General discussion

A quote of Cicero's seems relevant today

Sep 30, 2006 3:51PM PDT

And how many are buying into the great progressive social engineering, the Muslim Student Organization, Council on American and Islam Relations (CAIR) or Howard Dean's rants?

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. Marcus Tullius Cicero


Discussion is locked

Reply to: A quote of Cicero's seems relevant today
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: A quote of Cicero's seems relevant today
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
well said tom
Oct 1, 2006 12:03AM PDT

to bad some cant see it nor understand it

- Collapse -
That begs the question ...
Oct 1, 2006 4:01AM PDT

Who are the traitors?
The people who oppose a reckless foreign policy? Or those who support it?
The people who question the value of the freedoms central to the Republic? Or those who are defending those freedoms?

I'm deeply concerned that so much of our political dialog on both ends of the political spectrum is conducted in language that demonizes the opposition. 'Traitor' is a strong label to apply to somebody merely because they frequently disagree with you. The fact is that there are a lot things going on in the political world right now that simply are not obviously 'right' or 'wrong' but most of the political dialog here and elsewhere is based on an assumption that 'we' are always right, 'they' are always wrong and compromise is uniformly evil.

- Collapse -
Oct 1, 2006 5:02AM PDT

I'm not calling anyone a traitor-yet. I think the Patriot Act is necessary, but should have the "sunset" clause.
How can you have a consistant foreign policy when it changes every 4-8 years? Should the policy be active or reactive?
Combining various polls with their lead to a certain answer questions, it seems the majority is ignored. This is a republic, right? Yet appeasement, political correctness, "diversity", and social engineering through schooling, laws and genetics have become the ruling precept of some, along with the mantra the USA is always wrong and always to blame.
This same group, or political party, is trying to make a compact with the devil, a world ruling body fronted by the UN, and they think that they will be part of the ruling body only to wake up and find their throats have been slit along with the rest of the infidels.
When Islamic clerics in England ask to have their own set of laws what comes on down the road? Not sure if this correct, but to me that is subversion, undermining the Western culture with the goal of making the "global community" subservient to one strict standard, one of their own making.
Why is it one group calls foul when someone says something negative about Islam but it is illegal to say Jesus on school grounds or have crosses in cemeteries?
Am I pessimistic? Yes. Am I paranoid? More and more each passing day. I read op-eds, blogs, etc. from both sides of the middle to try to get a feel for what is happening and what I see is disturbing.
Wasn't it Pogo who said " we have met the enemy and they are us"? This "give me more and I want it now" mentality of Americans has become the opiate of us and will surely be our downfall until we learn what is necessary and what is a luxury.
Thanks for the soap-box.


- Collapse -
One case in point
Oct 1, 2006 8:44AM PDT

Islamic Society of Boston suit moves forward.

The Islamic Society sued a group of individuals and entities including the Boston Herald, WFXT-TV (Channel 25), a pro-Israel group The David Project, and terrorism specialist Steven Emerson asserting that they coordinated a campaign falsely linking mosque officials to Islamic extremism and terrorist groups in television and newspaper stories.

The plaintiffs say that the connections were fabricated and that the stories have interfered with their right to the free exercise of their religion. They also said the stories stalled development of their planned Roxbury mosque, drying up donations to the project.

Notice "their right to the free "execise" of their religion." If it were another religion it would thrown out of court.
Smell the coffee people before you're smelling the Constitution going up in smoke!


- Collapse -
Words have meanings
Oct 1, 2006 10:57AM PDT

It's too bad you buy into the flapdoodle nonsense of "reckless foreign policy". With possibly key leadership of the DNC being complicit in CLASSIFIED documents being given willy nilly to the NYT, that is what TRAITOR means

- Collapse -
Indeed, words do have meanings ...
Oct 1, 2006 12:36PM PDT

Have you considered the meanings of YOUR words?

