Now here is someone I can agree with.

SamCogar wrote:Very well stated Willy. And quite factual ta boot.

Thank You.

Cato wrote: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.

But earlier you had said:

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

Having it both ways again, eh?

We cannot rationally talk about the "here and now" outside the history of where we've come from. And where we've come from includes a history of violent genocide against the whole of Amerindian culture- terrorism on a scale that would make most any follower of 21st century AlQuida blush with shame of ineptitude at having killed only a few thousand New Yorkers and a few hundred at a time elsewhere around the world.

Your beloved "core principles" are historically based on usurpation of what belongs to others (redistribution of wealth on the grandest of scales) in pursuit of your utopian "here and now". You so conveniently chose to turn a blind eye to the theres and thens that brought you and Rudd to the fleeting promised land of your high and mighty idealism. And you dare whine about "socialism"? You are quite OK with socialism and wealth redistribution so long as you and yours come out on top.

ziggy wrote:

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

So merely by voicing an objection the citizen is exempt?

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote: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.

But earlier you had said:

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

Having it both ways again, eh?

If you say so

ziggy wrote:We cannot rationally talk about the "here and now" outside the history of where we've come from. And where we've come from includes a history of violent genocide against the whole of Amerindian culture- terrorism on a scale that would make most any follower of 21st century AlQuida blush with shame of ineptitude at having killed only a few thousand New Yorkers and a few hundred at a time elsewhere around the world.

Your beloved "core principles" are historically based on usurpation of what belongs to others (redistribution of wealth on the grandest of scales) in pursuit of your utopian "here and now". You so conveniently chose to turn a blind eye to the theres and thens that brought you and Rudd to the fleeting promised land of your high and mighty idealism. And you dare whine about "socialism"? You are quite OK with socialism and wealth redistribution so long as you and yours come out on top.

Frist of all I have never said we were perfect. Unlike you however, I'm not willing to commit suicide for what my ancestors did or didn't do. If you want to give up what you have because of what your ancestors did, that is your business. If you want me to sanction your doing that or want me to say that I should feel bad about what I have or the liberty I still have, I don't. In fact, Ziggy, I'm proud of what I have and the nation and the ideals that allowed me to obtain it.

People like you have no clue what core principles are. Like the wind you are driven from one view to the other, depending on the philophy du joir. As I said, you like to pretend you some great intellect with your holier than thou attitude. In truth, you and your socialistic crowd are little more than looters who have done little but live off the efforts of others.

No, it is you and your beloved Mr. Rudd who are so holier than thou.

Your statment that "we are talking about the here and now" says it all- that you care not one whit about how we got to the here and now- or who we took someone else's here and now from so that you can be all smug and self-righteous in the social vacuum of today. All that matters to you is today; yesterday and tomorrow are someone else's problem.

Some day, whether for your and my chidlren, our grandchildren, or generations afar- but someday the chickens will come home to roost. And the arrogance of todayism that you so proudly proclaim will hasten the homing flight of the chickens.

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

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

So merely by voicing an objection the citizen is exempt?

No. But failure to voice objection implies consent.

ziggy wrote:No, it is you and your beloved Mr. Rudd who are so holier than thou.

Your statment that "we are talking about the here and now" says it all- that you care not one whit about how we got to the here and now- or who we took someone else's here and now from so that you can be all smug and self-righteous in the social vacuum of today. All that matters to you is today; yesterday and tomorrow are someone else's problem.

Some day, whether for your and my chidlren, our grandchildren, or generations afar- but someday the chickens will come home to roost. And the arrogance of todayism that you so proudly proclaim will hasten the homing flight of the chickens.

I know how I got here. I got here because of the sacrifice of those before me. Those who happen to believe in code principles like liberty and honor. I also know that there is a segment of our society that is more than willing to accept the benefits of what we have and yet, condemn the very institutions that make these benefits possible. Like you, they want the benefit, they use the benefits, but lack the courage and fortitude to defend the very benefits that makes their lives possible.

Yep, you are right the chickens will come home to roost one day. Thanks to you and those of like mind, that day may be sooner than you think.

Willy, you should either watch this video or read the transcript.

Exclusive Look at 'Generation Zero'

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4049547/exclusive-look-at-generation-zero

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," February 23, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587349,00.html

SamCogar wrote:Willy, you should either watch this video or read the transcript.

