NationStates Jolt Archive

Been thinking about this recently.

History is written by the victors.
History is not fixed, nor fact.

Bearing that in mind - what is the most misunderstood, or plain lied about, event in history?

Start us off:

- Appeasement of Hitler
- American Civil war

Get as specific as you like and argue your case. Provide us with sources and all that.

Discuss revisionism and historiography, whatever.

I read somewhere that the whole 'germans losing the russian front purely because it was cold' was heavily exagerated because after the war the russian side of things was never taken down due to the cold war, and the germans that were asked over played the coldness factor because they didn't like the idea of being nailed by the russians.

Dinosaurs having backwards knee joints..

The Great Depression.

http://www.makinac.org/article.asp?ID=4013

The Great Depression.

http://www.makinac.org/article.asp?ID=4013

I'm not able to access this page for some reason..keeps dropping it, can you give a brief summarization of it?

I couldn't get the link to work either but I think (I hope) the point was that the it was not the free market which caused the great depression but govt interference in the market, and if FDR hadn't shafted the economy further with the "new deal" it might have gone away quicker too. The economist Milton Friedman went to great lengths to show how this is true. I could post an article on this if you'd like.

It is typical of the unfortunate anti-market bias of historians in general.

WW1 is another case. Not that the German govt was in any sense innocent but if Britain hadn't had it's foreign policy set by inbred Lord Yahoo the whole sorry episode might have been avoided, or at worst been a war between Germany and Russia.

Also, there were more mistakes made in WW2 than just appeasing Hitler. The jews were virtually wiped out and Poland was occupied by Stalin's forces anyway (he killed more than Hitler I believe) so why fight the war at all? And one thing I always find shocking is how little attention gets paid to the fact that the US govt dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japanese civilians, especially when they get their panties in a twist because someone else might have WMD. I mean, the US govt is the only one in history to use these weapons in war. If anyone shouldn't be allowed nukes.....

What about the first gulf war? I can't remember the death toll but it was pretty high, and adventureism like that was partly responsible for provoking the 9/11 attacks.

In fact, just about every war ever. Since WW2 the US govt has tried to create democracies via military intervention in 35 different nations and has never succeeded.

In fact, just about every war ever. Since WW2 the US govt has tried to create democracies via military intervention in 35 different nations and has never succeeded.

Part of the problem is that in most cases of intervention, the US wasn't really trying to create democracies. They were trying to create puppet dictatorships that would do whatever they wanted. Of course, propaganda tells a different story, which is why so many people think, for example, that the US objective in the Vietnam War was a democratic government in Vietnam.

I couldn't get the link to work either but I think (I hope) the point was that the it was not the free market which caused the great depression but govt interference in the market, and if FDR hadn't shafted the economy further with the "new deal" it might have gone away quicker too. The economist Milton Friedman went to great lengths to show how this is true. I could post an article on this if you'd like.

I'd like to see the article, if you have the link handy.

I doubt the Civil War could possibly be rewritten. Seeing as how the South rejoined with the Union.

Besides, you haven't been to my class have you?

"The immigrants from the North suffered TERRIBLE working conditions! As opposed to slaves who had much better conditions"

"North was racist as well, but not like the South"

"Not everyone thought Lincoln was a great military thinker for the Union. In fact, his Generals, citizens, etc. all thought he was crazy!"

"After the war, politicians were at there worst....Radical Republicans, Jim Crow Laws, Southern Democrats..."

In fact, just about every war ever. Since WW2 the US govt has tried to create democracies via military intervention in 35 different nations and has never succeeded.

Not to mention examples of destabilisation by non-military means, such as the democratically elected and socialist-leaning government of Jamaica, which the CIA made unrulable by funnelling arms to street gangs.

Bill Clinton


Oh, sorry misread the title. I thought it said "Greatest Preverts of History"

I would say Bush perverting international law in order to go to war with a small country resulting in many thousands of death was worse than Clinton fornicating with an intern.

I would say Bush perverting international law in order to go to war with a small country resulting in many thousands of death was worse than Clinton fornicating with an intern.I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him?
Now lets see, as for perverted actions, I would put cheating on your spouse, while supposedly at work for an entire nation, right up on the top of the list. Quickly followed by lying to the people investigating this action. Yep the more I think of it the more I say Clinton is a pervert.

I would say Bush perverting international law in order to go to war with a small country resulting in many thousands of death was worse than Clinton fornicating with an intern.I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him?
Now lets see, as for perverted actions, I would put cheating on your spouse, while supposedly at work for an entire nation, right up on the top of the list. Quickly followed by lying to the people investigating this action. Yep the more I think of it the more I say Clinton is a pervert.

Cheating on your spouse is worse than indirectly killing thousands of people? I would say you have your priorities a little bit backwards.

And what international court is going to try Bush? He hasn't actually done anything legally wrong, like ordered people directly killed. Perverting the law doesn't necessarily mean you broke it. But the US is being tried in the court of international opinion, and I think it's losing....

I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him? Could it be because his party controls Congress? What's amazing is the number of investigations that Congress has been forced to undertake because of the heinousness of the actions of the administration. Remember, Democrats can't start an investigation--they have to rely on honest Republicans to open investigations and follow through on them, and still Bush's people are constantly being called to testify. The intelligence foulups, the outing of Valerie Plame, the bad info in the State of the Union address (that seems so long ago) and now the newest--the misappropriation of $700 million from Afghanistan to Iraq for military action that hadn't been discussed, much less sanctioned by Congress. Two of those, if they can be linked to the President, are certainly impeachable offenses. Had Clinton tried even a fraction of what Bush has gotten away with, he'd be in jail right now. Bush skates--why? Because his people are in control of Congress. There's no other reason.

I would say Bush perverting international law in order to go to war with a small country resulting in many thousands of death was worse than Clinton fornicating with an intern.I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him?
Now lets see, as for perverted actions, I would put cheating on your spouse, while supposedly at work for an entire nation, right up on the top of the list. Quickly followed by lying to the people investigating this action. Yep the more I think of it the more I say Clinton is a pervert.

How is cheating on your spouse and lying to a jury perverted? Wrong, yes, but not perverted.

Kind of like John Kerry claiming he fought honerably in Vietnam, a Perversion of History if there ever was one.

Kind of like John Kerry claiming he fought honerably in Vietnam, a Perversion of History if there ever was one.Tell you what, you little git. Put the war records of John Kerry and George W. Bush side by side and then let's talk. You want to go there? Didn't think so.

I would say Bush perverting international law in order to go to war with a small country resulting in many thousands of death was worse than Clinton fornicating with an intern.I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him?
Now lets see, as for perverted actions, I would put cheating on your spouse, while supposedly at work for an entire nation, right up on the top of the list. Quickly followed by lying to the people investigating this action. Yep the more I think of it the more I say Clinton is a pervert.

Oh please!

No President in the 20th century has been whiter than white...

get off that high horse coz you might do yourself an injury

How is cheating on your spouse and lying to a jury perverted? Wrong, yes, but not perverted.

Wasn't Lewinsky fat or something? That would presumably make Clinton perverted, at least to a conservative. Of course, they hate sexual deviants, so they aren't exactly unbiased.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Appeasement of America. Just giving in to its demands year after year shows the rest of the world up to be a bunch of suckers. Someone has to say enough is enough sometime, but as usual, no-one will until it's too late.

Been thinking about this recently.

History is written by the victors.
History is not fixed, nor fact.

Bearing that in mind - what is the most misunderstood, or plain lied about, event in history?

Start us off:

- Appeasement of Hitler
- American Civil war

Get as specific as you like and argue your case. Provide us with sources and all that.

Discuss revisionism and historiography, whatever.

St Johns is it really you?

The idea that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked and unexpected attack. The fact is that the US Navy was already fighting the Japanese Navy and had undergone an oil blockade. FDR received a memo from British Intelligence that warned of the coming attack but did nothing about it, he also kept the commander at the Harbor out of the loop so that he didn't expect an attack.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

Idon't know what you're talking about, there is a wealth of evidence to back up the existance of Jesus... It almost isn't even disputable. That's like saying there was no Ceaser or no Nimrod

I would say Bush perverting international law in order to go to war with a small country resulting in many thousands of death was worse than Clinton fornicating with an intern.I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him?
Now lets see, as for perverted actions, I would put cheating on your spouse, while supposedly at work for an entire nation, right up on the top of the list. Quickly followed by lying to the people investigating this action. Yep the more I think of it the more I say Clinton is a pervert.

Cheating on your spouse is worse than indirectly killing thousands of people? I would say you have your priorities a little bit backwards.

And what international court is going to try Bush? He hasn't actually done anything legally wrong, like ordered people directly killed. Perverting the law doesn't necessarily mean you broke it. But the US is being tried in the court of international opinion, and I think it's losing....President Bush has not "indirectly killed" any more people than those who died during the Clinton military actions. So I guess that puts it back to even there. So Billy Boy still wins the award by going over and beyond any immoral acts taken by President George W. Bush.

In my humble opinion, the greatest perversion of history is the way we are taught that even in the 'early days', Americans were practically gods - they knew what was right and they did it!

Ha.

Let's see:
-buying and selling land that never belonged to them (Native American land)
-calling Native Americans, Indians
-ignoring Mexican laws and people while trying to take Mexico and Texas
-fighting against Britain in the first place (don't even get me started on this one)
-it's midnight and I'm tired. I dun wanna think of any more

I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him? Could it be because his party controls Congress? What's amazing is the number of investigations that Congress has been forced to undertake because of the heinousness of the actions of the administration. Remember, Democrats can't start an investigation--they have to rely on honest Republicans to open investigations and follow through on them, and still Bush's people are constantly being called to testify. The intelligence foulups, the outing of Valerie Plame, the bad info in the State of the Union address (that seems so long ago) and now the newest--the misappropriation of $700 million from Afghanistan to Iraq for military action that hadn't been discussed, much less sanctioned by Congress. Two of those, if they can be linked to the President, are certainly impeachable offenses. Had Clinton tried even a fraction of what Bush has gotten away with, he'd be in jail right now. Bush skates--why? Because his people are in control of Congress. There's no other reason.The accusations were of violation of international law. US congress has nothing to do with that. Yes I admit that there are internal investigations going on. I will not form any opinion on those matters until they are resolved. Just a point to make Clinton was impeached. They haven't even made any movements to impeach Bush. Another reason that keeps Clinton right on the top of the list.

I would say Bush perverting international law in order to go to war with a small country resulting in many thousands of death was worse than Clinton fornicating with an intern.I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him?
Now lets see, as for perverted actions, I would put cheating on your spouse, while supposedly at work for an entire nation, right up on the top of the list. Quickly followed by lying to the people investigating this action. Yep the more I think of it the more I say Clinton is a pervert.

How is cheating on your spouse and lying to a jury perverted? Wrong, yes, but not perverted.This is only what the dictionary defines a pervert to be:
Pervert
(n.) One who has been perverted; one who has turned to error, especially in religion; -- opposed to convert. See the Synonym of Convert.
(v. i.) To become perverted; to take the wrong course.
(v. t.) To turnanother way; to divert.
(v. t.) To turn from truth, rectitude, or propriety; to divert from a right use, end, or way; to lead astray; to corrupt; also, to misapply; to misinterpret designedly; as, to pervert one's words.

