REMEMBER: Freedom is not free.

I see people like you, TerryRC, and Sherman who lack the depth of conviction and charactor to stand up and be counted when it comes to life, liberty,and the persuit of happiness. Sherman is so ignorant and lemming like he follows blindly after a party that seeks to destroy the very founding principles of this nation. Terry and you proclaim your love of liberty, but only as you agree with those principles. Both of you have proven beyond any doubt that you hate it when others you disagree with seek to have the same standards applied to them that you desire.

Just like you Willy.

RC brought up the true Scotsman comment Sam because he's an expert in it, which is why I didn't go into a long debate about the distinction between Nationalism and Patriotism. He knows the difference, which is why he is attempting to confuse the two and when called on his BS, he attempted to steer the conversation elsewhere.

Bullshit, Aaron. You just can't tell me the difference between patriotism and nationalism. You accused me of confusing the two and you can't tell me the difference yourself.

You want to know why we can't have a good conversation on this board?

Just take a look at the responses that you, Sam and Cato wrote to my last post. Substanceless retorts and insults.

The fact is that the difference between patriotism and nationalism is the difference between "freedom fighters" and terrorists.

Aaron, I defy you to tell me the difference between patriotism and nationalism.

The fact is, that I was correct. Patriotism, by whatever name, has been used to justify terrible actions.

Yours and Sam's snide comments, aside.

The difference is, on September 12th, 2001, those setting would be standing with their hands over their hearts. And flag sales would be through the roof.

Right. So fear and hurt bring out the patriot in people?

And your attempt to steer the conversation away doesn't change the fact that you're still confusing the two.

I merely said that nationalism has been used to justify atrocities. Blind patriotism is a curse, not a blessing.

You are the one that said that nationalism and patriotism are different. You then refuse to tell me the difference. Excellent.

And that confusion comes from an expert at “weazelwording” and who is always accusing others of obfuscation.

Sammy. Go fuck yourself. Aaron is “weazelwording” right here and you give him a pass.

No RC, I'm not weaslewording anything. I pointed out you were confusing Patriotism and Nationalism. You know the difference but admitting I'm right would mean you're wrong, and you're never willing to admit that. That would be your problem, not mine.

ziggy wrote:

What many do not understand Cato is that those who do not respect this country, the flag or our liberty and freedom have the right to utter the tripe they do because men of honor they have no respect for gave their lives serving a code that men with no honor do not understand.

When and where did "men of honor they have no respect for gave their lives serving a code that men with no honor do not understand"?

In the 1960s in Vietnam? In the 2000s In Iraq? What "code" were men of honor serving in those adventures?

"Men of honor" are not so just because they are doing something you agree with, and "men with no honor" are not so just because they are not doing something you favor. The world does not revolve around you and your "code".

Sure it does. There were many men of honor who died fighting for what they believe in who happened to wear the uniform of Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy and other nations. There were men of honor who died on both sides of the Mason Dixon line.

Cassius Clay was a man of honor for his response to the draft board in 1966 as was David Hackworth in the same era.

Just because you don't t think a war, battle, of confrontation is dishonorable does not make it so and honor is more then serving in the military. I was pointing out that those particular men who did serve are the ones who granted you your freedom to speak as you wish.

Sure it does. There were many men of honor who died fighting for what they believe in who happened to wear the uniform of Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy and other nations. There were men of honor who died on both sides of the Mason Dixon line.

And so do the Nazi flag and the Confederate flag deserve as much honor as does the "American" flag? Why or why not?

Cassius Clay was a man of honor for his response to the draft board in 1966 as was David Hackworth in the same era.

So what keeps Clay, too, from being among your loathesome "Copperheads"? Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

TRC, you are one pathetic excuse for a human being, to wit:

TerryRC wrote:

TerryRC wrote:Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

History shows us that, repeatedly.

You going to call me defensive also, rather than take the effort to address my point?

And I addressed your FUBAR point, to wit:

SamCogar wrote: As usual, I will again have to expend my effort on addressing your clueless ignorance, ...... to wit:

However, Boswell assures us that Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general, .... only false patriotism.

Now I suppose you will tell us "that is what you meant" ..... even though you made no mention of it in your post.

