This makes me both laugh and cry...

[wotgoplunk]

Idiocy at its extreme!

[pianistimo]

what makes me laugh and cry is that intellectuals from distinguished colleges waste their time on listening to dictators, whilst poor thinking conservatives are literally saving large groups of burmese from genocide by convincing the state department to give these people refuge.  which of these groups (conservative or non-conservative) are actually benefitting society in a meaningful way.

you can laugh about conservativism until you are blue in the face.  if you are so smart - do something to make the world a better place.  until then - don't criticize.

ps  where's the UN in all this?  are they ignoring the satellite imagery of people killed and then burned (so noone can tell they existed?)  also, what do they think of ahmadnejad now that he's openly telling people in his country that israelis should move to alaska and canada?  that's just wierd.  the UN and supposed 'intellectuals' in this country think that is paving the way for world peace?

and what proponent of the supposed one world, or world for peace movement is taking down numbers of christians persecuted and killed for their beliefs in many, many countries.  if you are racist - openly proclaim yourself one so that we may know that in our own countries who we are fighting.  being against religion is the SAME as being anti-homosexual.  or can't you think that far?

[counterpoint]

I can't believe, that conservapedia is a serious site 

[soderlund]

Hahaha... I agree with you, wotgoplunk...

[thalbergmad]

Any site that has a "Daily Bible Verse" cannot be taken as serious.

That site is kept going by "happy clappy" head in the clouds tambo bangers like pianistimo.

Thal

[pianistimo]

conservapedia is bashing those who think by knocking at suppositions.  why don't they take a look at world news and compare who helps those who are down and out?  conservative christians.  why?  because they believe in GOD.  unlike those who don't care because we're all going to die some way or other.  what does it matter if millions of people are shot in burma?  btw, the USA is about the only country that is taking note of the genocide there and allowing mass immigration.  what do you say to that?  that we don't have brains because we are conservative. 

what do you consider intellectual.  facts and numbers or PEOPLE?  doesn't anyone have a HEART?  that is what true brains are about.  HEART.

[thalbergmad]

The Fuhrer is off on a rant again.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

being against religion is the SAME as being anti-homosexual.  or can't you think that far?

Intriguingly fatuous.

what makes me laugh and cry is that intellectuals from distinguished colleges waste their time on listening to dictators, whilst poor thinking conservatives are literally saving large groups of burmese from genocide by convincing the state department to give these people refuge. which of these groups (conservative or non-conservative) are actually benefitting society in a meaningful way.

I suppose you think

Intellectuals = people who pretend to be intelligent so that they can consort with deranged dictators and expound world views on things they have no experience of

Social conservatives and Christians = people who have a monopoly on human decency

?

[thalbergmad]

 being against religion is the SAME as being anti-homosexual. 

Strange, as you once labelled homosexuality as evil.

[pianistimo]

average citizens can believe what they want.  governments are another matter.

'the secret of happiness is FREEDOM.  and the secret of freedom is COURAGE.'

we have not armed our entire country.  in fact, our own country is actually disarming us so that we may fit into the 'one continent' and then 'one world' situation.

this is the opposite in venezuala.  almost all the citizens are now armed and told fatuously that america will invade them.  what they are really preparing for is to be told by iran when to invade us.  at exactly the same time as europe.  can't you see it coming?

ps thalbergmad - you asked point blank questions to me in a religious thread.  not a political one.  i am for religious and non-religious freedom.  don't change my words. if you are homosexual and given rights - should you not WANT those same rights given to christians?  or is it too much of a stretch for your mind?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Strange, as you once labelled homosexuality as evil.

Yes, I couldn't be bothered digging up the relevant quote, but she did.

we have not armed our entire country. in fact, our own country is actually disarming us so that we may fit into the 'one continent' and then 'one world' situation.

this is the opposite in venezuala. almost all the citizens are now armed and told fatuously that america will invade them. what they are really preparing for is to be told by iran when to invade us. at exactly the same time as europe. can't you see it coming?

Unremitting drivel.

[pianistimo]

i have never started an anti-homosexual thread.  there have been many anti-religious threads.  also, the question was asked three or four times by thalbergmad - and told to answer 'yes' or 'no.'  that was what he wanted so he could use it now.  you are all so easy to see through.

what makes me laugh and cry is that our own citizens don't know american history and create drivel such as on the 'conservapedia' site - which no conservative in their right mind would read anyways.  that IS anti-religious. 

i have not started any topic that would purposely inflame anyone.  but, when they are started - i figure - 'fair is fair.'  if you want to bash someone or something - don't just make a joke.  tell us why it is so much better to be braindead.  our forefathers were awake enough to fight.  nobody will fight this time.  so let your country be owned.

ps it isn't your fault you believe what you do.  it was taught from elementary through college.  it's an agenda and you're following it.  don't be surprised when you lose some freedoms.  the UN isn't going to make your life a piece of cake.  in fact, it will be much like the roman empire.  if you don't fit it - you're shot.  how does that sound?

i want my blood to drain on US soil, with an american flag in my hand and a bible on my heart.  the UN can plan multitudes of ways to do battle - including creating automotons in our own country.  they're planted so that people will mindlessly follow along - pushing buttons and smiling.  they've forgotten that the basic human rights that most of the world has now - were created not by following but by leading.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

ps it isn't your fault you believe what you do.  it was taught from elementary through college.  it's an agenda and you're following it.  don't be surprised when you lose some freedoms.  the UN isn't going to make your life a piece of cake.  in fact, it will be much like the roman empire.  if you don't fit it - you're shot.  how does that sound?

