"poncho, the smallpox story is a lie that was made up by that evil professor in Colorado, Ward Churchill."
Bottom line is that we worked real hard to wipe the native Americans out because they were in the way of progress and profit.
"Satan wants us to "have an open mind" to a lot of things because thereby lies are able to displace truth. I don't completely discredit the phrase itself because in certain context it has a good meaning. However, in this case, its a reminder that Satan does want Americans to loose confidence in the nation we have built and the causes we have endured."
Satan wants us to have an open mind? Satan wants to control our minds and he seems to be very good at his job. Now, I suppose your going to tell me that Satan only acts through liberals and the liberal press.
Look I don't care what Satan wants, okay? He's a loser that has already lost. God wants us to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. How are you going to become wise as a serpent if your only willing to learn from sources that claim to come from a certain direction? If your so afraid that your mind will be contaminated by using it to read a few books and documents that aren't officially sanctioned by Rush Hannity or the CFR?
It's great to be positive and have a positive outlook and believe in this nation and the good things that have come from it, but don't be so sure that Satan will only attack your left flank that you neglect to protect your right flank and rear.
The real enemy is the one that works to gain your trust and uses it to his advantage. There is only one that will never leave us or fosake us brother and His name isn't George Bush or a Republican controlled congress, okay?
Nature of Our Enemy
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Dragoon68, Jul 17, 2005.
Page 3 of 5
-
CHAT PARTICIPANT: Ms. Fenn, did not the British use smallpox as a weapon in the 1800's?
FENN: They did. The best documented incidence of this was in 1763, during Pontiac's rebellion, when officials and fur-traders at Fort Pitt, now the site of Pittsburgh, deliberately gave smallpox-contaminated blankets to the Indians.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/11/05/fenn/ -
So Poncho tried to lay on Americans a British act.
Did he just have his facts mixed up or was he being intellectually dishonest to make a point he couldn't support otherwise?
:confused: -
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
http://www.jeffersonlegacy.org/spring2002.htm#pirates
-
-
Oh please. :rolleyes: Like the neo-liberals you support don't have a definate agenda. The NWO. They come right out and say it in public but because the mainstream media doesn't bother to report it or dwell on it you won't believe it's happening.
Meanwhile all you hold dear is being systematically erased and sovietized before your very eyes. -
The people I support don't support the "new world order" idea. I tried to make that clear in the previous post but you're stuck on your agenda and can't understand it.
-
-
"The people I support don't support the "new world order" idea. I tried to make that clear in the previous post but you're stuck on your agenda and can't understand it."
Care to back this statement up with some facts and not a bunch of opinion pieces? Show me just how stuck in my agenda I am with the facts, and only the facts. I triple dog dare ya! -
I try not to take people up on dares because usually when people do that it means they're very desperate and seeking to "control" the discussion by "dictating" the agenda. I also try not to dare other people to do things.
This is a forum where opinions are expressed on all sides of issues with varying degrees of "proof" provided. Most of that "proof" will never be accepted by those that oppose it and find the sources of "evidence" to lack any credibility. In politics few things are scientific. You view your sources as rock solid proof and I see them as an attempt to connect a bunch of loose unrelated scattered dots into a straight line theory.
As to my opinions about the "new world order" idea, just go back and read my previous postings, if you're really interested, and it should be clear that I don't support the idea and why I do not.
They are my opinions. Other readers will judge which opinions make the most sense and fit best with the truth. -
-
It's doubtful he has changed his approach. -
KJ, so by your definition the truth is also propaganda, right? And so are lies. So does that mean that debate is meaningless or that we should disregard those who throw out the label "propaganda" when it suits their purposes? I think the latter.
-
I try not to take people up on dares because usually when people do that it means they're very desperate and seeking to "control" the discussion by "dictating" the agenda. I also try not to dare other people to do things.
This is a forum where opinions are expressed on all sides of issues with varying degrees of "proof" provided. Most of that "proof" will never be accepted by those that oppose it and find the sources of "evidence" to lack any credibility. In politics few things are scientific. You view your sources as rock solid proof and I see them as an attempt to connect a bunch of loose unrelated scattered dots into a straight line theory.
As to my opinions about the "new world order" idea, just go back and read my previous postings, if you're really interested, and it should be clear that I don't support the idea and why I do not.
They are my opinions. Other readers will judge which opinions make the most sense and fit best with the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]All you had to say is that you don't or can't use facts to back up your statement. Me riled? Quite the opposite. I know I can dig up facts to support my case and all you have to rely on is opinion pieces and propaganda and I believe you know this is the case as well. Too bad, I was looking forward to an honest fact finding debate.
-
What I see in your postings are just opinions and propaganda in which you, and some others, believe. The "fact" label is one added to boost those opinions. I often choose a different set, based on the criteria given in my previous response, and also express my own opinions which, I suppose, someone else could quote as "fact" in their debate.
Most posters, think for themselves and don't just quote lengthy but empty dissertations and news reports that some want validated as the absolute truth. These sources just don't have that kind of authority over many posters.
I'm certainly not inclined to jump when ordered or dared into a "debate". I find "debates" that toss raw "facts" back and forth to be virtually useless because, very often, the credibility of the "facts" remain unproved and purely a matter of opinion. We've all watched politicians attempt to prove their points with "facts" slanted by bias to their favor. In these debates the rule of "200% of nothing" frequently applies. Those "debates" that involve philosophical or political concepts will probably be argued largely with opinions.
I prefer to reason with information and give my ideas, observations, commentary, etc. about them supported with data when appropriate. I typically try - which certainly acknowledges a lack of perfection in the attempts - to explain my opinions in depth. I do admit that I'm probably not always 100% correct but I'm very comfortable with the positions. Each reader must decide for themselves what is credible.
So, poncho, my Christian brother, we will continue to disagree, to express different opinions, and each will present that along with any "facts" they may have as they see fit. Dares will likely not solicit the desired results nor "prove" one right and the other wrong.
Only God Almighty can, ultimately, rule on what is the truth even though we know there is only one truth in all things. -
"I really feel no need to respond with pages of "facts" to support my thoughts."
Translation, facts don't matter, yeah yeah I know that already. That's why we've been losing the fight to keep our sovereignty and borders secure. -
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Sounds like what George Bush has been saying all along.
You've made a good case Poncho as usuall. -
My comments had nothing to do with my thoughts on maintaining our sovereignty and keeping our borders secure. I doubt you even know what my thoughts are on those subjects! -
In the context I made that statement, President Bush, if he made the same point in the same context, would be just as correct in doing so.
Page 3 of 5