rudd's command.

The above was your response.

Not only did you ignore Ziggy's reasonable point, you responded insultingly, putting words in his mouth that he never said or implied.

The real Cato would be appalled at such a lack of virtue in debate tactics.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

In 2003, when America invaded Iraq, you argued here (on the predecessor Gazette forum) that the time for debate about that war was over, that all that mattered now was winning- and that no cost to the people of Iraq was too great if it made the difference between the U.S. losing or winning that war. You can't have it both ways. You either support what is being done in the name of America, or you don't. Unless you are willing to recant your earlier support for the U.S. going to war against Iraq, then yes, "the bastards" did and still do represent your views on that.

The one and only legitmate purpose of government is to defend in our liberties from foreign and domestic threats. We pay for that afterall through our taxes.

So anytime government says, "There's the bogeyman" we are to not question the factuality of the claim?

So, in that sence, yes I support what was done in Irag and in Afganistan, even thought I still believe that it far too little and far too late.

So how was Iraq a threat to our liberties? It wasn't. Even Dick Cheney now says it wasn't- and that assertions that it was were incorrect. So it seems to me that the U.S. went too far too soon, instead of too little too late. And we told you so, back in 2003.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

In 2003, when America invaded Iraq, you argued here (on the predecessor Gazette forum) that the time for debate about that war was over, that all that mattered now was winning- and that no cost to the people of Iraq was too great if it made the difference between the U.S. losing or winning that war. You can't have it both ways. You either support what is being done in the name of America, or you don't. Unless you are willing to recant your earlier support for the U.S. going to war against Iraq, then yes, "the bastards" did and still do represent your views on that.

The one and only legitmate purpose of government is to defend in our liberties from foreign and domestic threats. We pay for that afterall through our taxes.

So anytime government says, "There's the bogeyman" we are to not question the factuality of the claim?

ziggy wrote:So, in that sence, yes I support what was done in Irag and in Afganistan, even thought I still believe that it far too little and far too late.

So how was Iraq a threat to our liberties? It wasn't. Even Dick Cheney now says it wasn't- and that assertions that it was were incorrect. So it seems to me that the U.S. went too far too soon, instead of too little too late. And we told you so, back in 2003.

I guess you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq posed no threat. As far as what Chaney says or don't say, I don't follow much of what any talking head has to say. What I think is that if we were goign to go to war in Iraq then we should have quickly and with enough manpower to bring the war to a decisive end as qucikly as possible.

As I have said and continue to say niether the Bush administration or the Obama Administration or any of the baffons congress represent me or my beliefs. They are not my govenrment or my United States.

TerryRC wrote:So I guess your solution would be to to bow down and kiss their behinds and then allow the muslim thugs to rape, pillage and murder, simply because of being afraid of offending them. Mr. Rudd also made the following statement, 'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' I guess you overlooked that statement and its meaning.

Ziggy made a very reasonable point, to which I would have added that the aborigines probably wish Mr. Rudd and his ancestors would have followed Rudd's command.

The above was your response.

Not only did you ignore Ziggy's reasonable point, you responded insultingly, putting words in his mouth that he never said or implied.

The real Cato would be appalled at such a lack of virtue in debate tactics.

And as I said we are talking about the here and now.

If you and ziggy feel the way you do, you have no option but to give your property back to the indians and move out of the country. When you and ziggy do that then we'll talk, until then we have nothing to talk about.

By the way, I don't much care what the real Cato would or would not have done either.

And as I said we are talking about the here and now.

Since when and by what authority is our our talking limited to "the here and now"?

You believe in Rudd's sanctimonious statements only as long as you are among the majority or the most powerful. When you and yours are in the minority of power and numbers you will be as demanding of your religious and social agenda as is any Muslim- and you will use your god as your authority for your own style of terrorism. You are no more willing to "accept the beliefs of others" and "live in harmony" than were the most militant white European conquerors of North America in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, nor of the most radical Muslims of today.

ziggy wrote:

And as I said we are talking about the here and now.

Since when and by what authority is our our talking limited to "the here and now"?

You believe in Rudd's sanctimonious statements only as long as you are among the majority or the most powerful. When you and yours are in the minority of power and numbers you will be as demanding of your religious and social agenda as is any Muslim- and you will use your god as your authority for your own style of terrorism. You are no more willing to "accept the beliefs of others" and "live in harmony" than were the most militant white European conquerors of North America in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, nor of the most radical Muslims of today.

Yes, I believe in Rudd's "sactimonious" statements. In fact, I'm alot harsher than he is anymore. This nation is what it is, and I for one am not willing to sacrifice it to a bunch of thugs so you can feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself. The only thing I can suggest to you, is what I have already suggested and you convienently ignored, if you feel the way you do, then give your property back to the the indians or whoever.

I do get a kick out of people like you. You enjoy the benefits of living here and yet you are are so pathetic as to then trash this nation.

"This nation" is but a blip in the history of mankind. If we look at ourselves in a vacuum of human history, our national demise will be sooner, and perhaps more violent, than if we see ourselves from the perspective of others, and of the whole history of other human civilizations.

ziggy wrote:"This nation" is but a blip in the history of mankind. If we look at ourselves in a vacuum of human history, our national demise will be sooner, and perhaps more violent, than if we see ourselves from the perspective of others, and of the whole history of other human civilizations.

All nations rise and fall. We are just one more that will do just that. That certainly doesn't mean that we need to lay down and give up or sacrifice our prinicples. That is the one thing that is wrong in the United States, we have forgot where we come and what our core prinicples really are. Further we have allowed so called "intellectuals" to trash our core values and we have accepted what they preach.

I see this right here on this board. People attempt to act and think as the socialistic progressives. They attack the very thing that has allowed them to live as no other on earth has been able to do. They attack as evil the thing that allows them to achieve whatever they desire, witht he only hinderance to their achievement being themselves. In their attempt to act and sound wise, they are actually proving themselves to be ignorant and gullable.

Very well stated Willy. And quite factual ta boot.