Being patronised by someone with your level of world knowledge is truly a first.

[pianistimo]

3 million fought in the civil war.  600,000 died.  but you can believe conservapedia if you want.

what do you think history is about?  just killing?  or is there a reason?  ok you bring up the civil war (attempting ACTUALLY to give the LIBERAL version).  but, why were people willing to die?  for FREEDOM.

is this only a conservative ideal now?

btw, wikianswers makes me laugh and cry.  what about WWII?  they can't even answer straight and have to admit in the conservipedia that in WWII the numbers were more (than the true figure of 600,000 in civil war).
https://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_US_Civil_War

that is why i think people should choose their own history books. maybe read a few newspapers from the time of WWII - and understand what people were fighting against and for.

WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DIE FOR?  if you don't want to die for anything - join the UN.  the bunch of thugs and hypocrites.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

3 million fought in the civil war. 600,000 died. but you can believe conservapedia if you want.

what do you think history is about? just killing? or is there a reason? ok you bring up the civil war (attempting ACTUALLY to give the LIBERAL version). but, why were people willing to die? for FREEDOM.

is this only a conservative ideal now?

As you presume to make assumptions about my education or lack thereof, despite knowing nothing of my background, I'll do likewise. I don't think you know what history is about, full stop. Your grasp of it (and most other things) seems primarily gleaned from wikipedia and carefully selected online sources. Though you don't appear to have noticed, such is the level of your observational skills and logic - I didn't actually bring up the American Civil war and attempt to give a "LIBERAL version" - whatever that might be; in fact this is my first ever mention of it on this, or any other forum.

[thalbergmad]

ps thalbergmad - you asked point blank questions to me in a religious thread.  not a political one. 

Oh, so if my question was in a different thread, would it have got a different answer?

I simply exposed the evil infesting your pathetic deluded little mind.

You are as bad as Hitler.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DIE FOR?  if you don't want to die for anything - join the UN.  the bunch of thugs and hypocrites.

Rotfl.

How can I join the UN? I may have a marginally inflated view of my own importance, but I've certainly not got round to declaring myself a sovereign nation yet.

[thalbergmad]

ps it isn't your fault you believe what you do.  it was taught from elementary through college.  it's an agenda and you're following it. 

Well, at least i got as far as elementary.

When you going to start.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

i want my blood to drain on US soil, with an american flag in my hand and a bible on my heart. 

Oh what a hero you are, willing to spill blood for freedom. Will you sacrifice yourself for others?.
I suppose you want to be crucified as well.

I want my blood to drain on English soil, with a pint of Guiness in my hand and Playboy International on my heart.

Thal

[pianistimo]

who said anything about crucifixion?  and, btw, my crime will be 'not joining the UN?'  since when was that a crime.  today?  do the banks own our country?

you can die however you like, thal.  i just mourn that it has to be a playboy and not your girlfriend. 

[thalbergmad]

How do you join the UN then?

Is there a form i can fill in?

Thal

[wotgoplunk]

conservapedia is bashing those who think by knocking at suppositions.  why don't they take a look at world news and compare who helps those who are down and out?  conservative christians.  why?  because they believe in GOD.  unlike those who don't care because we're all going to die some way or other.  what does it matter if millions of people are shot in burma?  btw, the USA is about the only country that is taking note of the genocide there and allowing mass immigration.  what do you say to that?  that we don't have brains because we are conservative. 

what do you consider intellectual.  facts and numbers or PEOPLE?  doesn't anyone have a HEART?  that is what true brains are about.  HEART.

Myanmar. Not Burma.

[wotgoplunk]

I'm going to the Model UN for Canadian high school students this year! 

Not that it makes a difference or anything. But I get to watch democracy fail! 

[pianistimo]

enjoy watching your country fall to pieces.  if i were you, i'd be sick that day.  or stick your national flag everywhere and post signs 'UN go home.'

hitler did this.  youth indoctrination.  it's very easy.  just say what people want to hear.  don't tell them at what price.

[thalbergmad]

hitler did this.  youth indoctrination. 

So do churches.

Just as bad really.

Thal

[wotgoplunk]

enjoy watching your country fall to pieces.  if i were you, i'd be sick that day.  or stick your national flag everywhere and post signs 'UN go home.'

hitler did this.  youth indoctrination.  it's very easy.  just say what people want to hear.  don't tell them at what price.