Why don't you give us the "no true Scotsman" argument.

TerryRC wrote: Sam. Your tears of rage nourish me.

You can't even address my points.

TerryRC wrote:

SamCogar wrote: And that confusion comes from an expert at “weazelwording” and who is always accusing others of obfuscation.

Sammy. Go fuck yourself. Aaron is “weazelwording” right here and you give him a pass.

Here, I looked them up, but I think it would be foolhardy for me to attempt to explain them to you.

nationalism: (patriotism:) love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it; Loyalty to one's own nation and the practice of putting the interests of that nation above all other nations

patriotism is commonly defined as love of and/or devotion to one's country. The word comes from the Latin patria, and Greek patris

ziggy wrote: Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

And neither was Al Capone ...... and quite a few West Virginia Politicians.



.

ziggy wrote:

Sure it does. There were many men of honor who died fighting for what they believe in who happened to wear the uniform of Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy and other nations. There were men of honor who died on both sides of the Mason Dixon line.

And so do the Nazi flag and the Confederate flag deserve as much honor as does the "American" flag? Why or why not?

Not by me. I am an American by birth. I remain an American committed to the principals of those who founded this great country by choice.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

And neither was Al Capone ...... and quite a few West Virginia Politicians.

.

And according to Aaron's logic, they were all men of honor.

ziggy wrote:

Cassius Clay was a man of honor for his response to the draft board in 1966 as was David Hackworth in the same era.

So what keeps Clay, too, from being among your loathesome "Copperheads"? Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

How are they my copperheads? I merely pointed out that they've been with us all through our history.

As for those protesting Vietnam, a small percentage stood their convictions and went to jail. The great majority, either ran to Canada (or other countries) or found another way out of some sort of service.

I find no honor in someone who could have served in the peace corps or volunteered to work in inner cities but instead chose to run to Canada.

And my initial point still stands. It is because of those willing to stand and fight that you enjoy the freedom you do today. Nothing you say will change that very simple fact.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

And neither was Al Capone ...... and quite a few West Virginia Politicians.

.

And according to Aaron's logic, they were all men of honor.

How so? You'll have to explain.

Aaron wrote:They started in the colonial wars which predated our War of Independence, continued through our battles in the early 18th century, saw brother face brother in our internal struggle, and continued through the 20th century. An unpopular war you don't happen to agree with doesn't change the facts.

And my initial point still stands. It is because of those willing to stand and fight that you enjoy the freedom you do today. Nothing you say will change that very simple fact.

We can only coast so far.

The earned honor of those who fought in colonial wars, and in the U.S. war for independence, and through American battles for survival in the early 18th century, and saw brother face brother in the American civil war, does not automativally accrue to those who turned children into flaming napalm torches and burned innocent women and kids, and incinerated houses and villages in Dresden and in Vietnam, and now in Iraq and Ahghanistan, and by proxy for decades in the middle east, by willingly doing so, breed 100 and 200 and more years later generations of political skeptics who are rightfully cynical about pleas for ever more militarism to answer the ever more bogus cries of "Wolfe".

We can only coast so far. Honor does not last forever- especially when is it used as cover for decades upon decades of dishonorable enterprises perpretated on mountainous reams of a million mendacities.

That's all your opinion and as you're an anti-military marxist, you can keep it.

What I want to know from you is how you get I equated Al Capone to Cassius Clay.

Explain please!!!

ziggy wrote:
I have not only stood up for those things, but I have gone to jail to stand up and be counted when it comes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Have you? What have you done to "stand up for" those things?

So you are not the only one to stand for what they believe. I've not went to jail, but believe me I'm well known in some circles as the moron who who is silly enough to think he has the right to say what he pleases, do what he please with his property, and mention the name of God in a public place.

What liberties have you stood up for that did not agree with your principles?

Have you not already forgot how for daring to think I have the right to rent or sell my property to whom ever I so choose, you and RC wwent after me.

How so? I have said that as relates to personal liberties that do not interefer with the personal liberties of others, that I am an anarchist.

So then you would defend my right to not rent proeprty to a homosexual couple if I so chose.