Let's look at these definitions as applied to your question.

Cheating on your spouse is to turn to error according to most religions.
This is covered in definition 1.

Lying, is to turn from the truth.
This is covered in definition 4.

Wrong is a word that you use to describe the man as well
This is covered in definition 2.

The only part of the definition of pervert that is not part of your desciption is to turnanother way; to divert. I would think that the actions that he took were a definite diversion from what he was supposed to be doing at the time.

To me, it looks as if you just called Clinton a pervert, yourself.

How about left-wing types always claiming that Marxist/Leftist guerillas in colonial Africa (and elsewhere) were on the side of "freedom", and that that version is still taught to this day in history classes?

Recent African history is written by liberal types in the West who, until fairly recently at least, excused the endless cycle of vicious repression committed by the "liberators", whom they often supported intellectually and materially.

Only a liberal could be so closed-minded to believe that Africa is better off now ruled by native Africans than by Europeans. But being a liberal means that you never have to say sorry for your errors, and you ignore, or at least downplay, the catalogue of disaster that is post-colonial Africa. How could it be any other way when you were so wrong.

And when South Africa, which was immeasurably better off under white minority rule, inevitably finally turns into another Zimbabwe-type basket-case then they'll find more excuses. C'est la vie.

Kind of like John Kerry claiming he fought honerably in Vietnam, a Perversion of History if there ever was one.Tell you what, you little git. Put the war records of John Kerry and George W. Bush side by side and then let's talk. You want to go there? Didn't think so.George W. Bush served an honorable tour of duty in the Texas National Guard. George W. Bush has been cleared of the false claims of being AWOL.
Kerry on the other hand has admitted that he was afraid to go to battle and actively protested the war afterwards. Any man who will stand up in the uniform of a US soldier, and protest against the US government is not fit to be allowed to lead that very same nation.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

Idon't know what you're talking about, there is a wealth of evidence to back up the existance of Jesus... It almost isn't even disputable. That's like saying there was no Ceaser or no Nimrod

Wealth of evidence? :lol: Well, bring it on!!! :lol: Seriously, the only 'wealth of evidence' you got is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.

I would say Bush perverting international law in order to go to war with a small country resulting in many thousands of death was worse than Clinton fornicating with an intern.I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him?
Now lets see, as for perverted actions, I would put cheating on your spouse, while supposedly at work for an entire nation, right up on the top of the list. Quickly followed by lying to the people investigating this action. Yep the more I think of it the more I say Clinton is a pervert.

Oh please!

No President in the 20th century has been whiter than white...

get off that high horse coz you might do yourself an injuryLook back a little and see how a pervert is defined. I have made no claims to the effect of anyone being "whiter than white" in the 20th or any other century. I will make that claim here Jesus was the only man to have never sinned.

How is cheating on your spouse and lying to a jury perverted? Wrong, yes, but not perverted.

Wasn't Lewinsky fat or something? That would presumably make Clinton perverted, at least to a conservative. Of course, they hate sexual deviants, so they aren't exactly unbiased.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpgLook back for the definition of the word pervert.

The British blockade of Germany in WWI. The reaons Germany lost the war were twofold. First of all the flu pandmeic wiped out millions of healthy people, and secondly the rest of the people were starving todeath with no fuel or new clothing because the Brits blockaded all the waters so that none could get through. Then in WWII the Brits are outraged as the Nazis use subs in the North Atlantic.

How soon people forget...

George W. Bush served an honorable tour of duty in the Texas National Guard. George W. Bush has been cleared of the false claims of being AWOL.

Bull!! Truth is that Bush used to TNG as a hideout, a way to keep from being send to where the REAL action was. And to make matters even worse, he didn't even have enough backbone to shoulder the responsibility that came with his job at the TNG. So his entire conduct can only be called: dishonourable in every friggin' way no matter how you look at it.

Kerry on the other hand has admitted that he was afraid to go to battle and actively protested the war afterwards.

Afraid to go to battle? You think you can find a soldier who is new to the battlefield who isn't afraid? And wasn't it his right, constitutionally protected right no less, to voice his opinion of the Vietnam War? Whats the problem? Or maybe you see everyone who disagrees with State Policy as a traitor?

Any man who will stand up in the uniform of a US soldier, and protest against the US government is not fit to be allowed to lead that very same nation.

This is about the stupidest thing I've heard this month. :cry:

Kind of like John Kerry claiming he fought honerably in Vietnam, a Perversion of History if there ever was one.Tell you what, you little git. Put the war records of John Kerry and George W. Bush side by side and then let's talk. You want to go there? Didn't think so.George W. Bush served an honorable tour of duty in the Texas National Guard. George W. Bush has been cleared of the false claims of being AWOL.
Kerry on the other hand has admitted that he was afraid to go to battle and actively protested the war afterwards. Any man who will stand up in the uniform of a US soldier, and protest against the US government is not fit to be allowed to lead that very same nation.Point one--Whether he was afraid or not, John Kerry served honorably under fire, while the only thing George Bush dodged was physicals. There's no comparison there, and to try to claim otherwise is ludicrous and proof of how far you'll go to swallow the company line. Secondly, the right to protest the actions of one's government is one of the most deeply cherished and closely held rights any citizen can ever exercise. Thirdly, there are still major gaps in George W. Bush's TANG record that have yet to be accounted for. Just because the major media has moved elsewhere for stories doesn't mean that he's accounted for the missed time. And again--compare the records. Bush--missed physicals and had two cavities taken care of. John Kerry--3 Purple hearts, and Bronze Star and a Silver Star. You'd better go elsewhere if you want to win this kind of battle, bub.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.

I just kind of wonder, if President George W. Bush perverted/circumvented/broke international law(s), why is it that no international tribunal/court is arresting or even questioning him? Could it be because his party controls Congress? What's amazing is the number of investigations that Congress has been forced to undertake because of the heinousness of the actions of the administration. Remember, Democrats can't start an investigation--they have to rely on honest Republicans to open investigations and follow through on them, and still Bush's people are constantly being called to testify. The intelligence foulups, the outing of Valerie Plame, the bad info in the State of the Union address (that seems so long ago) and now the newest--the misappropriation of $700 million from Afghanistan to Iraq for military action that hadn't been discussed, much less sanctioned by Congress. Two of those, if they can be linked to the President, are certainly impeachable offenses. Had Clinton tried even a fraction of what Bush has gotten away with, he'd be in jail right now. Bush skates--why? Because his people are in control of Congress. There's no other reason.The accusations were of violation of international law. US congress has nothing to do with that. Yes I admit that there are internal investigations going on. I will not form any opinion on those matters until they are resolved. Just a point to make Clinton was impeached. They haven't even made any movements to impeach Bush. Another reason that keeps Clinton right on the top of the list.Hello---Clinton was impeached for bullshit reasons by a Republican Congress. Bush won't be impeached because there's a Republican Congress even though he's clearly implicated in far more serious wrongdoing than Clinton ever was.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.Heard about it--the box itself dated back to the time of Jesus. Unfortunately, the inscription didn't. It was new and a forgery. Try again.

The British blockade of Germany in WWI. The reaons Germany lost the war were twofold. First of all the flu pandmeic wiped out millions of healthy people, and secondly the rest of the people were starving todeath with no fuel or new clothing because the Brits blockaded all the waters so that none could get through. Then in WWII the Brits are outraged as the Nazis use subs in the North Atlantic.

How soon people forget...

hmm...you mean like THIS?

Brits: Haha! We create a naval blockade upon your supplies!
Germans: :shock: No fair!
Brits: Acknowledge that you are losing supplies or I will fire my ignore cannon on you!
Germans: Grr :evil: People starving! Epedemic sweeps nation! Millions perish!
Brits: We're winning! :D
Germans: Ho HO! We use submarines on your ships! Acknowledge how many ships you lost!
Brits: GODMODDER! *fires ignore cannon*
Germans: wimp

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.

And have you ever heard what Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmeyer had to say about that burial box? I guess not.

You have to show me the Jesus in this text is Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that."

Also, it as been determined that it is far from rare to find the name of James in relationship to a brother named Jesus and a father named Joseph. All were common names in Jerusalem at the time.

So that leaves... zero evidence thus far. :)

In my humble opinion, the greatest perversion of history is the way we are taught that even in the 'early days', Americans were practically gods - they knew what was right and they did it!

Ha.

Let's see:
-buying and selling land that never belonged to them (Native American land)And who did they buy these lands from?
-calling Native Americans, IndiansIt is a well taught fact that, when America was first discovered, it was due to looking for a different route to India to do trading. This caused the discoverers to think they had found India and thus call the natives Indians.
-ignoring Mexican laws and people while trying to take Mexico and TexasThe first rule when conducting a war is to be sure you obey all the laws of the land you are trying to take over?
-fighting against Britain in the first place (don't even get me started on this one)Seeking independance for a newly found country/continent was wrong? I guess by your own way of thinking it was wrong of that nice little prison colony to seek independance as well.
-it's midnight and I'm tired. I dun wanna think of any moreYes it would be a good idea to rest so you can think up some more tomorrow.

The British blockade of Germany in WWI. The reaons Germany lost the war were twofold. First of all the flu pandmeic wiped out millions of healthy people, and secondly the rest of the people were starving todeath with no fuel or new clothing because the Brits blockaded all the waters so that none could get through. Then in WWII the Brits are outraged as the Nazis use subs in the North Atlantic.

How soon people forget...

hmm...you mean like THIS?

Brits: Haha! We create a naval blockade upon your supplies!
Germans: :shock: No fair!
Brits: Acknowledge that you are losing supplies or I will fire my ignore cannon on you!
Germans: Grr :evil: People starving! Epedemic sweeps nation! Millions perish!
Brits: We're winning! :D
Germans: Ho HO! We use submarines on your ships! Acknowledge how many ships you lost!
Brits: GODMODDER! *fires ignore cannon*
Germans: wimp

Hehe, more like this actually:

Brits: Hmm, we might lose this war. Quick! Form a blockade! All is fair in love and war! :twisted:
German: Grr! Our people are starving! Ah well, keep hammering the Western front... :x
Brits: Yay! We starved them out!
Germans: Crap, it's WWII already! Blockade the Brits!
Brits: Hey! You can't do that!

Aidan

Kind of like John Kerry claiming he fought honerably in Vietnam, a Perversion of History if there ever was one.Tell you what, you little git. Put the war records of John Kerry and George W. Bush side by side and then let's talk. You want to go there? Didn't think so.George W. Bush served an honorable tour of duty in the Texas National Guard. George W. Bush has been cleared of the false claims of being AWOL.
Excuse me?!? Ordering one of the Generals under his command to recant his statement that GW wasn't there does not exonerate him. Publishing a barely legible document that shows he drew pay doesn't exonerate him. For that matter, he was only IN the Guard because his Daddy used political influence to skate him past thousands of other qualified applicants, so he wouldn't have to go the Nam. Honorable? The man doesn't know what the word means.
Kerry on the other hand has admitted that he was afraid to go to battle and actively protested the war afterwards. Any man who will stand up in the uniform of a US soldier, and protest against the US government is not fit to be allowed to lead that very same nation.
I have no problem admitting I would be afraid to go to battle. Only an idiot wouldn't be afraid. And as American citizens, we have both the right & the duty to protest when we see our government commiting wrongs. It is as obvious that we were in Nam for the wrong reasons as it is obvious we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons. A man who can see those wrongs & try to rectify the does belong in the lead.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.
Yeah, I've heard about that box. I've heard about how James, Joseph, & Jesus were some pretty common names at that time/place. I've also heard how experts that the latter part of the inscription, refering to Jesus, is a modern forgery. So: support += 0;

One more point on the service record battle between Bush and Kerry. As if it weren't bad enough that Kerry has proven that he served honorably and courageously under fire, winning medals while Bush played volleyball in a swimming pool with ambitious secretaries, this article notes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20040427/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_medals) that Kerry released his medical records when questioned about the extent of his war wounds, including a report showing he still carries shrapnel in one leg.