I think you may have misunderstood quite what a Model UN does. You're not me, thank God.

Godwin's Law. You lose again.

Me? The indoctrinated kid? From the entirely Roman Catholic family with Italian and Irish ancestry? I don't think so.

[ahinton]

i have never started an anti-homosexual thread.  there have been many anti-religious threads.  also, the question was asked three or four times by thalbergmad - and told to answer 'yes' or 'no.'  that was what he wanted so he could use it now.  you are all so easy to see through.

But are you not also? - did you not infer that you believe homosexuality to be evil?

what makes me laugh and cry is that our own citizens don't know american history and create drivel such as on the 'conservapedia' site - which no conservative in their right mind would read anyways.  that IS anti-religious. 

I'm not about to comment on the content of that site, but many people do not have an in-depth knowledge of their nation's history, let alone the histories of other nations; I think that we should defer to those that do, actually.

i have not started any topic that would purposely inflame anyone.  but, when they are started - i figure - 'fair is fair.'  if you want to bash someone or something - don't just make a joke.  tell us why it is so much better to be braindead.  our forefathers were awake enough to fight.  nobody will fight this time.  so let your country be owned.

To fight what? What time is "this time" in the sense of a current event against which one could either fight or not fight? You sound almost like an American war-mongerer when you write like this. Is any other country or group of nations trying, for example, to take over and "own" the United States? Whilst the answer to that is plainly "no", you write almost as though you seem to believe - or at least fear - otherwise, which is wholly irrational. The country where I am based is part of the EC but not "owned" by the EC and, as I've observed before, it doesn't even use EC's own currency.

ps it isn't your fault you believe what you do.  it was taught from elementary through college.  it's an agenda and you're following it.  don't be surprised when you lose some freedoms.  the UN isn't going to make your life a piece of cake.  in fact, it will be much like the roman empire.  if you don't fit it - you're shot.  how does that sound?

Fatuous - since you ask. The UN is not a nation with a government. We are all losing and sometimes also gaining various freedoms everywhere. Your "Roman Empire" argument may keep turning up like a bad penny (or cent) or a recurring decimal, but it has no place in present-day events anywhere.

i want my blood to drain on US soil, with an american flag in my hand and a bible on my heart.

I'd rather you lived, actually. Furthermore, if every other American citizen felt the same way as you say you do here, none of them would ever be able to leave American soil and, to the extent that this would prevent any more armed US incursions into other countries, that could be a good thing, I suppose. I don't care on whose soil my blood eventually drains, nor, when it does so, do I wish to have any flag in my hand or Bible on my heart; this is all simply symbolic stuff. Supposing that I happen to die in America; will the fact of my blood draining on US soil be regarded as some kind of sacrilege?

the UN can plan multitudes of ways to do battle - including creating automotons in our own country.  they're planted so that people will mindlessly follow along - pushing buttons and smiling.  they've forgotten that the basic human rights that most of the world has now - were created not by following but by leading.

There are plenty of relatively mindless people around in many countries and this was the case even before the UN was formed.

What in any case do you mean by "most of the world"? in this context? Tell me what you really think about the "basic human rights" accorded to the vast majority of Chinese, North Koreans, Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Sudanese, Saudi Arabians, Zimbabweans, Somalis, Congolese, Nigerians, Pakistanis, Syrians, Uzbeks, Tadjiks, Cubans - the list could go on, but even as I halt it there I have covered pretty well one human in every five on this planet, revealing thereby that your implied optimism on the general availability of "basic human rights" is sadly misplaced.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

wotogoplunk, you and thal and anyone else here can act indifferent to danger like sid charisse in brigadoon.  if 100 years were like a day - you'd see what your ancestors fought for.  although, the popes have pretty much remained the same (down to the jewelry and shoes). 

alistair, i will not defer to anyone to tell me what my own history is.  that is like saying - cut up a thousand history books and throw the parts you don't like in the river.  which parts are those?  the parts that speak about God and His part in the destiny of nations.  it started, actually, with abraham's promise. the promise that his seed would spread the gospel to the entire world.  does anyone care?  no.  because we deny God.

you all can believe what the uni's tell you about any countries history.  they always say - 'the winners determine how history is written.'  that's partially true - but also corroborated by the losing country's lack of saying anything about atrocities.  why do you think some people believe the holocaust never happened?  because they blindly believe what others tell them.

also, i believe that it is too late to wait until an invasion of a country to warn that it could happen.  that is why churchill - THREE YEARS before hitler was elected to power - warned that he was dangerous.  he wrote books and told people what hitler's ideals were about.  nobody listened.  so what happened? people laugh now - because they don't remember 50 years ago.  it's 'impossible' to happen again.  but is it?  why isn't the UN helping countries that are in genocide conditions.  that's what they were created for.  they are hypocrites and planning to attack USA and britian under the guise of peacekeeping and 'helping the world.'  what kind of help is that? 