Exclusive Look at 'Generation Zero'

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4049547/exclusive-look-at-generation-zero

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," February 23, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587349,00.html

Thanks for posting this. I'd like to see the documentry.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/australia.asp

Ok guys - time out....check this out.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:No, it is you and your beloved Mr. Rudd who are so holier than thou.

Your statment that "we are talking about the here and now" says it all- that you care not one whit about how we got to the here and now- or who we took someone else's here and now from so that you can be all smug and self-righteous in the social vacuum of today. All that matters to you is today; yesterday and tomorrow are someone else's problem.

Some day, whether for your and my chidlren, our grandchildren, or generations afar- but someday the chickens will come home to roost. And the arrogance of todayism that you so proudly proclaim will hasten the homing flight of the chickens.

I know how I got here. I got here because of the sacrifice of those before me. Those who happen to believe in code principles like liberty and honor.

"Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint."- Daniel Webster

I also know that there is a segment of our society that is more than willing to accept the benefits of what we have and yet, condemn the very institutions that make these benefits possible. Like you, they want the benefit, they use the benefits, but lack the courage and fortitude to defend the very benefits that makes their lives possible.

Oh really? What institutions? It was Cato, and not Ziggy who only a couple days ago said:

Cato wrote: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.

You say that Vice-President Cheney was but a "talking head", and that neither the sitting president nor the past president represented you, and that Congress is composed of baffons, and that "They are not my govenrment or my United States".

In the past you have declared that the Courts do not represent you. Now you declare that neither the Congress nor the Presidents and "talking head" Vice-President represent you. And yet you dare to declare that it is Ziggy who condems the "institutions" that make life in America possible?

Physician, heal thyself first!

Cato wrote:I know how I got here. I got here because of the sacrifice of those before me.

Yes. Yes indeed; you got that one right. And some of their names were Iroquois, Cherokee, Shawnee, Delaware, Erie, Fox, Tuskegee, Algonquian Family, Mohican, Chippewa, Illinois, Winnebago, Apache, Muskogee, Blackfoot, Iowa, Comanche, and the list goes on.

Millions of Amerindians, from hundreds of tribes and tribal families, and whose ancestors were here for thousands of years before you knew how you "got here" sacrificed before you. Yes indeed; you got that one right.

The Iroquois Nation before, during, and after Chief Joseph Brant claimed the right to sell the lands east and west of the Ohio River by right of conquest when in truth they slaughtered the Erie Indians only. The lands they sold belonged to the Shawnees, the Delawares, the Miamis, the Mingos, Cayugas, Potawatomis, Weas, Sac and Fox tribes, and a whole score of others - none of whom had ever been defeated by any member tribe of the Iroquois Nation. The white man can hardly be blamed for the craven cowardice of the Iroquois.

Life before the white man was not idyllic and the American Indians were not the innocent children of Eden. Nor were they a monolithic assortment of innocents frolicking in Nature.

At every critical juncture they opted to ally with the losing side against the eventual victor and were finally overwhelmed by the preponderance of new settlers. This was a matter of demography and was neither good nor evil.

I will grant you that Jackson and many others treated the American Indians badly. The history is not one of good and evil, however.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:I know how I got here. I got here because of the sacrifice of those before me.

Yes. Yes indeed; you got that one right. And some of their names were Iroquois, Cherokee, Shawnee, Delaware, Erie, Fox, Tuskegee, Algonquian Family, Mohican, Chippewa, Illinois, Winnebago, Apache, Muskogee, Blackfoot, Iowa, Comanche, and the list goes on.

Millions of Amerindians, from hundreds of tribes and tribal families, and whose ancestors were here for thousands of years before you knew how you "got here" sacrificed before you. Yes indeed; you got that one right.

And as I have said for the third time, if you feel the way you do, then why don't you give your property back to these people and leave. Personally, you certainly talk the talk, but I don't think you even remotely have the balls to walk the walk.

Cato wrote:And as I have said for the third time, if you feel the way you do, then why don't you give your property back to these people and leave. Personally, you certainly talk the talk, but I don't think you even remotely have the balls to walk the walk.