I ask Bush supporters once again--are you sure you want this kind of debate, you bunch of chickenhawks?

George W. Bush served an honorable tour of duty in the Texas National Guard. George W. Bush has been cleared of the false claims of being AWOL.

Bull!! Truth is that Bush used to TNG as a hideout, a way to keep from being send to where the REAL action was. And to make matters even worse, he didn't even have enough backbone to shoulder the responsibility that came with his job at the TNG. So his entire conduct can only be called: dishonourable in every friggin' way no matter how you look at it.

Kerry on the other hand has admitted that he was afraid to go to battle and actively protested the war afterwards.

Afraid to go to battle? You think you can find a soldier who is new to the battlefield who isn't afraid? And wasn't it his right, constitutionally protected right no less, to voice his opinion of the Vietnam War? Whats the problem? Or maybe you see everyone who disagrees with State Policy as a traitor?

Any man who will stand up in the uniform of a US soldier, and protest against the US government is not fit to be allowed to lead that very same nation.

This is about the stupidest thing I've heard this month. :cry:The words honorable discharge on both of these mens record means they served an honorable tour of duty, not that they conducted themself in the most honorable way. Bush's service in the Texas National Guard is still a service to his country. Or don't you look at National Guard personnel as doing an honorable service to their country? Kerry's admission to fear amounted to him actively seeking, what he saw as the safest position to be assigned. He saw some boats that never got close to the action and decided that is what he wanted. His bad luck when those same boats were reassigned to go upriver into the country. The injuries he claimed for his first purple heart were described by his commanding officer as mere scratches. His heroic effort that he is so proud to proclaim was in direct disreguard of his orders. This is the kind of man you want running the military that protects your country. A man who can't follow the orders given to him to keep himself safe, you want to have giving the orders that will keep you safe?

As for your last comment feel free to attack my ideas. Don't resort to the infantile practice of name calling. That is one of the best ways to loose your debate. The you are stupid, I am right, style of debating would seem to be beneath you. Let's keep this on a civil level.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

Idon't know what you're talking about, there is a wealth of evidence to back up the existance of Jesus... It almost isn't even disputable. That's like saying there was no Ceaser or no Nimrod

Wealth of evidence? :lol: Well, bring it on!!! :lol: Seriously, the only 'wealth of evidence' you got is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.Look back just a little way to find a literal evidence that is written in stone. Now it is your turn to provide evidence supporting your claim.

The words honorable discharge on both of these mens record means they served an honorable tour of duty, not that they conducted themself in the most honorable way. Bush's service in the Texas National Guard is still a service to his country. Or don't you look at National Guard personnel as doing an honorable service to their country? Kerry's admission to fear amounted to him actively seeking, what he saw as the safest position to be assigned. He saw some boats that never got close to the action and decided that is what he wanted. His bad luck when those same boats were reassigned to go upriver into the country. The injuries he claimed for his first purple heart were described by his commanding officer as mere scratches. His heroic effort that he is so proud to proclaim was in direct disreguard of his orders. This is the kind of man you want running the military that protects your country. A man who can't follow the orders given to him to keep himself safe, you want to have giving the orders that will keep you safe?

As for your last comment feel free to attack my ideas. Don't resort to the infantile practice of name calling. That is one of the best ways to loose your debate. The you are stupid, I am right, style of debating would seem to be beneath you. Let's keep this on a civil level.The words "honorable discharge" only mean that he did enough service to be released without being charged. It says nothing about the quality of his service. I'm not saying that Bush didn't serve honorably--frankly, I wasn't there and I don't know. The dearth of credible people coming forward to say that he was there isn't reassuring, but hey, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one--know why?

Because Kerry smokes him on this issue. Your statement about his first wound being a scratch, offensive as it is, neglects to take into consideration that Kerry got it in a war zone which was a damn sight more dangerous than anything Georgie got close to while in the TANG. Moreover, in case you neglected to look at my above posting (Which I'm sure you did since it's inconveniently damaging to your case), Kerry still carries around shrapnel in his leg from Nam. Does that sound like a freaking flesh wound to you? Does that sound like a scratch, you worthless git? Didn't think so.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

Idon't know what you're talking about, there is a wealth of evidence to back up the existance of Jesus... It almost isn't even disputable. That's like saying there was no Ceaser or no Nimrod

Wealth of evidence? :lol: Well, bring it on!!! :lol: Seriously, the only 'wealth of evidence' you got is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.Look back just a little way to find a literal evidence that is written in stone. Now it is your turn to provide evidence supporting your claim.You have a habit of conveniently overlooking posts that contradict you.

Kind of like John Kerry claiming he fought honerably in Vietnam, a Perversion of History if there ever was one.Tell you what, you little git. Put the war records of John Kerry and George W. Bush side by side and then let's talk. You want to go there? Didn't think so.George W. Bush served an honorable tour of duty in the Texas National Guard. George W. Bush has been cleared of the false claims of being AWOL.
Kerry on the other hand has admitted that he was afraid to go to battle and actively protested the war afterwards. Any man who will stand up in the uniform of a US soldier, and protest against the US government is not fit to be allowed to lead that very same nation.Point one--Whether he was afraid or not, John Kerry served honorably under fire, while the only thing George Bush dodged was physicals. There's no comparison there, and to try to claim otherwise is ludicrous and proof of how far you'll go to swallow the company line. Secondly, the right to protest the actions of one's government is one of the most deeply cherished and closely held rights any citizen can ever exercise. Thirdly, there are still major gaps in George W. Bush's TANG record that have yet to be accounted for. Just because the major media has moved elsewhere for stories doesn't mean that he's accounted for the missed time. And again--compare the records. Bush--missed physicals and had two cavities taken care of. John Kerry--3 Purple hearts, and Bronze Star and a Silver Star. You'd better go elsewhere if you want to win this kind of battle, bub.Look on the msn home page and you will find the links that supports what I claim.

Hello---Clinton was impeached for bullshit reasons by a Republican Congress. Bush won't be impeached because there's a Republican Congress even though he's clearly implicated in far more serious wrongdoing than Clinton ever was.Clinton was implicated in far more than he was impeached for. What you think are the wrong reasons others consider to be only the tip of the iceberg. Since the Republicans hold such a narrow majority of the Congress the idea of a Republican President being unimpeachable is ludicrous. Remember how many Democrats voted to impeach Clinton? If the Democrats can sway even less Republicans to vote for impeachment it would go through. Not enough of a majority to keep it from happening even with just a few swayed votes. If the Democratic Party actually believes the things that are being said, they would know that they could sway enough votes to get the job done.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.Heard about it--the box itself dated back to the time of Jesus. Unfortunately, the inscription didn't. It was new and a forgery. Try again.Never heard of it being shown to be a forgery. Got any place I can find that? I don't have any saved links about the discovery so I will take whatever you have.

Hello---Clinton was impeached for bullshit reasons by a Republican Congress. Bush won't be impeached because there's a Republican Congress even though he's clearly implicated in far more serious wrongdoing than Clinton ever was.Clinton was implicated in far more than he was impeached for. What you think are the wrong reasons others consider to be only the tip of the iceberg. Since the Republicans hold such a narrow majority of the Congress the idea of a Republican President being unimpeachable is ludicrous. Remember how many Democrats voted to impeach Clinton? If the Democrats can sway even less Republicans to vote for impeachment it would go through. Not enough of a majority to keep it from happening even with just a few swayed votes. If the Democratic Party actually believes the things that are being said, they would know that they could sway enough votes to get the job done.You obviously don't know how the House of Representatives works. The Democrats would hazve to get nearly a third of the Republicans in the House to side with them to get any sort of proceedings onto the floor over the objections of Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay. It would amount to an outright rebellion against the House leadership, and that's not going to happen, not even with a scandal of Nixon-esque proportions. All it really takes for the majority party to stall any action they don't want to take is for the membership of a committee to refuse to report a bill to the floor, and if the majority leader wants a bill killed badly enough, he'll get it sent to a committee that will do what he asks of it. Period.

But if you're the majority party and you have party discipline like DeLay does, then you can get damn near anything you want. In 1998, Gingrich and DeLay wanted impeachment proceedings, and they got their party to toe the line. And in the end, Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. What a waste of time and energy, considering that the political attacks kept him from going after al-Qaeda with as much vigor as he wished.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.Heard about it--the box itself dated back to the time of Jesus. Unfortunately, the inscription didn't. It was new and a forgery. Try again.Never heard of it being shown to be a forgery. Got any place I can find that? I don't have any saved links about the discovery so I will take whatever you have.Here you go. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/18/1055828386744.html)

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

Idon't know what you're talking about, there is a wealth of evidence to back up the existance of Jesus... It almost isn't even disputable. That's like saying there was no Ceaser or no Nimrod

Wealth of evidence? :lol: Well, bring it on!!! :lol: Seriously, the only 'wealth of evidence' you got is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.Look back just a little way to find a literal evidence that is written in stone. Now it is your turn to provide evidence supporting your claim.

Look back a little way to see I already did...

The Great Depression.

http://www.makinac.org/article.asp?ID=4013

I'm not able to access this page for some reason..keeps dropping it, can you give a brief summarization of it?

I can't explain why the link isn't working. If you type "Great Myths of the Great Depression" into Google the first link you should come across should be to the article I wanted everyone to see.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.

And have you ever heard what Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmeyer had to say about that burial box? I guess not.

You have to show me the Jesus in this text is Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that."

Also, it as been determined that it is far from rare to find the name of James in relationship to a brother named Jesus and a father named Joseph. All were common names in Jerusalem at the time.

So that leaves... zero evidence thus far. :)The inscription on the box was traditionally stated as ....... son of...... and did not include any other relatives. The mentioning of the brothers name is what made it rare. However, Incertonia says he thinks the inscription was shown to be a forgery. I have asked him if he knows where I can find that because this is the first I have heard of it. I have told him I have no saved links about the discovery and will take whatever he can find. Maybe you could look as well?

Kerry released his medical records when questioned about the extent of his war wounds, including a report showing he still carries shrapnel in one leg.


Remind me, was that before or after he killed a mortally wounded Viet Cong soldier who'd been shot by his swift's 50?

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

The inscription on the box was traditionally stated as ....... son of...... and did not include any other relatives. The mentioning of the brothers name is what made it rare. However, Incertonia says he thinks the inscription was shown to be a forgery. I have asked him if he knows where I can find that because this is the first I have heard of it. I have told him I have no saved links about the discovery and will take whatever he can find. Maybe you could look as well?