ok - it hasn't happened yet.  should we wait.  should we give our economy to a bunch of thugs.  pull out and don't buy a single euro.  they want world domination and nothing else.  at the expense of any country who will not submit to their 'human rights' which actually take AWAY rights.  have you read the last 'right.'  nobody can say anything about the short list of human rights.  is there anything there at all about property?  about banking?  about freedom to gather for religious purposes?  about free speech - even if it doesn't agree with the UN's ideals?  no.  they are a flimsy organization with basically no framework for their laws as with the US constitution.  NO CHECK AND BALANCES.  what does this say?  that they will be dictators?  YES.

do you think you will have the right to own a gun?  hmmm.  that's kind of the first basic right of a country to protect itself and it's BORDERS.

and, alistair, britian is not buying into the euro or UN so much because it sees the writing on the wall.  too bad scotland won't see it until later.  i think scotland, ireland and britain will all be ousted when the time comes.  why?  because the royal line of David is IN the isles.  and, as you say - we don't help the freedom of the world currently because the 'commonwealth' of britain and the islands and channels that they and america once owned are now 'common property.'  that is why freedom is being changed for another ideal.  it's very MUCH like the roman empire if you want to compare it because people supposedly can work and be just as they were before...with one difference.  they are under a different government.  when they break the laws of the new government - there isn't a lot they can do.  they will have INTERNATIONAL courts.  of course, sidestepping this a little is the inner 'mafia' which exists in all countries now and is bringing about a connection of all countries to each other.  people are oddly dying every day for no seeming reason. for what purpose are people randomly shot.

[pianistimo]

for us in america, a grave and certain danger is the widening of the panama canal.  does anyone dare talk about that?  no.  it's just like - blah blah blah (background noise).  they will care when ships with nuclear power get that close to our borders with no real checkpoints.

curses on those who sold the canal for pennies on the dollar.  if a country wants freedom they have to own their canals and byways.  of course, with global warming - there are more channels to worry about in canada now, too.  canadians and americans don't know friend from foe anymore.

[ahinton]

alistair, i will not defer to anyone to tell me what my own history is.  that is like saying - cut up a thousand history books and throw the parts you don't like in the river.

No, Susan, it's more like saying that you won't defer even to the most distnguished American historian to the extent of accepting that the said historian knows more of that subject than you do (and who would reasonably expect otherwise?).

  which parts are those?  the parts that speak about God and His part in the destiny of nations.  it started, actually, with abraham's promise. the promise that his seed would spread the gospel to the entire world.  does anyone care?  no.  because we deny God.

Many commentators have been selective about history when writing as they do; this includes politicians, historians and all sort of other people. When Henry Ford (one of your country's citizens) famously declared that "history is bunk", he undermined it greatly and, it could be argued, sought to draw a veil over the endlessly varied interpretations that people have put upon various histories ever since human history began. Sorting out the truth from the interpretations is never easy. Furthermore, "history" is not some kind of idée fuxe; it is in fact an indicator of the very thing about human activity which tagore encapsulated in the phrase

"Everything is driven
By the ceasless movement of change;
This is but the law of time".

Your own personal selectivity about American history apparently involves invoking Abraham non Lincoln and dragging God into it as though He had some direct responsibility for the formation of the American nation. What do you actually know about the history of what is now your country during Biblical times? And what does that tell you about anything?

you all can believe what the uni's tell you about any countries history.  they always say - 'the winners determine how history is written.'  that's partially true - but also corroborated by the losing country's lack of saying anything about atrocities.  why do you think some people believe the holocaust never happened?  because they blindly believe what others tell them.

There are plenty of other sources of historical information and misinformation besides the universities. Of course there are people who blindly believe what others tell them - but are you not one of those people to some extent? Blind belief seems, after all, not to be entirely outside your own terms of reference...

also, i believe that it is too late to wait until an invasion of a country to warn that it could happen.  that is why churchill - THREE YEARS before hitler was elected to power - warned that he was dangerous.  he wrote books and told people what hitler's ideals were about.  nobody listened.  so what happened? people laugh now - because they don't remember 50 years ago.

People laugh, do they? I don't - and I've not heard any Briton or German laughing about that either. Whatever kind of company do you keep? Anyway, WWII began not 50 but 68 years ago...

it's 'impossible' to happen again.  but is it?  why isn't the UN helping countries that are in genocide conditions.  that's what they were created for.  they are hypocrites and planning to attack USA and britian under the guise of peacekeeping and 'helping the world.'  what kind of help is that? 

As I said before, the UN has no nation status and, as a consequence, no armed forces, so even if it wanted to attack US and Britain (an absurd notion in itself, for which there is no evidence as far as I am aware), it would have no means to do so.

ok - it hasn't happened yet.  should we wait.  should we give our economy to a bunch of thugs.  pull out and don't buy a single euro.  they want world domination and nothing else.  at the expense of any country who will not submit to their 'human rights' which actually take AWAY rights.  have you read the last 'right.'  nobody can say anything about the short list of human rights.  is there anything there at all about property?  about banking?  about freedom to gather for religious purposes?  about free speech - even if it doesn't agree with the UN's ideals?  no.  they are a flimsy organization with basically no framework for their laws as with the US constitution.  NO CHECK AND BALANCES.  what does this say?  that they will be dictators?  YES.