Personally, I am not convinced either way regarding the appropriateness of our foreign policy. There is, however, a large portion of our government (mostly Democrats at present) who do believe that the foreign policy of the current administration is reckless. Given a situation in which there is no obvious way to determine right from wrong you ignore such a large body of opinion at your peril. They are not either wrong or evil just because they are Democrats. In fact, I'd guess that the overwhelming majority of them are just as devoted to the welfare of the US as the majority of Republicans. They just happen to disagree on some fairly basic issues.

I do not fully trust the politicians on either side of these discussions. Neither should you. You certainly have not established ANYTHING other than your own blind partisanship by characterizing the opposition's concerns as 'flapdoodle nonsense'. Are those the most accurate and articulate 'words [that] have meaning' that you could come up with? The Democratic leadership may well be wrong about a lot of things, but that does not automatically make them traitors. Releasing classified material is illegal, and I won't endorse it. Still, my understanding is that both the right and left have done it many times over the years when it suited their purposes.

In this case I'm guessing that you are referring to release of information regarding things like the Bush administration's orders to perform various eavesdropping operations. Was releasing that information illegal? Probably. Until the courts actually rule on the legitimacy of the program (which IIRC has not yet happened) I'm not prepared to label the release as wrong and certainly not treasonous.

Are you willing to honestly evaluate the legitimacy of the actions of Republican leaders? Was Ronald Reagan also a traitor? Or just a criminal? After all, he allowed some pretty sleazy things to happen under his watch. If memory serves, I voted for Reagan (at least once, don't remember about the other time), but I'd say that deliberately ignoring the law and trading with an enemy comes pretty close to treason. Can I PROVE that he was up to his ears in Iran/Contra? No, but as the OJ murder trial has already shown us, legal proof does not necessarily reflect reality. If you really believe he didn't know anything about the Iran/Contra stuff, I've got a bridge to sell you. Furthermore, I don't think you can PROVE that the Democratic leadership is engaged in treason.

BTW: I'm not claiming Clinton was any better. Several of our recent presidents have been engaged in some pretty disgusting behavior. I just don't see much point in going there right now.

- Collapse -
The bottom line is
Oct 1, 2006 6:27PM PDT

The current policy (foreign or domestic) IS the policy and to actively oppose to the extent of subverting it is traitorous, just as it was when Clinton was President. There are no innocents in this one, the make up of politics today fuels the divide and regardless of who has power the other side subverts and the controlling party cries traitor.

The difference here is as a nation - whether you believe it or not - we are at war and want to defeat the enemy, anyone without those specific beliefs is a traitor. IMO

Don Erickson

- Collapse -
All quotes can be relevant
Oct 1, 2006 12:30AM PDT

in the future including when Gorg first said "uck nuk, grunk ding"

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) bt tos you need to post translation:)
Oct 1, 2006 1:06AM PDT
- Collapse -
I don't think it applies to America
Oct 1, 2006 8:17AM PDT

In Cicero's days, little dissent was tolerated and the only manner in which growing dissatisfaction with a government could safely be expressed, was in secret. In America we have plenty of free speech and the one similarity is the motivations and results may be the same.

- Collapse -
Any sudden transition from living under the rule of
Oct 1, 2006 10:43AM PDT

tyranny and fear to one of freedom does not instantly change the behavior of people. They will be hesistant to test new waters until they see others splashing around in them without being yanked away. A few brave souls may get the wheels moving but it still may be generations later before freedom is fully enjoyed by the majority. Unfortunately, there will be the self serving ones who cannot be satisfied. They continue to push the limits of their notion of freedom until they actually become such a burden that a few start calling for reins again. These few are now considered as enemies of freedom when, in fact, they may be actually serving to to preserve it. Perhaps we can see this part of the cycle in our country now while we are seeing the beginnings of the tentative side of people just gaining their freedom in Iraq and other parts of the world. It's a mistake to be disappointed and suggest failure if we don't immediately see frolic and play from ones who are freed. Perhaps many of us have seen a caged and frightened animal's behavior when the door is suddenly sprung open and many eyes are watching to see how it's going to react.

CNET Forums

Forum Info