Wrong. The ossuary has a simple Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua, or "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

It's not bullshit, it's just a metaphor used to explain an otherwise unexplainable aspect of the universe. Just because you use a different metaphor to describe the same aspect of reality doesn't mean that the metaphors used by others are bullshit, it just means they verbalize things differently from you.

And you've reminded me of a quote. Someone on this forum once said "For to put in my small amount of change." in an attempt to translate the idiom, "To put in my two cents."

Kind of like John Kerry claiming he fought honerably in Vietnam, a Perversion of History if there ever was one.Tell you what, you little git. Put the war records of John Kerry and George W. Bush side by side and then let's talk. You want to go there? Didn't think so.George W. Bush served an honorable tour of duty in the Texas National Guard. George W. Bush has been cleared of the false claims of being AWOL.
Excuse me?!? Ordering one of the Generals under his command to recant his statement that GW wasn't there does not exonerate him. Publishing a barely legible document that shows he drew pay doesn't exonerate him. For that matter, he was only IN the Guard because his Daddy used political influence to skate him past thousands of other qualified applicants, so he wouldn't have to go the Nam. Honorable? The man doesn't know what the word means.Just where were any of these claims proven? In US law it is up to the accuser to prove his case. So far none of what you claim has been proven or George W. Bush would have been stripped of his honorable discharge. George W. Bush denies these claims. When a man has not been found to be guilty he is assumed to be innocent. Or is that a part of the law that you like to overlook?
]Kerry on the other hand has admitted that he was afraid to go to battle and actively protested the war afterwards. Any man who will stand up in the uniform of a US soldier, and protest against the US government is not fit to be allowed to lead that very same nation.
I have no problem admitting I would be afraid to go to battle. Only an idiot wouldn't be afraid. And as American citizens, we have both the right & the duty to protest when we see our government commiting wrongs. It is as obvious that we were in Nam for the wrong reasons as it is obvious we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons. A man who can see those wrongs & try to rectify the does belong in the lead.I uphold the right of a person to protest against what they don't believe in. I just feel that to do so and to still be wearing the uniform of the country is not an action I think is acceptable in a president. Lets see Kerry gets elected and while standing at the podium, with the American Flag behind him, and the presidential seal in front of him, starts shaking his fist in the air and saying down with the government. That's a nice picture to imagine. Maybe he should use that as a campaign commercial to show his respect to the office.

Kerry released his medical records when questioned about the extent of his war wounds, including a report showing he still carries shrapnel in one leg.


Remind me, was that before or after he killed a mortally wounded Viet Cong soldier who'd been shot by his swift's 50?Hack--I haven't heard anything about that so I can't speak to it. If it happened, I wouldn't be surprised nor would I hold it against him. Bad things happen in combat, and even generally good people do them at times.

But more importantly, Bush and his people are the ones raising this issue, trying to somehow denigrate Kerry's service in Vietnam. That takes world-class gall, considering the lack of service that their candidate performed in the same period of time. No dodging or hedging on this one, guys. The comparison is clear. Bush=TANG and questions about time served. Kerry=3 Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star. It ain't even close on this one.

And remember--I don't particularly like Kerry. I was really hoping to have Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee.

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

I agree. The best argument for this in the book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicarmial Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It's a bit difficult to explain but Jaynes suggests that early man did not have the same level of consiousness as men of today. Early man "created" god in order to assist them in becoming aware of their surroundings. Man reached the current state of consiousness about 3000 years ago, which explains why the society of Ancient Greeks adavanced in a short period of time and to a level unseen in previous civilisations.

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

I agree. The best argument for this in the book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicarmial Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It's a bit difficult to explain but Jaynes suggests that early man did not have the same level of consiousness as men of today. Early man "created" god in order to assist them in becoming aware of their surroundings. Man reached the current state of consiousness about 3000 years ago, which explains why the society of Ancient Greeks adavanced in a short period of time.

I remember this. The idea being that during the transition from a single lobed to a double lobed brain the two halves of the brain might communicate and it might seem as though an outside voice was talking.

I would say Bush perverting international law in order to go to war with a small country resulting in many thousands of death was worse than Clinton fornicating with an intern.
at least Bush didn't lie about going to war without the UN.

One more point on the service record battle between Bush and Kerry. As if it weren't bad enough that Kerry has proven that he served honorably and courageously under fire, winning medals while Bush played volleyball in a swimming pool with ambitious secretaries, this article notes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20040427/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_medals) that Kerry released his medical records when questioned about the extent of his war wounds, including a report showing he still carries shrapnel in one leg.

I ask Bush supporters once again--are you sure you want this kind of debate, you bunch of chickenhawks?Yes I have stated that both men recieved honorable discharges. Yes Kerry released his medical records. The thing is that Kerry openly admitted to looking for the safety of the boats. His service record also shows his medals. One of which was only recieved because he disobeyed orders. Yes it is possible that the guy was trying to get back far enough to launch the missile. Others say the guy was down and wounded already when Kerry got there. Kerry's first purple heart was given in recognition of what has been described as a scratch by his comanding officer. That does not mean he didn't deserve to get the medal. It only means that Kerry is a medal hunter. Looking to get three to be eligible to be sent home to safety. Bush on the other hand did not sign up in a branch of service that usually goes to combat zones. However, National Guard units can be called to duty in war zones. Thus he had the possibility of going anyway. Bush did not accept a role of comander over troops and then suddenly change his mind and cry I want to go home. Yes Kerry has a piece of metal in his leg. If Kerry really had that much of a conviction, against the war, he would not have signed up for an active military branch, but would have instead went with a branch that had a little better odds of not seeing combat duty and still been able to honorably serve his country.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

Idon't know what you're talking about, there is a wealth of evidence to back up the existance of Jesus... It almost isn't even disputable. That's like saying there was no Ceaser or no Nimrod

Wealth of evidence? :lol: Well, bring it on!!! :lol: Seriously, the only 'wealth of evidence' you got is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.Look back just a little way to find a literal evidence that is written in stone. Now it is your turn to provide evidence supporting your claim.You have a habit of conveniently overlooking posts that contradict you.I have a way of answering post in the order they come. I have a slow computer so sometimes it takes me a while to catch up when I am talking to four or five different people. If you tell me what I conveniently overlooked I will try to answer it.

Hack--I haven't heard anything about that so I can't speak to it. If it happened, I wouldn't be surprised nor would I hold it against him. Bad things happen in combat, and even generally good people do them at times.

But more importantly, Bush and his people are the ones raising this issue, trying to somehow denigrate Kerry's service in Vietnam. That takes world-class gall, considering the lack of service that their candidate performed in the same period of time. No dodging or hedging on this one, guys. The comparison is clear. Bush=TANG and questions about time served. Kerry=3 Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star. It ain't even close on this one.

Aparently, that soldier he shot to earn his Silver Star had already been shot by the 50. Considering the amount of lead those things throw out, the soldier was dead or dying.

However, this is mildly irrelevant. Kerry is trying to use his service in Nam as a way to show he'd be a good wartime president (while simultaniously using his protests to show he's anti-war), and then he, and many of his supporters, complain when people question that service. I know several vets from Viet Nam, and most of them aren't impressed by Kerry's medals. I believe one said something akin to: "What? Was he applying for a Purple Heart for every papercut and splinter?"

In all honesty, this is the sort of thing that irritates me. Why can he bring up his service, but the right can't question it? How does Bush's service in the TANG disqualify him from questioning Kerry's service?

"Well, Bush can't question Kerry's service because he never served."

"Well, fine. Then Kerry can't question Bush's presdential term because Kerry was never president!"

See? It's pointless. How about defending Kerry's service with something besides "well, he did more than Bush" for a change? Or not defending it, and letting him do it.

And, please, Mr. Kerry, enough with the run-around. If you're going to pull the games you played with the Purple Heart documents every time you release something, this'll take forever.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

Idon't know what you're talking about, there is a wealth of evidence to back up the existance of Jesus... It almost isn't even disputable. That's like saying there was no Ceaser or no Nimrod

Wealth of evidence? :lol: Well, bring it on!!! :lol: Seriously, the only 'wealth of evidence' you got is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.Look back just a little way to find a literal evidence that is written in stone. Now it is your turn to provide evidence supporting your claim.You have a habit of conveniently overlooking posts that contradict you.I have a way of answering post in the order they come. I have a slow computer so sometimes it takes me a while to catch up when I am talking to four or five different people. If you tell me what I conveniently overlooked I will try to answer it.Fair enough--did you get the link I posted for you on the last page about the ossuary being proven a fake?

Aparently, that soldier he shot to earn his Silver Star had already been shot by the 50. Considering the amount of lead those things throw out, the soldier was dead or dying.

However, this is mildly irrelevant. Kerry is trying to use his service in Nam as a way to show he'd be a good wartime president (while simultaniously using his protests to show he's anti-war), and then he, and many of his supporters, complain when people question that service. I know several vets from Viet Nam, and most of them aren't impressed by Kerry's medals. I believe one said something akin to: "What? Was he applying for a Purple Heart for every papercut and splinter?"

In all honesty, this is the sort of thing that irritates me. Why can he bring up his service, but the right can't question it? How does Bush's service in the TANG disqualify him from questioning Kerry's service?

"Well, Bush can't question Kerry's service because he never served."

"Well, fine. Then Kerry can't question Bush's presdential term because Kerry was never president!"

See? It's pointless. How about defending Kerry's service with something besides "well, he did more than Bush" for a change? Or not defending it, and letting him do it.

And, please, Mr. Kerry, enough with the run-around. If you're going to pull the games you played with the Purple Heart documents every time you release something, this'll take forever.Hack--Kerry has released all the documents, medical and otherwise. His service reports from his superiors are glowing. And I wouldn't call any wound received in Vietnam minor, no matter what political party the person who received it belonged to. I'm not saying that Bush and his people can't question Kerry's military record--just saying that it's stupid to do so, considering how weak their own guy is on the subject. There really is no comparison between Kerry and Bush on this subject. Even if Kerry hasn't been wounded and had never won a medal, just by virtue of the fact that he was there and Bush wasn't, Kerry wins it hands down. The medals and decorations are just lagniappe.

You obviously don't know how the House of Representatives works. The Democrats would hazve to get nearly a third of the Republicans in the House to side with them to get any sort of proceedings onto the floor over the objections of Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay. It would amount to an outright rebellion against the House leadership, and that's not going to happen, not even with a scandal of Nixon-esque proportions. All it really takes for the majority party to stall any action they don't want to take is for the membership of a committee to refuse to report a bill to the floor, and if the majority leader wants a bill killed badly enough, he'll get it sent to a committee that will do what he asks of it. Period.Yes I do know how the House side works and if the Democrats had believable enough evidence, the House would work for them. No bills have been submitted to my knowledge. Can't they even take the time to ask? I haven't heard of any comittees that refused to report any bill concerning this. Haven't even heard of any bills being sent to comittee. This being an election year it seems that it would be in the best interest of the Democratic Party to start the actions to at least be able to say to the voters of America, "Look we tried to get him impeached but he pulled all these strings to stop the process." Doubt in the minds of the voters is a might strong tool to use during an election. Why hasn't any been attempted?