Utter fatuity piled on top of more utter fatuity. Sorry, Susan, but that's what it is. No, "it" hasn't happened. And won't (at least not in the way you predict it). NO one is asking that the Americans or British "give their economy" away to anyone; in any case, we don't have economies to give away, really, because we are both - like almost every other notion on earth, too grossly indebted to be able to have one to give away. Of course we do not yet know what the future has in store for us, other than that "ceaseless movement of change", but your vision seems to be one that admits of little else besides a kind of militaristic paranoia.

do you think you will have the right to own a gun?  hmmm.  that's kind of the first basic right of a country to protect itself and it's BORDERS.

As a matter of fact, Susan, I am proud of the fact that I have a right NOT to own a gun. Show me a country that can protect itself by means of its ownership of a single gun. No, you're talking about individuals, of course (so you should have made that clearer).

and, alistair, britian is not buying into the euro or UN so much because it sees the writing on the wall.  too bad scotland won't see it until later.  i think scotland, ireland and britain will all be ousted when the time comes.

What writing? What wall? And what's this "Scotland, Ireland and Britain" nonsense? Scotland and part of Ireland are, for the time being, part of Britain!

why?  because the royal line of David is IN the isles.  and, as you say - we don't help the freedom of the world currently because the 'commonwealth' of britain and the islands and channels that they and america once owned are now 'common property.'  that is why freedom is being changed for another ideal.  it's very MUCH like the roman empire if you want to compare it because people supposedly can work and be just as they were before...with one difference.  they are under a different government.  when they break the laws of the new government - there isn't a lot they can do.  they will have INTERNATIONAL courts.  of course, sidestepping this a little is the inner 'mafia' which exists in all countries now and is bringing about a connection of all countries to each other.  people are oddly dying every day for no seeming reason. for what purpose are people randomly shot.

Susan - go practise the piano. Please.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

ireland and scotland have effectively succeeded because their foreign policies are different than britains.  why?  because of the ability they have had in recent years to direct their own politics and policies. 

i am admittedly not a political journalist or historian of many degrees - but i CAN read.  are you telling me it is a waste of time unless you are a historian?  that is bunk.  you can compare what you read.  to divide truth means to be aware of it in the first place.  you know when someone gives the wrong figures for how many died in a war - or tries to call something a term that sounds 'politically correct.'

do you realize how much history has been rewritten in the last 15-20 years (if not more).  i will find a list of politically correct words.  they are 'replacements' for the real thing.  it's like someone from another country comes into yours and says 'this is the way it was.'  i think that's ridiculous.

[thalbergmad]

too bad scotland won't see it until later.  i think scotland, ireland and britain will all be ousted when the time comes.  why?  because the royal line of David is IN the isles. 

In future, i will give your posts a RR mark, where RR stands for RETARD RATING. Marks will be given out of 10.

This one i give you a RR9.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

but i CAN read. 

Possibly, but your infested brain cannot process information and you cannot write.

Thal

[pianistimo]

don't you have 'politically correct' ways of stating things in britain, too.  how is this retarded to say?  are you saying you want foreigners to teach your children british history whilst people who have actually fought are still alive and very able and capable to write exactly what happened to their own country?

what we need is for people to stand up and say - that is a lie.  it is blantant lying.  lying about figures and facts to make one side look more 'righteous.'  of course, it is now the side that europe never had designs and (supposedly) doesn't have an army.  if it suddenly wanted to form a much larger peacekeeping force - it wouldn't call itself an army in the first place.  it would be under the guise 'peacekeeping.'  as if that will keep peace.  at what price?

europeans on the whole don't really know what is going on behind the scenes.  they do not realize that germany has always had plans to restore itself to it's 'rightful' place in the restored 'holy roman empire.'  i believe the historian paul johnson wrote about this.  as well as others - who wrote 'hitler's pope.'  we have a union of the political with the holy.  exactly what the bible foretells.

[thalbergmad]

europeans on the whole don't really know what is going on behind the scenes.  they do not realize that germany has always had plans to restore itself to it's 'rightful' place in the restored 'holy roman empire.'