How ironic. Had you and I lived 200 years ago, you and your holier than thou then blood-thirsty immigrant terrorists would have branded me a traitorious "Indian lover" for siding with my Indian brothers and sisters to preserve what was then still our nation from your beloved white European conquerors. Terrorism, like patriotism, is only in the eye of the beholder. As long as it is your ox doing the goring, you are just fine with it.

ohio county wrote:The Iroquois Nation before, during, and after Chief Joseph Brant claimed the right to sell the lands east and west of the Ohio River by right of conquest when in truth they slaughtered the Erie Indians only. The lands they sold belonged to the Shawnees, the Delawares, the Miamis, the Mingos, Cayugas, Potawatomis, Weas, Sac and Fox tribes, and a whole score of others - none of whom had ever been defeated by any member tribe of the Iroquois Nation. The white man can hardly be blamed for the craven cowardice of the Iroquois.

Life before the white man was not idyllic and the American Indians were not the innocent children of Eden. Nor were they a monolithic assortment of innocents frolicking in Nature.

And the wannabe Muslim conquerors of the western world's society of today look at it about the same way- that our western society is not the nearly perfect children of Eden we proclaim it to be. They see us more or less as the same kinds of savages as so many white Europeans conquerors and their descendents described the Amerindians.

Ziggy,

I notice that you did not really address OC's point. Just because the Islamists have a view of the white man not altogether different from some Europeans of the Amerindians surely does not have anything to do with the "good/evil dichotomy" that is so often proferred when considering white-indigenous relations.

Your reasoning is like much I hear from the left these days. When accused of overspending, many Dems cite Bush, as if somehow they have right to use the argument 'Bush did it' as JUSTIFICATION of their actions. Well, are you suggesting that somehow the white man, just like the black, yellow, and red, is somehow more (or less) depraved than the rest?

Any nation's history has elements of both good and bad. Yes, Jackson broke treaties and yes, some (but much less than teachers say) smallpox was transmitted intentionally.

I should like to see any evidence that the Indian nations were any more noble or less so than any other nation on earth. The French gave us both the resistance and the Vichy collaboraters. The Germans gave us Martin Luther and Josef Goebbels. The Italians both Michelangelo and Mussolini.

I'm sure many of the indigenous nations were unfair to each other just as many of our forebearers were unfair to them. If you are suggesting a global jubilee, I see no reason why a given parcel of land should go to an "Indian" as it might well end up going to the descendant of one tribe who had taken that land unfairly from another. Just as some blacks sold slaves to the white man, if we are going to atone for our sins, we need to see to it that descendants of those slave-sellers pay as well to those descendants of slaves.

Tis really a sad thing when one tries to blame the rest of the world, past and present, for their own mistakes, missed opportunities, underachievements and their problems and troubles they brought upon themself as a result of the decisions they made during their younger years which they now realize was a result of their own blatant ignorance, stubbornness and stupidity.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:And as I have said for the third time, if you feel the way you do, then why don't you give your property back to these people and leave. Personally, you certainly talk the talk, but I don't think you even remotely have the balls to walk the walk.

How ironic. Had you and I lived 200 years ago, you and your holier than thou then blood-thirsty immigrant terrorists would have branded me a traitorious "Indian lover" for siding with my Indian brothers and sisters to preserve what was then still our nation from your beloved white European conquerors. Terrorism, like patriotism, is only in the eye of the beholder. As long as it is your ox doing the goring, you are just fine with it.

Again as I said, if you that that much problem with things, give your property back to the indians and leave.

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 you still ignored Ziggy's point.

TerryRC wrote: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 you still ignored Ziggy's point.

And his point is what, that we should feel guilty for what our ancestors did. You and he can feel as guilty as you want, but I don't.

And his point is what, that we should feel guilty for what our ancestors did. You and he can feel as guilty as you want, but I don't.

No, Willy.

His point is that conservative Americans and Australians say "If you come here, learn our ways...", yet when we come to a place, we NEVER learn the ways of the place we go/steal/conquer.

You can see this by watching American tourists in other countries. We expect everyone to speak English to us...

Ziggy was pointing out that we don't practice what we preach and we never have, on this issue, anyway.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

I notice that you did not really address OC's point. Just because the Islamists have a view of the white man not altogether different from some Europeans of the Amerindians surely does not have anything to do with the "good/evil dichotomy" that is so often proferred when considering white-indigenous relations.

Your reasoning is like much I hear from the left these days. When accused of overspending, many Dems cite Bush, as if somehow they have right to use the argument 'Bush did it' as JUSTIFICATION of their actions. Well, are you suggesting that somehow the white man, just like the black, yellow, and red, is somehow more (or less) depraved than the rest?