But if you're the majority party and you have party discipline like DeLay does, then you can get damn near anything you want. In 1998, Gingrich and DeLay wanted impeachment proceedings, and they got their party to toe the line. And in the end, Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. What a waste of time and energy, considering that the political attacks kept him from going after al-Qaeda with as much vigor as he wished.And the resulting impeachment needed Democrats to vote for it to make it through. Are you just saying the Democrats are so weak that they can't make the constitution work for them? I don't know if I would want to be associated with a group that sees themself as that much of a lost cause.

What I'm saying, Jay, is that the Democrats know that it's not a fight worth having. The Republicans wouldn't have impeached Clinton in an election year either--it's not worth the potential backlash from the voters. If you recall, the impeachment in the House took place after the Republicans took a beating in the midterms in 1998, so they got their revenge post-election before the new members could get seated.

Look--the fact is that in the legislature you have to pick your fights when you're in the minority. This isn't a fight worth picking yet, mainly because it's an election year, and the voters have their say in November.

Personally, much as I despise Bush and think he's guilty as hell, I'm not in favor of impeachment, not yet anyway. I think the Republicans did the nation a disservice by going after Clinton on such a shoddy misreading of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause, and I don't believe in tit fot tat. But if Bush wins this fall, and if it turns out that Bush knew about Valerie Plame's outing and did nothing or authorized the $700 million diversion from Afghanistan to Iraq before he had authorization from Congress, then I'm all over my party to start the proceedings.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.Heard about it--the box itself dated back to the time of Jesus. Unfortunately, the inscription didn't. It was new and a forgery. Try again.Never heard of it being shown to be a forgery. Got any place I can find that? I don't have any saved links about the discovery so I will take whatever you have.Here you go. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/18/1055828386744.html)Good enough. I hadn't seen any of that report before. I will no longer use the burial box as an example.

Right now it is 4:25 a.m. where I am. Bed time, I will pick back up tomorrow where I left off tonight.

Hack--Kerry has released all the documents, medical and otherwise. His service reports from his superiors are glowing. And I wouldn't call any wound received in Vietnam minor, no matter what political party the person who received it belonged to. I'm not saying that Bush and his people can't question Kerry's military record--just saying that it's stupid to do so, considering how weak their own guy is on the subject. There really is no comparison between Kerry and Bush on this subject.

Now they have been, yes. His campaign sure screwed around long enough. I don't have the article with me, but I recall The Washington Post getting jacked around for awhile before finally getting everything, including Kerry's campaign saying everything had been released when it clearly hadn't.

Even if Kerry hasn't been wounded and had never won a medal, just by virtue of the fact that he was there and Bush wasn't, Kerry wins it hands down. The medals and decorations are just lagniappe.

Except, they aren't. The stars are window dressing, the Purple Hearts are more important to the John Kerry Story. Many people are pretty convinced that Kerry used the Hearts to leave service early. He found a loophole (that you could ask to leave if you had 3 Hearts) and promptly tried to get one everytime anything happened. That paints him as less "Heroic American Soldier Wounded Many Times" and more as "Dude With Three Minor Wounds Who Scammed His Way Out".

[NOTE: I'm not advocating that position, just mentioning its existance.]

Furthermore, there are plent of people who are a little perplexed at Kerry leaving the service 6 months early. To run for office and protest the war.

I think there's plenty of room for questions about Kerry's service, without Bush coming into it at all. Look at your post, for instance. You say that people can question Kerry's record and then immediately frame it against Bush's record. Bush's record is seperate from Kerry's.

Heh... just pretend you're defending Kerry's record against McCain.

Hack, if I were comparing Kerry's record against McCain's, I'd be worried. But McCain isn't President (although he probably should be) and he's not a candidate this time either, so there's no reason to compare the two.

The other thing to remember is that in recent weeks--and I've been following this pretty closely--Kerry hasn't been making much of a deal of his war record. There's a reason--the progressive side of the Democratic party is still pissed at him over his Iraq vote. Bush is the one who has made it an issue, so it's only right that the two records be set side by side and examined. And in any examination--even a biased one--Bush comes out the loser, plain and simple.

Well this thread turned out just as I planned.

And New Astrolia - yep it is me.

"America won the space race". The Soviets were the first to launch a sattelite, the first to get animals into space, the first to get a man into space, the first to get a man into orbit and the first to get an object onto the moon. After all that the USA got a man on the moon and claimed to win the race.

In fact, the technological race that the USA won was the nuclear arms race. USA made the first U and Pu bombs, the only nation to use them in combat, and thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history but also made the first H bomb. Of course the USSR showcased their stockpile of arms on the Red Square so I suppose the nuke race was also a major peversion of history- on both sides of the iron curtain!

Aidan

"America won the space race". The Soviets were the first to launch a sattelite, the first to get animals into space, the first to get a man into space, the first to get a man into orbit and the first to get an object onto the moon. After all that the USA got a man on the moon and claimed to win the race.

In fact, the technological race that the USA won was the nuclear arms race. USA made the first U and Pu bombs, the only nation to use them in combat, and thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history but also made the first H bomb. Of course the USSR showcased their stockpile of arms on the Red Square so I suppose the nuke race was also a major peversion of history- on both sides of the iron curtain!

Aidan

You really have to look at the things that the USSR put into space and compare them in more depth to those launched by the U.S. The Societ's firsts were primarily achieved by ignoring testing and safety in an attempt to be the first. If they hadn't run out of funding they'd probably have been the first to the moon, but there'd be no guarantee of their cosmonauts coming back. It is also important to look at the lasting contributions of the U.S. space program as compared to those of the Soviet program. NASA still exists and is still flying missions, applying old lessons and learning new ones. The Soviet space program, along with the Soviet Union, is no more.

"America won the space race". The Soviets were the first to launch a sattelite, the first to get animals into space, the first to get a man into space, the first to get a man into orbit and the first to get an object onto the moon. After all that the USA got a man on the moon and claimed to win the race.

In fact, the technological race that the USA won was the nuclear arms race. USA made the first U and Pu bombs, the only nation to use them in combat, and thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history but also made the first H bomb. Of course the USSR showcased their stockpile of arms on the Red Square so I suppose the nuke race was also a major peversion of history- on both sides of the iron curtain!

Aidan

You really have to look at the things that the USSR put into space and compare them in more depth to those launched by the U.S. The Societ's firsts were primarily achieved by ignoring testing and safety in an attempt to be the first. If they hadn't run out of funding they'd probably have been the first to the moon, but there'd be no guarantee of their cosmonauts coming back. It is also important to look at the lasting contributions of the U.S. space program as compared to those of the Soviet program. NASA still exists and is still flying missions, applying old lessons and learning new ones. The Soviet space program, along with the Soviet Union, is no more.
After the fall of the Soviet union where did NASA get more efficient and effective rocket engines from?
You guessed it!

"America won the space race". The Soviets were the first to launch a sattelite, the first to get animals into space, the first to get a man into space, the first to get a man into orbit and the first to get an object onto the moon. After all that the USA got a man on the moon and claimed to win the race.

In fact, the technological race that the USA won was the nuclear arms race. USA made the first U and Pu bombs, the only nation to use them in combat, and thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history but also made the first H bomb. Of course the USSR showcased their stockpile of arms on the Red Square so I suppose the nuke race was also a major peversion of history- on both sides of the iron curtain!

Aidan

You really have to look at the things that the USSR put into space and compare them in more depth to those launched by the U.S. The Societ's firsts were primarily achieved by ignoring testing and safety in an attempt to be the first. If they hadn't run out of funding they'd probably have been the first to the moon, but there'd be no guarantee of their cosmonauts coming back. It is also important to look at the lasting contributions of the U.S. space program as compared to those of the Soviet program. NASA still exists and is still flying missions, applying old lessons and learning new ones. The Soviet space program, along with the Soviet Union, is no more.

I agree, the USA won the "Human rights" race. I'm just saying that the US tends to make a big deal of the moon landings and how the USA "won" the space race in the media and literature while ignoring the USSR's progress. Similarly, the Soviet press not only misguided its populace, it outright lied to them, and exaggerated the size of their arsenal.

Incidentally, althrough the USSR's space program no longer exists (and yes, the nuclear silos are falling apart) the launch sites in the former USSR are now being used to send up European sattelites, allowing useful peaceful reseach to take place, allowing Europe to develop space. Hopefully this means that for the next few decades, space will be used for the good of humanity. (Eventually, when the EU and USA start WWIII then all hell will be let loose, but that won't be for another 50 years or so...)

Aidan

"America won the space race". The Soviets were the first to launch a sattelite, the first to get animals into space, the first to get a man into space, the first to get a man into orbit and the first to get an object onto the moon. After all that the USA got a man on the moon and claimed to win the race.

In fact, the technological race that the USA won was the nuclear arms race. USA made the first U and Pu bombs, the only nation to use them in combat, and thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history but also made the first H bomb. Of course the USSR showcased their stockpile of arms on the Red Square so I suppose the nuke race was also a major peversion of history- on both sides of the iron curtain!

Aidan

You really have to look at the things that the USSR put into space and compare them in more depth to those launched by the U.S. The Societ's firsts were primarily achieved by ignoring testing and safety in an attempt to be the first. If they hadn't run out of funding they'd probably have been the first to the moon, but there'd be no guarantee of their cosmonauts coming back. It is also important to look at the lasting contributions of the U.S. space program as compared to those of the Soviet program. NASA still exists and is still flying missions, applying old lessons and learning new ones. The Soviet space program, along with the Soviet Union, is no more.
After the fall of the Soviet union where did NASA get more efficient and effective rocket engines from?
You guessed it!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there was no value in the Soviet space program, but I'm saying it does not have the longevity that NASA has, and looking only at funding it's not hard to see why.

I'd also like to say this, if in a race you are behind at every marker but catch up and pass your competition in the final stretch they still award you the medal. Of course the entire idea of the space race was bull. Neither side cared anything about actually going into space, it was just a way of showing off. We see the same thing all over the world. A current example that amuses me is at the DMZ on the border between North and South Korea there is a small village in which no one lives but which is one of the nicest places in all of North Korea. In this village there is a flag so large that if has to be taken down on days when it's not windy so that it doesn't rip itself off the flag pole. This flag is the result of a contest between North and South Korea over who could put up the largest flag. It's the same basic motivation that led to the creation of the H bomb and the flight to the moon. There is no benifit from it except to say, "look what I can do that you can't." Fundamentally the same is true of all races of all kinds, but the absurdity of the contest is borne out very well in the Korean flags and the bombs that could kill 10 million people if placed properly.

I'd also like to say this, if in a race you are behind at every marker but catch up and pass your competition in the final stretch they still award you the medal. Of course the entire idea of the space race was bull. Neither side cared anything about actually going into space, it was just a way of showing off. We see the same thing all over the world. A current example that amuses me is at the DMZ on the border between North and South Korea there is a small village in which no one lives but which is one of the nicest places in all of North Korea. In this village there is a flag so large that if has to be taken down on days when it's not windy so that it doesn't rip itself off the flag pole. This flag is the result of a contest between North and South Korea over who could put up the largest flag. It's the same basic motivation that led to the creation of the H bomb and the flight to the moon. There is no benifit from it except to say, "look what I can do that you can't." Fundamentally the same is true of all races of all kinds, but the absurdity of the contest is borne out very well in the Korean flags and the bombs that could kill 10 million people if placed properly.