HAHAHAHA

RR9.2

[pianistimo]

thomas wood recently wrote a book entitled 'politically incorrect guide to american history.'  but, wierdly - he doesn't say anything politically incorrect according to the idea that political correctness is typically untruth.  for instance, he sides with the slave owning rebels of the south in the civil war and calls the north aggressive.  also, he feels that the north should believe that any states should, at whim, be able to suceed if they do not like any law of the constitution.  basically, mr. thomas wood is agreeing with american history as told by a german militarist.  that slave holding was good and the south was pure.  now, i have nothing against southerners - but i think most of those who were enslaved at the time were extremely grateful to president lincoln. 

also, this mr. woods doesn't seem to value neutrality and thinks that belgium - because it was neutral - was a good target for the germans of WWII to begin with.  and, also, that america would have never gotten involved in the war if they hadn't sunk so many of our ships.  now, granted - a lot of ships were sunk - but what about the zimmerman telegraph - in which the german foreign minister attempted to get a message to the president of mexico and told him to fight to get all the lost territory (ie texas, new mexico, arizona) back - and encourage japan to fight us as well.  dividing up the spoil later.

to me, what revised history does is to tell americans 'look, you fought for nothing.  you worthless bunch of scoundrels.'  it doesn't say anything about the good that america did/does/ and keeps on doing.  only those parts that are not so good.  and there are some in the country that purposely sabotage by going and doing dirty work to make president bush look bad.  why is 'blackwater' named 'blackwater.'  do you ever wonder about the name ALONE?  this is just wierd.  'whitewater.'  'blackwater.'  i think it's a politically correct clintonesque term that's available now.

[thalbergmad]

I cannot see a point in your latest spasticated rant.

[pianistimo]

that is because you are not 'intellectual' enough.  btw, i'm not supposed to be.

say, thal - what do you think of swastikas?  should people be allowed to paint them everywhere?  also, do you think israel should exist as a country?  and, finally - do you think usa and britain and british isles should stay in the UN or leave? oh ...a few more questions - do you think the UN has done a good job with 'human rights' or is it allowing too many violations?  do you think the human rights act is a good one?  what basis do you feel a government should rest upon?  do you think the citizens of a free country have the right to bear arms?

https://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/It_Isn't_About_Duck_Hunting.htm

[thalbergmad]

Your posts are only fit for inmates of lunatic asylums. Nothing to do with being intellectual.

Painting swastikas everywhere would be no more a crime than painting crucifixis everywhere.

Your children should be taken away and put into care homes before your delusions and warped pathetic little mind do any more damage.

Thal

[pianistimo]

typically the crucifix is remembered as the symbol of christianity.  whereas a bent crucifix (or swastika) is representative of that old serpent - satan - and was used to represent occultic beliefs.

even the crucifix is at some point from a pagan origin.  used with it's full symbol from egypt - it is representative of fertility and sex.  the early disciples would not have used a crucifix.  they used other things to depict holiness.  two olive trees.  dove.  loaves and fishes.


it was basically first used as an egyptian symbol and then by constantine to represent christianity.  constantine used many icons, symbols, and thought that relics were important and had supernatural powers.  that is why the nazi's wanted to take the 'spear of destiny' and were also interested in the 'holy grail.' 

you want to know mental?  read about hitler wanting to use christian relics for devilish purposes.   

[thalbergmad]

you want to know mental?  read about hitler wanting to use christian relics for devilish purposes.   

I have thanks.

The Church has used them for devilish purposes, so i fail to see the difference.

Thal

[ahinton]

ireland and scotland have effectively succeeded

Succeeded in doing what?

because their foreign policies are different than britains.  why?  because of the ability they have had in recent years to direct their own politics and policies

Their? Susan, I do hope that your knowledge of recent American political history is better than that of recent British / Irish ditto. Let's get a few facts straight. There are two "Ireland"s. One is the Republic of Ireland, which is the southern part of the island of Ireland and is entirely separate from the United Kingdom although, like tha United Kingdom, is an EC member state; the other is quaintly called "Northern Ireland" (akak Ulster) and is part of the United Kingdom (although I believe that it should be part of the Irish Republic , but that's only my opinion and is not in any case at issue here). Scotland own has its own parliament and Wales the Welsh Assembly (you didn't mention Wales - perhaps you just don't like the Welsh, I don't know) and it is true that certain Scottish laws are somewhat different from those that apply in England, but neither Scotland nor Wales nor "Northern Ireland" has its own armed forces, police, national taxation system, fire department, state health service, etc., so they do not and cannot have foreign policies different to those of Britain because, for the time being and the foreseeable future, they are part of Britain.

i am admittedly not a political journalist or historian of many degrees

I'm pleased that you recognise and admit that.

- but i CAN read.  are you telling me it is a waste of time unless you are a historian?  that is bunk.  you can compare what you read.

Of course you can read and of course I'm not telling you what you imply here; however, if you read certain volumets on America history and others with different backgrounds, beliefs, agendas and interets and so on read precisely the same, diffeent emphases and conclusions will be reached because of the human ability and will to interpret and misinterpret.

to divide truth means to be aware of it in the first place.  you know when someone gives the wrong figures for how many died in a war - or tries to call something a term that sounds 'politically correct.'