You see an ideal, yes. But what about the real world- the world of government run amuck with corporatism and corporate welfare to the point that it is getting more and more impossible to tell where is the line between corporations and government. You can call that an ideal if you want to. I call it gross corruption and fascism. And a flag that represents a government of such corruption is not worthy of my salute- nor of yours.

I don't know what you see, but I see an ideal of liberty and limited government.

But I thought that government intervention in the exercise of our personal liberties is what you are opposed to. But now you "see a nation where people reap the benifits and consequences of their actions with government intervention"? Why can't you make up your mind?

Typing boo boo on my part, sorry. I see a nation where people reap the rewards and consequences of their actions without government intervention.

No, you are lying to yourself and to us. You only see a world that understands "right and wrong" as defined by Cato, not by the people living their lives exercising their liberty to pursue of happiness as THEY see the right and wrong of it. You suppose liberty- but you want to define right and wrong and the rewards and consequences for everyone- not just for Cato, but for everyone.

Right and wrong exists seperate from me and I do not define what is right or wrong. I know this right and wrong is the not relative to a person or situation, neither does the end justify the means.

You don't honor anything of the sort, Cato. You would but trade someone else's "facism" for your own.

So now you think I honor the corporate government relationship, boy are you ignorant of what i stand for.

That thread is a prime example fo your misunderstanding of liberty- and of your misdunderstanding of right and wrong- because in that thread you presume to know right and wrong for everyone- not just for Cato. And that is consistent with your stated opinion that there is no room for honest differences of opinion when it comes to understanding scriptures, understanding the Constitution, understanding right and wrong, etc. You simply cannot fathom that what is morally right for Cato may be just as morally wrong for the next person. But if liberty and pursuit of happiness means anything it means that we each determine or own morality and pursue happiness in out own ways as long as they do not interefere with the rights of others to pursue right and wrong and to pursue happiness in their own ways.

No, you can't grasp that a standard of behavior existsand applies to all of us. We are where we are in this nation today, because of relativism. So many want things like the bible or the consitution to say what they want it to say. Life just does not work that way.

You gave up your claim to liberty when you said, "I see a nation where people reap the benifits and consequences of their actions with government intervention."

No, I made a mistake when I was typing. You jumped on my mistakes, because that is the best you can do.

Yes, that is exactly what you see- government intervention to assure that everyone sees "right and wrong" and understands the Bible and the Constitution in the same ways that Cato does. That is not liberty. That is tyranny and fascism.

Cato, really doesn't care how you see the scriptures. In that regard, if your going to be a Christian, then it seems logical to me to use the bible as the standard and thus mold your life to it, without picking and choosing what you will accept and what you won't.

The same applies to the US Constiutiton. You can't pick and choose what you are going to accept and what you are not. The Consitution is a legal document that says certain things and doesn't say others. You can't change the meaning of the words to make it way what you want. Simply it is not a "living document".

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: Cassius Clay was not the only guy to go to prison for his principals.

And neither was Al Capone ...... and quite a few West Virginia Politicians.

.

And according to Aaron's logic, they were all men of honor.

How so? You'll have to explain.

He can't explain it. He only said that after I pointed out the stupidity of his statement.

Then he needs to be man enough to pull his foot of his mouth and say so.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
I have not only stood up for those things, but I have gone to jail to stand up and be counted when it comes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Have you? What have you done to "stand up for" those things?

So you are not the only one to ...............

Now I've been wondering about that.

Was it because of your draft-dodgeing refusals in the 60's ...... or more recently as one of those MTR'ing Protestors that were thrown into jail?

If you look, you can find a nice picture of him staging a set in at the governor's office. Yeah, that's something to be proud of. He went to jail because he DEMANDED the governor talk to him.



He's said he didn't go to jail for draft dodging. His tale was that he 'convinced' the Army that he and they weren't a mutual fit.

He's never said how but in the 60's, if you passed your testing and were found physically fit, there were only a couple of ways to convince the military you weren't fit. You were either crazy or gay and Ziggy won't say which route he took.

Sam, Ziggy, TerryRC, et al,

I repect your opinion and thank God for the men and women who died in military service to our country to preserve your right to disagree. Happy Memorial Day!