LOL! Maybe the UN should sponsor awards for this sort of thing- encourage nations to race with peaceful things!

Then again, if a nation spend $1,000,000 on a big flag then they can't spend that on part of a hospital for their people, but it's still better than buying enough Plutonium for a couple of nukes. (Yes, I've got no idea how much a big flag and pole, or Plutonium costs...)

Now if only we can get our leaders to take part in a "drag race"... That would be a sight!

Aidan

Now if only we can get our leaders to take part in a "drag race"... That would be a sight!

AidanI'd pay good money to see George Bush run while wearing a Gautier floor length and 5 inch spike heels. :lol:

Now if only we can get our leaders to take part in a "drag race"... That would be a sight!

AidanI'd pay good money to see George Bush run while wearing a Gautier floor length and 5 inch spike heels. :lol:

I was thinking more about Bush and Putin sitting opposite each other at a summit touching up their hair and fake boobies while discussing the future of the Eastern European economies, but whatever floats your boat!

Aidan

...(A)nd thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history....

Aidan

Actually, and I know this has nothing to do with your actual point, but the USSR had a larger stockpile of nuclear weapons that the US for most of the Cold War. I think, from 1950ish-1994 or something like that.

...(A)nd thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history....

Aidan

Actually, and I know this has nothing to do with your actual point, but the USSR had a larger stockpile of nuclear weapons that the US for most of the Cold War. I think, from 1950ish-1994 or something like that.

Hmm, I don't know my Cold War History that well then... As I remember it the Americans had a larger stockpile of nukes, but the Soviets had a larger conventional army. I'm probably just rusty though- I haven't studied it in 5 years...

Aidan

I couldn't get the link to work either but I think (I hope) the point was that the it was not the free market which caused the great depression but govt interference in the market, and if FDR hadn't shafted the economy further with the "new deal" it might have gone away quicker too. The economist Milton Friedman went to great lengths to show how this is true. I could post an article on this if you'd like.

I'd like to see the article, if you have the link handy.
Actually, looking over it again it doesn't have any info on how the depression started, but it does go over the harmful consequences of the new deal (and by extension, welfare in general).

http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-29-03.html

Kind of like John Kerry claiming he fought honerably in Vietnam, a Perversion of History if there ever was one.Tell you what, you little git. Put the war records of John Kerry and George W. Bush side by side and then let's talk. You want to go there? Didn't think so.George W. Bush served an honorable tour of duty in the Texas National Guard. George W. Bush has been cleared of the false claims of being AWOL.
Kerry on the other hand has admitted that he was afraid to go to battle and actively protested the war afterwards. Any man who will stand up in the uniform of a US soldier, and protest against the US government is not fit to be allowed to lead that very same nation.

You tool. My uncle was in Nam and he fought bravely but he admits he was shit scared, who wouldn't have been? Being afraid of going into battle is natural, everyone fears facing death, something GW didn't have to worry about. All my relatives who have been in combat from WW2, Korea and Vietnam all say they were scared of going into battle, anyone who says they were not is a lier in their books.

A soldier who has served his country has just as much if not more justification to protest against government decisions. My uncle is anti-war and protested against Iraq. Democraracy applies to all. They know what it is like to at the sharp end of poor governmental policy.

Get off your one-eyede ultra-nationalist horse and stop going on about how great Bush is, most of us really don't care. You have hijacked this thread to make cheap calls about Kerry.

The inscription on the box was traditionally stated as ....... son of...... and did not include any other relatives. The mentioning of the brothers name is what made it rare. However, Incertonia says he thinks the inscription was shown to be a forgery. I have asked him if he knows where I can find that because this is the first I have heard of it. I have told him I have no saved links about the discovery and will take whatever he can find. Maybe you could look as well?
I've examined the ossuary myself and am quite sure that it is a forgery. When I first saw it, I noted that the ayns in "James" and in "Jesus" didn't match up - as if they had been copied from two different inscriptions. I mentioned this to Larry Stager, who is in charge of the excavations at Ashkelon and is one of the world's chief Biblical archaeologists. He told me that he was sure it was a forgery, but for other reasons.

Later, a panel of scholars deemed the inscription to be a later addition (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/). How much later, nobody knew... until recently.

Last July, the Israeli police burst into the apartment of Oded Golan (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=320971&sw=Oded), the owner of the ossuary. Inside, they discovered

the ossuary, said to be worth as much as $2-million (U.S.), sitting on a toilet in a shed on the roof of Golan's modest Tel Aviv apartment. They also claimed to have found forging tools on the premises and several semi-completed forgeries.

Subsequently, the Israel Antiquities Authority declared 14 objects purchased from Golan, either directly or via an intermediary, to be forgeries. These included the ossuary and the famous Joash Tablet. You can read more about it in the links to CNN and Haaretz that I've provided above.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

Idon't know what you're talking about, there is a wealth of evidence to back up the existance of Jesus... It almost isn't even disputable. That's like saying there was no Ceaser or no Nimrod

Wealth of evidence? :lol: Well, bring it on!!! :lol: Seriously, the only 'wealth of evidence' you got is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.Look back just a little way to find a literal evidence that is written in stone. Now it is your turn to provide evidence supporting your claim.

Look back a little way to see I already did...I have seen nothing that you have presented that shows support to your claim that Jesus never existed. Incertonia did provide a link showing the burial box is said to be a forgery. You have provided nothing. Even though the link that Incertonia provided had people that claimed it to be actual, there was people who said it appears to be a forgery. I told him I would except anything he could provide. He did. I did. Now it is up to you to provide whatever proof that you have that Jesus never existed.

The inscription on the box was traditionally stated as ....... son of...... and did not include any other relatives. The mentioning of the brothers name is what made it rare. However, Incertonia says he thinks the inscription was shown to be a forgery. I have asked him if he knows where I can find that because this is the first I have heard of it. I have told him I have no saved links about the discovery and will take whatever he can find. Maybe you could look as well?

Wrong. The ossuary has a simple Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua, or "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."The part where it says "brother of" would not have normally been included in the inscription, unless the brother was famous. That is what would have made the find rare, if it wasn't a forgery.

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

I agree. The best argument for this in the book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicarmial Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It's a bit difficult to explain but Jaynes suggests that early man did not have the same level of consiousness as men of today. Early man "created" god in order to assist them in becoming aware of their surroundings. Man reached the current state of consiousness about 3000 years ago, which explains why the society of Ancient Greeks adavanced in a short period of time and to a level unseen in previous civilisations.This is a good one. You expect us to take the word of someone who wrote one book on the subject, while rejecting the words of a book written by several authors, over a period of years, on the subject. I do believe that the words, written by several authors, is a more reliable source.

Perversions of History, so many, so little time.

First, I'd like to thank Hollywood for screwing with history so much.

Hollywood - the true perverter.

1. Robert the Bruce did more than William Wallace, the Battle of Banockburn was very important.
2. The US wasn't the first to stop black slavery, I know Britain did before the US and I think a few other countries did aswell.
3. The USSR never had as many nuclear warheads as the US.
4. Chinese dynastic recorded history - the Chinese bureaucracy from time to time changed what actually happened in their recorded history with some hilarious (and dangerous) consequences. I'll give some examples if you want.
5. The idea that the US 'started' modern democracy, it can seen as continuing of changes that were occuring in Britain. The British were the first to have representative parliments (not perfect, but still, what is?) with the idea "No taxation without representation". This point will take me a long time to explain fully, if you want me to I will in another post.
6. The US 'bringing democracy' to the world. It has done the exact opposite in many cases, setting up dictatorships to further its own ends. Diem, Pinochet and the Banadista (sp?) are some examples. Most of Latin America is an example.

I'll get back to you, there are plenty more . . . .

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.

Idon't know what you're talking about, there is a wealth of evidence to back up the existance of Jesus... It almost isn't even disputable. That's like saying there was no Ceaser or no Nimrod

Wealth of evidence? :lol: Well, bring it on!!! :lol: Seriously, the only 'wealth of evidence' you got is nothing more than a figment of the imagination.Look back just a little way to find a literal evidence that is written in stone. Now it is your turn to provide evidence supporting your claim.You have a habit of conveniently overlooking posts that contradict you.I have a way of answering post in the order they come. I have a slow computer so sometimes it takes me a while to catch up when I am talking to four or five different people. If you tell me what I conveniently overlooked I will try to answer it.Fair enough--did you get the link I posted for you on the last page about the ossuary being proven a fake?Hey I caught up with the loop a little tonight.

What I'm saying, Jay, is that the Democrats know that it's not a fight worth having. The Republicans wouldn't have impeached Clinton in an election year either--it's not worth the potential backlash from the voters. If you recall, the impeachment in the House took place after the Republicans took a beating in the midterms in 1998, so they got their revenge post-election before the new members could get seated.

Look--the fact is that in the legislature you have to pick your fights when you're in the minority. This isn't a fight worth picking yet, mainly because it's an election year, and the voters have their say in November.

Personally, much as I despise Bush and think he's guilty as hell, I'm not in favor of impeachment, not yet anyway. I think the Republicans did the nation a disservice by going after Clinton on such a shoddy misreading of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause, and I don't believe in tit fot tat. But if Bush wins this fall, and if it turns out that Bush knew about Valerie Plame's outing and did nothing or authorized the $700 million diversion from Afghanistan to Iraq before he had authorization from Congress, then I'm all over my party to start the proceedings.You see the way it looks from the other side is that the Democrats don't believe what they are claiming so that is going to be detramental in the fall. It will be a powerful claim, by the Bush camp, when it gets closer to election time. It may hurt the Democratic Party, more, to not take action to support their claims.

"America won the space race". The Soviets were the first to launch a sattelite, the first to get animals into space, the first to get a man into space, the first to get a man into orbit and the first to get an object onto the moon. After all that the USA got a man on the moon and claimed to win the race.

In fact, the technological race that the USA won was the nuclear arms race. USA made the first U and Pu bombs, the only nation to use them in combat, and thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history but also made the first H bomb. Of course the USSR showcased their stockpile of arms on the Red Square so I suppose the nuke race was also a major peversion of history- on both sides of the iron curtain!

Aidan

You really have to look at the things that the USSR put into space and compare them in more depth to those launched by the U.S. The Societ's firsts were primarily achieved by ignoring testing and safety in an attempt to be the first. If they hadn't run out of funding they'd probably have been the first to the moon, but there'd be no guarantee of their cosmonauts coming back. It is also important to look at the lasting contributions of the U.S. space program as compared to those of the Soviet program. NASA still exists and is still flying missions, applying old lessons and learning new ones. The Soviet space program, along with the Soviet Union, is no more.While I agree with your reasoning I feel it only fair to object to the statement you made about the Soviet's not being able to guarantee the return of the cosmonauts. While the Soviets did have a terrible safety record, in their space program, I call to mind that we can still not grant that guarantee ourself. One Shuttle blowing up on the launch and another burning up on re-entry does not make our program all that safe itself.