Yes- more or less.

Any nation's history has elements of both good and bad. Yes, Jackson broke treaties and yes, some (but much less than teachers say) smallpox was transmitted intentionally.

I should like to see any evidence that the Indian nations were any more noble or less so than any other nation on earth.

I have not suggested that they were. But as long as we can excuse what white Europeans did to the Amerindians that they considerd to be "savages", then we should logically excuse Muslims who are hell bent on transforming what they consider infidel, Bible thumping Christian America into something more resembling the Koran and Sharia law.

The French gave us both the resistance and the Vichy collaboraters. The Germans gave us Martin Luther and Josef Goebbels. The Italians both Michelangelo and Mussolini.

I'm sure many of the indigenous nations were unfair to each other just as many of our forebearers were unfair to them. If you are suggesting a global jubilee, I see no reason why a given parcel of land should go to an "Indian" as it might well end up going to the descendant of one tribe who had taken that land unfairly from another. Just as some blacks sold slaves to the white man, if we are going to atone for our sins, we need to see to it that descendants of those slave-sellers pay as well to those descendants of slaves.

I am not suggesting "atonement for our sins". I am suggesting recognization of our historical sins as a pre-requisite to dealing with those who are determined to "sin" against us. If we continue to pretend that our historical hands are clean and that those who, as Cato said, "sacrifcied" before him so he could enjoy "liberty" did so with altrustic intent rather than as victims of Cato's murderous ancestors, then the stage is set for Cato and/or his descendents to join the ranks of yet another generation of North Americans to suffer genocide of its social order and human populations at the hands of others who are looking for their own version of the promised land in their "New World".

Human history repeats itself. And denial of the simple fact that our own ancestors were as murderous as the enemies Cato and Mr. Rudd seek to somehow tame into submission to the very social fabric those enemies so despise, is to bury our heads in the sands of wishful thinking and denial of natural human ambitions to change others to our own social ethic and order.

It matters not how many of our gods- whether one or a zillion- support our particular social order. There are always more gods supporting more other people with an increasing sense of importance of their own missionary zeal.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:And as I have said for the third time, if you feel the way you do, then why don't you give your property back to these people and leave. Personally, you certainly talk the talk, but I don't think you even remotely have the balls to walk the walk.

How ironic. Had you and I lived 200 years ago, you and your holier than thou then blood-thirsty immigrant terrorists would have branded me a traitorious "Indian lover" for siding with my Indian brothers and sisters to preserve what was then still our nation from your beloved white European conquerors. Terrorism, like patriotism, is only in the eye of the beholder. As long as it is your ox doing the goring, you are just fine with it.

Again as I said, if you that that much problem with things, give your property back to the indians and leave.

But it was you, Cato, who said, "I know how I got here. I got here because of the sacrifice of those before me. Those who happen to believe in code principles like liberty and honor."

You believe in liberty and honor? Then why don't you just be honest enough to admit that those who "sacrificed before you got here" were the victims of your murderous ancestors' intent to make the "New world" adjust to their beliefs- just as Islamic "terrorists" are doing today? That would be the honorable thing for you to do- and liberating, too.

Our collective denials of centuries of the USA's imperialism- and even more centuries of Christian imperialism- is the Islamist's best weapon against us. Because as long as we continue to engage in that denial, we have no clue about what motivates our wannabe conquerors. Only when we put ourselves in their shoes and in their minds will we realize that Islam is the "new" Christianity- with all of the zeal and all of the unspent militarism which the old one had centuries ago. Our wilful ingnorance of that reality is the best tool that today's terroristic Islam has.

TerryRC wrote:And his point is what, that we should feel guilty for what our ancestors did. You and he can feel as guilty as you want, but I don't.

No, Willy.

His point is that conservative Americans and Australians say "If you come here, learn our ways...", yet when we come to a place, we NEVER learn the ways of the place we go/steal/conquer.

You can see this by watching American tourists in other countries. We expect everyone to speak English to us...

Ziggy was pointing out that we don't practice what we preach and we never have, on this issue, anyway.

Actually Ziggy has no point other than feeling guilty for what our ancestors did. I don't feel the least bit guilty. Because of them, you and I both have had liberty. However, people like you are so busy trying to seem like some sort of intellectual that you seem to have forgot that you benefited from what our ancestors did also. Like Ziggy you continue trashing this nation without any thought to what it has allowed you to achieve.