Cato wrote:So you are not the only one to stand for what they believe. I've not went to jail, but believe me I'm well known in some circles as the moron who who is silly enough to think he has the right to say what he pleases, do what he please with his property, and mention the name of God in a public place.

And that's fine. You don't have to go to jail to stand up for what you believe in. But you are the one who said that I do not stand up for liberty and for the right to pursue happiness. I was just showing that I certainly do just that- and not by hiding behind a computer screen or hiding behind some God or other.

And lots of people mention the name of God in a public place. So what? They have their God, and you have yours. It's the American way.

(Ziggy) What liberties have you stood up for that did not agree with your principles?

Have you not already forgot how for daring to think I have the right to rent or sell my property to whom ever I so choose, you and RC wwent after me.

OK. But it was you who said that I only stand up for rights that agree with my principles. I was pointing out that you only stand up for rights that agree with yours.

How so? I have said that as relates to personal liberties that do not interefer with the personal liberties of others, that I am an anarchist.

So then you would defend my right to not rent proeprty to a homosexual couple if I so chose.

Your "right" not to rent property to select people whose conduct does not affect your well being intereferes with THEIR right to live in a place where they can otherwise afford to pursue their happiness.

You see an ideal, yes. But what about the real world- the world of government run amuck with corporatism and corporate welfare to the point that it is getting more and more impossible to tell where is the line between corporations and government. You can call that an ideal if you want to. I call it gross corruption and fascism. And a flag that represents a government of such corruption is not worthy of my salute- nor of yours.

I don't know what you see, but I see an ideal of liberty and limited government.

An "ideal" of liberty and limited government is one thing. Scores of years of increasing corporate-fascist government and military-industrialism is quite another.

But I thought that government intervention in the exercise of our personal liberties is what you are opposed to. But now you "see a nation where people reap the benifits and consequences of their actions with government intervention"? Why can't you make up your mind?

Typing boo boo on my part, sorry. I see a nation where people reap the rewards and consequences of their actions without government intervention.

OK. We all make typing boo-boos. I can forgive an honest mistake.

No, you are lying to yourself and to us. You only see a world that understands "right and wrong" as defined by Cato, not by the people living their lives exercising their liberty to pursue of happiness as THEY see the right and wrong of it. You suppose liberty- but you want to define right and wrong and the rewards and consequences for everyone- not just for Cato, but for everyone.

Right and wrong exists seperate from me and I do not define what is right or wrong. I know this right and wrong is the not relative to a person or situation, ......................

How do you "know" that? The essence of liberty is defining our own right and wrong as long as we do not interefere with the rights of others to do likewise.

................... neither does the ends justify the means.

Red herring. No one said that it does.

You don't honor anything of the sort, Cato. You would but trade someone else's "facism" for your own.

So now you think I honor the corporate government relationship, boy are you ignorant of what i stand for.

So where is even one percent of your outrage over corpro-government responsibility for right and wrong as you demonstrate toward some absolute standard of "right and wrong" as you exhibit for "personal responsibility" for real, individual people?

That thread is a prime example fo your misunderstanding of liberty- and of your misdunderstanding of right and wrong- because in that thread you presume to know right and wrong for everyone- not just for Cato. And that is consistent with your stated opinion that there is no room for honest differences of opinion when it comes to understanding scriptures, understanding the Constitution, understanding right and wrong, etc. You simply cannot fathom that what is morally right for Cato may be just as morally wrong for the next person. But if liberty and pursuit of happiness means anything it means that we each determine or own morality and pursue happiness in out own ways as long as they do not interefere with the rights of others to pursue right and wrong and to pursue happiness in their own ways.

No, you can't grasp that a standard of behavior existsand applies to all of us. We are where we are in this nation today, because of relativism. So many want things like the bible or the consitution to say what they want it to say. Life just does not work that way.

That is what liberty and freedom to pursue happiness each of us in our own ways, are about- our differing assessments of our standards of behavior and of right and wrong- right and wrong for each of us and our own situations. If that is wrong, then liberty and freedom are wrong.