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

This is from someone who recently encouraged the creation of a new forum where serious issues can be discussed in a serious way - a forum where conservatives are asked to respond to liberals about such issues as the legal and moral justification for the Iraq conflict.

Well, what can I say except that dismissing Christianity - or all monotheistic religions - in such a flippant, offhand manner should easily expose the intellectual vacuity of Stephistan. This is the best you can do? How old are you? 15?

Now if only we can get our leaders to take part in a "drag race"... That would be a sight!

AidanI'd pay good money to see George Bush run while wearing a Gautier floor length and 5 inch spike heels. :lol:There is one that I will give you for Kerry, I think he would make a much better looking drag queen.

You see the way it looks from the other side is that the Democrats don't believe what they are claiming so that is going to be detramental in the fall. It will be a powerful claim, by the Bush camp, when it gets closer to election time. It may hurt the Democratic Party, more, to not take action to support their claims.The thing is, though, is that the Democratic party isn't talking about impeachment. That word isn't crossing anyone's lips--not anyone linked to a position of responsibility inside the party anyway. The only people who are even mentioning it are the hard core activists who make Kucinich look moderate--I'm talking Pacifica radio types here.

No, the focus is three-fold this year. 1) beating Bush. 2) Taking back the Senate. 3)Taking back the House.

The first is absolutely doable, and considering the kind of job Bush has done thus far, it will be the height of ineptitude if we don't accomplish that. The second is about 50/50. We have definite pickup opportunities in about half a dozen states, but we're also likley to give back a few seats. Fortunately for us, we only have to net one and win the Presidency, or net two and we've got it. The third is unlikely, although I think we've got a shot at closing the gap and bringing the House into play for real in 2006.

Nowhere in that set of goals is the impeachment of the president. No one is seriously talking about it because it's not going to happen--notice I haven't admitted that there's no reason for it not to; just that it won't.

Now if only we can get our leaders to take part in a "drag race"... That would be a sight!

AidanI'd pay good money to see George Bush run while wearing a Gautier floor length and 5 inch spike heels. :lol:There is one that I will give you for Kerry, I think he would make a much better looking drag queen.

Liberals say Bush is simian in aspect, right? Well, Kerry looks like he has a chromosomal deficiency - he looks like an extra from the movie "Southern Comfort", an inbred retard. I don't think inbred retards look too good dressing as drag queens. :wink:

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.
You mean the latest in a long lone of probable forgeries? The text shows two different styles, i.e. the inscription was altered. The incised design is radically different from any other example, there should be an carved away area with raised text, the entire surface except the text is has been carved away. Currently, the authenticity of the box is considered less than questionable.

Good evidence would be Roman records of the census Joseph returned to Nazareth for (no record) or the trial and crucifiction of Jesus (no record, even though there are several records of other messianic claimants tried and crucified.) Or other verifiable, independant record of him existing. There are historical records of christians existing but, no record of Jesus himself that isn't a forgery that I've ever heard of.

To the thing about the W.M.D'w wouldn't of conventional bombing killed more in the long run?

"America won the space race". The Soviets were the first to launch a sattelite, the first to get animals into space, the first to get a man into space, the first to get a man into orbit and the first to get an object onto the moon. After all that the USA got a man on the moon and claimed to win the race.

In fact, the technological race that the USA won was the nuclear arms race. USA made the first U and Pu bombs, the only nation to use them in combat, and thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history but also made the first H bomb. Of course the USSR showcased their stockpile of arms on the Red Square so I suppose the nuke race was also a major peversion of history- on both sides of the iron curtain!

Aidan

You really have to look at the things that the USSR put into space and compare them in more depth to those launched by the U.S. The Societ's firsts were primarily achieved by ignoring testing and safety in an attempt to be the first. If they hadn't run out of funding they'd probably have been the first to the moon, but there'd be no guarantee of their cosmonauts coming back. It is also important to look at the lasting contributions of the U.S. space program as compared to those of the Soviet program. NASA still exists and is still flying missions, applying old lessons and learning new ones. The Soviet space program, along with the Soviet Union, is no more.While I agree with your reasoning I feel it only fair to object to the statement you made about the Soviet's not being able to guarantee the return of the cosmonauts. While the Soviets did have a terrible safety record, in their space program, I call to mind that we can still not grant that guarantee ourself. One Shuttle blowing up on the launch and another burning up on re-entry does not make our program all that safe itself.

I'm not nearly so well informed about this as either of you two seem to be, but nonetheless. The US has only had a half dozen major and minor losses insofar as i know, while I have no idea of the russian end in specifics. But as in with most things, the US alone have successfully done how many missions, so whats a few losses. In the end it is to be expected, nothing is perfect, and while i deplore the waste of life in any way, the advancement was well worth it (and before someone else drags the holocaust into this, I feel that seeing as the lives are gone anyways the information gained should be used, but it was not a fair trade persay.)

You tool. My uncle was in Nam and he fought bravely but he admits he was shit scared, who wouldn't have been? Being afraid of going into battle is natural, everyone fears facing death, something GW didn't have to worry about. All my relatives who have been in combat from WW2, Korea and Vietnam all say they were scared of going into battle, anyone who says they were not is a lier in their books.
You may just want to make a note of the fact that I am a Christian, and as a result of that, I have no fear of death. My father was a vet of WWII and Korea, he was also a man of faith and said fear wasn't the mark of a good soldier. His service record shows he served under orders that actually put him behind enemy lines. I don't blame a person for having fear. I just say if they are that afraid there are always safer places to sign up to serve, or don't serve at all.

A soldier who has served his country has just as much if not more justification to protest against government decisions. My uncle is anti-war and protested against Iraq. Democraracy applies to all. They know what it is like to at the sharp end of poor governmental policy. I did not say he didn't have a right to protest against government. I only say that it is a very poor example of a man who now claims to be dedicated enough to his government to deserve the right to lead it.

Get off your one-eyede ultra-nationalist horse and stop going on about how great Bush is, most of us really don't care. You have hijacked this thread to make cheap calls about Kerry.I have made claims to Bush being "great"? If you will look back you will find where I made a comment that both men have honorable discharges. That means they served an honorable tour of duty. Not that they acted in the most honorable way possible. As for highjacking this thread the things I started talking about the most is religion. Now I am answering questions on politics. The first post I made was of a political nature and done with humor. When people started posting against people having a belief in God, I started responding, then the thread turned to politics. Do try to keep up. I have made no "cheap calls" about Kerry, I have only stated things that were reported when msn had a link comparing the military service of both men. Yes I admit that my comments may be/are bias to the right, and that I intentionally did not comment on the negatives of Bush's service record that were mentioned. That is what I consider to be a good debate. If negatives are brought up, by the opponent, let them show it. I fully let everyone know where my information was coming from. If they chose not to look at it and use the negatives, contained in the same report, that shows their lack of ability in debate. I take the time to read the links the opponent post. I may lose some time due to this, but I want to see their sorces. Enough ranting for now. Try not accusing those, unless you know what you are talking about, in the future.

The inscription on the box was traditionally stated as ....... son of...... and did not include any other relatives. The mentioning of the brothers name is what made it rare. However, Incertonia says he thinks the inscription was shown to be a forgery. I have asked him if he knows where I can find that because this is the first I have heard of it. I have told him I have no saved links about the discovery and will take whatever he can find. Maybe you could look as well?
I've examined the ossuary myself and am quite sure that it is a forgery. When I first saw it, I noted that the ayns in "James" and in "Jesus" didn't match up - as if they had been copied from two different inscriptions. I mentioned this to Larry Stager, who is in charge of the excavations at Ashkelon and is one of the world's chief Biblical archaeologists. He told me that he was sure it was a forgery, but for other reasons.

Later, a panel of scholars deemed the inscription to be a later addition (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/). How much later, nobody knew... until recently.

Last July, the Israeli police burst into the apartment of Oded Golan (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=320971&sw=Oded), the owner of the ossuary. Inside, they discovered

the ossuary, said to be worth as much as $2-million (U.S.), sitting on a toilet in a shed on the roof of Golan's modest Tel Aviv apartment. They also claimed to have found forging tools on the premises and several semi-completed forgeries.

Subsequently, the Israel Antiquities Authority declared 14 objects purchased from Golan, either directly or via an intermediary, to be forgeries. These included the ossuary and the famous Joash Tablet. You can read more about it in the links to CNN and Haaretz that I've provided above.As for your claim of actually seeing the ossuary, I will take you at your word. This issue has already been covered nicely by Incertonia, but I thank you for the additional links. They will come in handy later, I am sure. I tend to find myself in religious debates often.

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

This is from someone who recently encouraged the creation of a new forum where serious issues can be discussed in a serious way - a forum where conservatives are asked to respond to liberals about such issues as the legal and moral justification for the Iraq conflict.

Well, what can I say except that dismissing Christianity - or all monotheistic religions - in such a flippant, offhand manner should easily expose the intellectual vacuity of Stephistan. This is the best you can do? How old are you? 15? :shock: Oh no you didnt. :shock:

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

This is from someone who recently encouraged the creation of a new forum where serious issues can be discussed in a serious way - a forum where conservatives are asked to respond to liberals about such issues as the legal and moral justification for the Iraq conflict.

Well, what can I say except that dismissing Christianity - or all monotheistic religions - in such a flippant, offhand manner should easily expose the intellectual vacuity of Stephistan. This is the best you can do? How old are you? 15? :shock: Oh no you didnt. :shock:

Oh yes I did Jay, because to me, as a Christian, what she said was far more offensive - and ignorant - than what I said to her. I know she's a moderator and can delete my nation, but sometimes you have to say what you feel and take your chances. I know the mods are mostly liberal, and she is, but oh well. :D

You see the way it looks from the other side is that the Democrats don't believe what they are claiming so that is going to be detramental in the fall. It will be a powerful claim, by the Bush camp, when it gets closer to election time. It may hurt the Democratic Party, more, to not take action to support their claims.The thing is, though, is that the Democratic party isn't talking about impeachment. That word isn't crossing anyone's lips--not anyone linked to a position of responsibility inside the party anyway. The only people who are even mentioning it are the hard core activists who make Kucinich look moderate--I'm talking Pacifica radio types here.

No, the focus is three-fold this year. 1) beating Bush. 2) Taking back the Senate. 3)Taking back the House.

The first is absolutely doable, and considering the kind of job Bush has done thus far, it will be the height of ineptitude if we don't accomplish that. The second is about 50/50. We have definite pickup opportunities in about half a dozen states, but we're also likley to give back a few seats. Fortunately for us, we only have to net one and win the Presidency, or net two and we've got it. The third is unlikely, although I think we've got a shot at closing the gap and bringing the House into play for real in 2006.