But you make it sound as though you are aware of it and others aren't, even if they are better versed in history than you are. You may not intend to do this but that is how it comes across. "Facts" are as they are presented and diluted by the endless numbers of ways in which they can and will be interpreted, whether it's the Bible or a volume on American history or what it is. Of coruse writers disguise and over-emphasise and doo all manner of things to twist everything that happens - but then so do those that make those events happen in the first place. Not only is everything "driven by the ceaseless movement of change" (as Tagore puts it) but it is driven by the equally ceaseless - indeed remorseless - upward movement of complexity in every conceivable aspect of all of our lives, yet you seem to want to fly in the face of all that and paint simple pictures in your very own black and white.

do you realize how much history has been rewritten in the last 15-20 years (if not more).  i will find a list of politically correct words.  they are 'replacements' for the real thing.  it's like someone from another country comes into yours and says 'this is the way it was.'  i think that's ridiculous.

But this kind of thing has happened throughout human history; all that is different about that now is the extent to which and sophistication with which it is done and the extent to which present-day communications technology and international human interactions make knowledge of such things ever more widespread.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

for us in america, a grave and certain danger is the widening of the panama canal.  does anyone dare talk about that?  no.  it's just like - blah blah blah (background noise).  they will care when ships with nuclear power get that close to our borders with no real checkpoints.

curses on those who sold the canal for pennies on the dollar.

Er, excuse me, Suse me, but much as I hate to tell you this, the Panama Canal is not part of the United States of America. Just go and consult a map of the Americas and then tell us how far that canal is from the nearest US border point. Some nuclear warheads have a considerable range and so the issue of sending vessels with such capability down that canal is no more worrying for the average American than having the means to fire such weaponry across American soil from anywhere else.

if a country wants freedom they have to own their canals and byways.

Are you seriously contending that no country can secure its own freedom without canals?!

of course, with global warming - there are more channels to worry about in canada now, too.

Never mind any new ones - when an aggressor nation starts sending warships down the St. Lawrence, you can start worrying and I'll try to listen more sympathetically to you.

canadians and americans don't know friend from foe anymore.

Oh yes they do. The Canadians hate the Americans and the American hate the Canadians! Simple as that! (Well, no, it's not as simple as that, of course, but it may nevertheless be argued with good reason that the general level of animosity between the two nations has rarely if ever been higher than it is now - not for nothing did a Canadian that I know account for his national pride by stating that he is pround not to be an American)...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

alistair, this thread started with the idea that 'conservapedia' was a valid, factual, encyclopedia that the conservatives believe.  then, from there - crit and jokes.  i was merely saying- no conservative in their right mind would read and believe it.  conservatives are not as stupid as you think.

and, as far as history - why should i trust any historian to tell the complete truth on all points.  reading many books and putting it all together is my aim.  the more i read - the more i discover truth.  anyone can do this.  to say - 'stop reading.  or reading into what you read.'  that is like telling someone 'you can't do critical analysis because you only have a four year college degree.'  let someone with a master's do your thinking for you.  frankly, i know some people who have not studied american history in college and know more facts than some professors who are NOT (btw) american by birth.  a strange but ever increasing phenomenon in distinguished colleges.  why?  to promote a one world agenda.  no one country has anything to be proud of.  we all have to work together.  ideally - this would be good.  unfortunately, this idea is totally in the hands of already corrupt politicians.  therefore, it is no good.

and, for the record - americans and canadians are not the enemies you think we are!  perhaps you mean the americans and french?  i know people escape war by fleeing to canada - but they have a military too and are concerned about the same issues.  that's like saying brits and irish or scotch or welsh are enemies.  many have families that cross nationalities and borders.  if we fight them - we fight our own brothers.

the french, however, have an immense dislike and distrust of americans.  on the one hand - they are 'politically correct' - but on the other hand - they were the first large country to fall in hitler's hands, weren't they?  and, what resistance?  that is because they didn't listen to churchill.  their leadership is the same today excepting that they will willingly side with germany this time.  how great a friend is that?  and don't think germany has no plans. they are in charge of educating european youth and have become ever involved in the process of 'globalization.'

[ahinton]

alistair, this thread started with the idea that 'conservapedia' was a valid, factual, encyclopedia that the conservatives believe.  then, from there - crit and jokes.  i was merely saying- no conservative in their right mind would read and believe it.  conservatives are not as stupid as you think.

and, as far as history - why should i trust any historian to tell the complete truth on all points.  reading many books and putting it all together is my aim.  the more i read - the more i discover truth.  anyone can do this.  to say - 'stop reading.  or reading into what you read.'  that is like telling someone 'you can't do critical analysis because you only have a four year college degree.'  let someone with a master's do your thinking for you.  frankly, i know some people who have not studied american history in college and know more facts than some professors who are NOT (btw) american by birth.  a strange but ever increasing phenomenon in distinguished colleges.  why?  to promote a one world agenda.  no one country has anything to be proud of.  we all have to work together.  ideally - this would be good.  unfortunately, this idea is totally in the hands of already corrupt politicians.  therefore, it is no good.

and, for the record - americans and canadians are not the enemies you think we are!  perhaps you mean the americans and french?  i know people escape war by fleeing to canada - but they have a military too and are concerned about the same issues.  that's like saying brits and irish or scotch or welsh are enemies.  many have families that cross nationalities and borders.  if we fight them - we fight our own brothers.

the french, however, have an immense dislike and distrust of americans.  on the one hand - they are 'politically correct' - but on the other hand - they were the first large country to fall in hitler's hands, weren't they?  and, what resistance?  that is because they didn't listen to churchill.  their leadership is the same today excepting that they will willingly side with germany this time.  how great a friend is that? 