You gave up your claim to liberty when you said, "I see a nation where people reap the benifits and consequences of their actions with government intervention."

No, I made a mistake when I was typing. You jumped on my mistakes, because that is the best you can do.

I took you at your own words, Cato- which, as I said above, I accept as an honest mistake, as you can edited and corrected accordingly. Just don't blame me for you typing boo-boos and I won't blame you for mine.

Yes, that is exactly what you see- government intervention to assure that everyone sees "right and wrong" and understands the Bible and the Constitution in the same ways that Cato does. That is not liberty. That is tyranny and fascism.

Cato, really doesn't care how you see the scriptures. In that regard, if your going to be a Christian, then it seems logical to me to use the bible as the standard and thus mold your life to it, without picking and choosing what you will accept and what you won't.

That's fine. Just don't make the mistake of somehow thinking that all Christian beliefs and practices that disagree with yours are bogus or wrong. You obviosuly have your own version of picking and choosing. And I don't deny you that- as long as you don't deny others that.

The same applies to the US Constiutiton. You can't pick and choose what you are going to accept and what you are not. The Consitution is a legal document that says certain things and doesn't say others. You can't change the meaning of the words to make it way what you want. Simply it is not a "living document".

As to the Constitution, the Founders certainly did not agree on either what it did or should mean.

Why should Americans today be expected to find any more single message in the Constitution than the Founders who wrote it did more than 200 years ago?

Aaron wrote:If you look, you can find a nice picture of him staging a set in at the governor's office. Yeah, that's something to be proud of. He went to jail because he DEMANDED the governor talk to him.



He's said he didn't go to jail for draft dodging. His tale was that he 'convinced' the Army that he and they weren't a mutual fit.

He's never said how but in the 60's, if you passed your testing and were found physically fit, there were only a couple of ways to convince the military you weren't fit. You were either crazy or gay and Ziggy won't say which route he took.

If I am gay, then I have hidden it really well from Ms. Ziggy for 42 years. And I have learned that I can't hide anything from Ms. Ziggy.

As to crazy, I have never denied being crazy. But I note that those who do suggest that I might be crazy have no proof of their own sanity, either.

Keli wrote:Sam, Ziggy, TerryRC, et al,

I repect your opinion and thank God for the men and women who died in military service to our country to preserve your right to disagree. Happy Memorial Day!

Happy Memorial Day to you too, Keli.

But I do not accept that the men and women who died while their units were burning innocent people and villages and jungles in Vietnam, or carrying forth Bush's political agenda in Iraq were preserving my right to anything. On the contrary, I assert that they died denying the rights of millions of innocent Vietnamese and Iraqis- who were no threat to you and me- to simply live.

ziggy wrote:

Your "right" not to rent property to select people whose conduct does not affect your well being intereferes with THEIR right to live in a place where they can otherwise afford to pursue their happiness.

First of all they made a choice. With choice comes rewards and consequences. One of the concequences of thier choice is that some disagree with their lifestyle. They find it offensive and thus they will not condone it. You have yet to explain to me why I sould be required by the force of law to rent or sell to a homosexual couple.

Why should Americans today be expected to find any more single message in the Constitution than the Founders who wrote it did more than 200 years ago?

then by you logic any legal document must mean whatever someone wants it to mean. In other words a deed may mean whatever I choose to have it mean. By your logic then there can be no standard.

Cato wrote:

Why should Americans today be expected to find any more single message in the Constitution than the Founders who wrote it did more than 200 years ago?

then by you logic any legal document must mean whatever someone wants it to mean. In other words a deed may mean whatever I choose to have it mean. By your logic then there can be no standard.

So when not even the Founders agreed about the Constitution, what "standard" should we, more than 200 year later, adopt?

As to other documents, such as deeds and other contracts, there are often disagreements about what they mean. Even the parties that negotiated these documents often disagree as to their meanings at some time or other in the future. And under the American legal system, it is the Courts we use to determine their meanings when such disagreements occur- just as we do when there are disagreements about the law and the Constitution. Again, it is the American way- as practiced in the Common Law and directed by the Constitution. If there were only one way to interpret the words of various documents, then there would never be any legal disagreements nor needs for a system of civil courts.