Susan, would you care to do me the courtesy of taking each of the points in turn from my last couple of posts and respond to them one at a time rather than skating around most of them as you so often do? Thanks!

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i appreciate the time you take to explain the governments of the republic of ireland vs. wales, scotland, and northern ireland.  i already admitted that i don't know - and i certainly don't know as much world history and all as europeans living on their own continent.  but, to say that others can teach american history by blogging it into 'conservapedia' and laughing is rather foolish for those who don't believe everything they read.

google is now changing.  you will not find decent information about things that they don't want you to know or read.  that is why the UN is also interested in CONTROLLING libraries.  they don't make it appear so - because it all seems so 'global' - but exchanging information is much different than taking some away (because it's old, because it hasn't been updated, etc etc). 

and yes!  i believe canals and byways and your own english channel will soon be 'monitored' by some geeky controllers in belgium.  this means your borders will not be YOUR OWN.  does this matter to you?  i think it's like a frog in a slowly coming to boil pot of water.  we're halfway boiled.  let's just go all the way and become a dead floating frog.

right now is the time for the average american, canadian, british, australian and whatever else country that claims freedom - to READ a lot and to remember as much as possible.  if you are asked to give up your freedom - at least you will have something to say.  maybe something about henry II and the right to bear arms (which he was the first to give every citizen the right to defend themselves).  common law - what does that mean?  maybe it's a better idea than a short list of 'human rights.'  what is the basis for the UN's lawmaking policies.  nazi ideology?  oh great!  let's all hail the oh great controller in belgium.

here's the dif between common law and (roman) civil law:
https://www.svpvril.com/comcivlaw.html

[counterpoint]

google is now changing.  you will not find decent information about things that they don't want you to know or read.

Do you have some more info about that?

And who is "they"?

[thalbergmad]

Did not know the UN were interested in controlling libraries.

How much more stupid can this woman get.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

reading many books and putting it all together is my aim.  the more i read - the more i discover truth. 

Reading your posts would indicate that you might have read many, but understood none.

Your underlying message is nearly always God, Jesus or Bible related. This blocks your mind so that you will never find out the truth. Your virus will not let you.

Thal

[ahinton]

i appreciate the time you take to explain the governments of the republic of ireland vs. wales, scotland, and northern ireland.  i already admitted that i don't know - and i certainly don't know as much world history and all as europeans living on their own continent.  but, to say that others can teach american history by blogging it into 'conservapedia' and laughing is rather foolish for those who don't believe everything they read.

I accept in principle the last bit, but then I did before you wrote anything on the subject.

google is now changing.  you will not find decent information about things that they don't want you to know or read.  that is why the UN is also interested in CONTROLLING libraries.  they don't make it appear so - because it all seems so 'global' - but exchanging information is much different than taking some away (because it's old, because it hasn't been updated, etc etc).

Since when was Google - admittedly a large information resource - the ONLY available information resource? I agree that there are people around who want to control the information available to others - but then so what's new?... 

and yes!  i believe canals and byways and your own english channel will soon be 'monitored' by some geeky controllers in belgium. this means your borders will not be YOUR OWN.

Why Belgium? Especially if Belgium does eventually split into two parts? There is already ample monitoring of all kinds of things going one, but just as much if not more WITHIN UK (and other countries) than between countries; to that extent, our borders never have been truly our own.

does this matter to you?

Up to a point, yes, but I don't intend to live out all my days in this country anyway.

i think it's like a frog in a slowly coming to boil pot of water.  we're halfway boiled.  let's just go all the way and become a dead floating frog.

Now you mustn't speak like that about the French; it's very rude!

right now is the time for the average american, canadian, british, australian and whatever else country that claims freedom - to READ a lot and to remember as much as possible.  if you are asked to give up your freedom - at least you will have something to say.  maybe something about henry II and the right to bear arms (which he was the first to give every citizen the right to defend themselves).  common law - what does that mean?  maybe it's a better idea than a short list of 'human rights.'  what is the basis for the UN's lawmaking policies.  nazi ideology?  oh great!  let's all hail the oh great controller in belgium.

Reading and understanding might well increase suspicion of governments, but then the very fact that percentages of electorates voting at ballot boxes is generally on the downturn is already evidence that people are trusting governments less and less.

here's the dif between common law and (roman) civil law:
https://www.svpvril.com/comcivlaw.html

Susan, the most important difference of all is that all laws are changing all the time and they have to in order to meet all the new challenges, expectations and other developments of human life.

Best,

Alistair