Nowhere in that set of goals is the impeachment of the president. No one is seriously talking about it because it's not going to happen--notice I haven't admitted that there's no reason for it not to; just that it won't.That is where the problem comes in. The Democrats are making all these claims against the president. The voters see them making these claims. The voters don't see any attempt to prove what they claim. If the Democrats are going to be able to accomplish any of the three goals you outline the voters are going to need some solid proof that what they are being told, about Bush, is somewhere close to the truth. The Bush camp has already been able to knock down the service record. Have you seen the newest ads. They focus on Kerry's voting record. On the votes he has cast dealing with supporting the military. How long do you think it will take until we start seeing the ads asking for proof of what the Kerry campaign is charging? The news today said that Kerrys service record is working for Bush. (msnbc) They are also looking at Kerry's wife as to whether she is good or bad for his campaign. They also have an article on the msn homepage looking at the good Kerry and the bad Kerry. This one deals with his way of approaching making a speech. They say if the bad Kerry is speaking it can come across with the wrong message. (not a quote, but just what I can see them saying in that one. There seems to be a lot more bad press coming out on Kerry the last few days. These are coming from places that have typically been seen as liberally slanted in their approach to the news. The real kicker is that I have seen none of these articles reported on Fox news, a network that is typically seen as being conservatively slanted. That is the main reason behind me even bringing them up. I had my mind set that when I came back on NationStates that I wasn't going to get into very many political debates, but when I see these comments, coming from the liberal press, it kind of draws me in. Maybe I will just let it stand at that.

One of the greatest scams must be the claim that Christ actually existed when there is no convincing evidence to back this up.Haven't you heard of the discovery of the burial box with the incription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". The area in which it was found fit in with the biblical text. The rarity of an inscription, that claimed relationship to a brother, is almost unheard of from that time. This is just the most recent historical find that support the evidence that Jesus existed.
You mean the latest in a long lone of probable forgeries? The text shows two different styles, i.e. the inscription was altered. The incised design is radically different from any other example, there should be an carved away area with raised text, the entire surface except the text is has been carved away. Currently, the authenticity of the box is considered less than questionable.

Good evidence would be Roman records of the census Joseph returned to Nazareth for (no record) or the trial and crucifiction of Jesus (no record, even though there are several records of other messianic claimants tried and crucified.) Or other verifiable, independant record of him existing. There are historical records of christians existing but, no record of Jesus himself that isn't a forgery that I've ever heard of.Lack of evidence does not prove lack of existence. There appears to be several copies available, of a book, written by several different authors, that claim the existence of Jesus to be true. As a further thing to think about, the existence of the whaleshark, totally unkown for centuries, no record of existing. Not even the available book. Yet it is very much here now.

I really think it's a matter of perception. You say that the BUsh campaign has been able to knock down Kerry's service record. I see no such thing--in fact, Kerry's service record looks all the more impressive once you factor in the glowing reports his commanding officers wrote about him while he was in the service. The focus on Kerry's voting record--these ersatz charges that he's for cuts in defense spending--are defused by the fact that he was joined in those votes (and this changes depending on the exact vote) by Senators McCain and Hagel, and in at least one case, Dick Cheney while he was a Representative from Wyoming.

As far as the press coverage is concerned, that Kerry is starting to get pounded is no surprise. The press turned Gore into the biggest liar since Eve in 2000 while lettting Bush get away with non-answers time and again--should they do any less in 2004? And your point about none of this happening on Fox News just backs up the charges I've made elsewhere--that the problem with the media isn't that it has an ideology, but that it has a profit motive first and foremost and will back whoever promises to give them the most leeway and least hassle. There is no liberal media--you have to accept that. There is only corporate media, and right now, corporations support Bush and the Republicans far more often than not.

"America won the space race". The Soviets were the first to launch a sattelite, the first to get animals into space, the first to get a man into space, the first to get a man into orbit and the first to get an object onto the moon. After all that the USA got a man on the moon and claimed to win the race.

In fact, the technological race that the USA won was the nuclear arms race. USA made the first U and Pu bombs, the only nation to use them in combat, and thenwent on to not only have the largest stockpile in history but also made the first H bomb. Of course the USSR showcased their stockpile of arms on the Red Square so I suppose the nuke race was also a major peversion of history- on both sides of the iron curtain!

Aidan

You really have to look at the things that the USSR put into space and compare them in more depth to those launched by the U.S. The Societ's firsts were primarily achieved by ignoring testing and safety in an attempt to be the first. If they hadn't run out of funding they'd probably have been the first to the moon, but there'd be no guarantee of their cosmonauts coming back. It is also important to look at the lasting contributions of the U.S. space program as compared to those of the Soviet program. NASA still exists and is still flying missions, applying old lessons and learning new ones. The Soviet space program, along with the Soviet Union, is no more.While I agree with your reasoning I feel it only fair to object to the statement you made about the Soviet's not being able to guarantee the return of the cosmonauts. While the Soviets did have a terrible safety record, in their space program, I call to mind that we can still not grant that guarantee ourself. One Shuttle blowing up on the launch and another burning up on re-entry does not make our program all that safe itself.

I'm not nearly so well informed about this as either of you two seem to be, but nonetheless. The US has only had a half dozen major and minor losses insofar as i know, while I have no idea of the russian end in specifics. But as in with most things, the US alone have successfully done how many missions, so whats a few losses. In the end it is to be expected, nothing is perfect, and while i deplore the waste of life in any way, the advancement was well worth it (and before someone else drags the holocaust into this, I feel that seeing as the lives are gone anyways the information gained should be used, but it was not a fair trade persay.)I think you may have misread my post, or I didn't make it clear enough. I think the space programs were/are well worth it. I was only making the point that it is far from a failsafe practice.

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

This is from someone who recently encouraged the creation of a new forum where serious issues can be discussed in a serious way - a forum where conservatives are asked to respond to liberals about such issues as the legal and moral justification for the Iraq conflict.

Well, what can I say except that dismissing Christianity - or all monotheistic religions - in such a flippant, offhand manner should easily expose the intellectual vacuity of Stephistan. This is the best you can do? How old are you? 15? :shock: Oh no you didnt. :shock:

Oh yes I did Jay, because to me, as a Christian, what she said was far more offensive - and ignorant - than what I said to her. I know she's a moderator and can delete my nation, but sometimes you have to say what you feel and take your chances. I know the mods are mostly liberal, and she is, but oh well. :DBeen there, done that, got deted. Good luck. :lol:
I also am a Christian and take high offense at the things she says on religion. I am also Conservative. Made me a double target.

I really think it's a matter of perception. You say that the BUsh campaign has been able to knock down Kerry's service record. I see no such thing--in fact, Kerry's service record looks all the more impressive once you factor in the glowing reports his commanding officers wrote about him while he was in the service. The focus on Kerry's voting record--these ersatz charges that he's for cuts in defense spending--are defused by the fact that he was joined in those votes (and this changes depending on the exact vote) by Senators McCain and Hagel, and in at least one case, Dick Cheney while he was a Representative from Wyoming.

As far as the press coverage is concerned, that Kerry is starting to get pounded is no surprise. The press turned Gore into the biggest liar since Eve in 2000 while lettting Bush get away with non-answers time and again--should they do any less in 2004? And your point about none of this happening on Fox News just backs up the charges I've made elsewhere--that the problem with the media isn't that it has an ideology, but that it has a profit motive first and foremost and will back whoever promises to give them the most leeway and least hassle. There is no liberal media--you have to accept that. There is only corporate media, and right now, corporations support Bush and the Republicans far more often than not.These are not my perceptions these are reports.

No liberal media? How do you explain the fact that no network executive has appeared at any republican rally? Yet you see them at the Democatic functions all the time.

I really think it's a matter of perception. You say that the BUsh campaign has been able to knock down Kerry's service record. I see no such thing--in fact, Kerry's service record looks all the more impressive once you factor in the glowing reports his commanding officers wrote about him while he was in the service. The focus on Kerry's voting record--these ersatz charges that he's for cuts in defense spending--are defused by the fact that he was joined in those votes (and this changes depending on the exact vote) by Senators McCain and Hagel, and in at least one case, Dick Cheney while he was a Representative from Wyoming.

As far as the press coverage is concerned, that Kerry is starting to get pounded is no surprise. The press turned Gore into the biggest liar since Eve in 2000 while lettting Bush get away with non-answers time and again--should they do any less in 2004? And your point about none of this happening on Fox News just backs up the charges I've made elsewhere--that the problem with the media isn't that it has an ideology, but that it has a profit motive first and foremost and will back whoever promises to give them the most leeway and least hassle. There is no liberal media--you have to accept that. There is only corporate media, and right now, corporations support Bush and the Republicans far more often than not.These are not my perceptions these are reports.

No liberal media? How do you explain the fact that no network executive has appeared at any republican rally? Yet you see them at the Democatic functions all the time.A veritable cottage industry has sprung up detailing the ways in which the "liberal" media doesn't exist. Where execs pop up is irrelevant, and I guarantee you, you won't be finding Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes popping up at Democratic functions any time soon. Besides--where are these reports that network execs are popping up at Democratic events? I'd like a little proof on that one.

But the proof is in the coverage. Here's a little example of just how not-liberal the media is. Last weekend, one of the largest protest rallies of all time happened in Washington D.C. It was a pro-choice rally, so if the media is liberal, they'd be all over it, right? Sorry--the lead stories on the cable networks and thir websites were on the death of makeup magnate Estee Lauder and on the Michael Jackson trial. The newspapers had a little more coverage, but many of them ran a single AP story, maybe two on the event. CNN's coverage was perhaps the most liberal of all, as they actually reported that it happened, but covered it as though there were equal numbers of pro-choice and pro-life protestors, when the fact is that there were only about a thousand pro-lifers there.

I could give you example on top of example, but I hope you see my point. If the media has a liberal bias, then it's doing an awful crappy job of showing it. Perhaps it seems biased to you because of where you stand as a conservative--if that's the case, perhaps you should try looking at the coverage more objectively.

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

I agree. The best argument for this in the book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicarmial Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It's a bit difficult to explain but Jaynes suggests that early man did not have the same level of consiousness as men of today. Early man "created" god in order to assist them in becoming aware of their surroundings. Man reached the current state of consiousness about 3000 years ago, which explains why the society of Ancient Greeks adavanced in a short period of time and to a level unseen in previous civilisations.This is a good one. You expect us to take the word of someone who wrote one book on the subject, while rejecting the words of a book written by several authors, over a period of years, on the subject. I do believe that the words, written by several authors, is a more reliable source.

That's a flawed argument. By your logic Galileo Galilei was wrong in saying that the earth wasn't the center of the universe and spun around the sun on the grounds that it went against conventional wisdom of the time. The same could be said of anyone who has made a major scientific breakthrough. Doesn't mean that the majority says that something is so doesn't mean that it is so.

I really think it's a matter of perception. You say that the BUsh campaign has been able to knock down Kerry's service record. I see no such thing--in fact, Kerry's service record looks all the more impressive once you factor in the glowing reports his commanding officers wrote about him while he was in the service. The focus on Kerry's voting record--these ersatz charges that he's for cuts in defense spending--are defused by the fact that he was joined in those votes (and this changes depending on the exact vote) by Senators McCain and Hagel, and in at least one case, Dick Cheney while he was a Representative from Wyoming.

As far as the press coverage is concerned, that Kerry is starting to get pounded is no surprise. The press turned Gore into the biggest liar since Eve in 2000 while lettting Bush get away with non-answers time and again--should they do any less in 2004? And your point about none of this happening on Fox News just backs up the charges I've made elsewhere--that the problem with the media isn't that it has an ideology, but that it has a profit motive first and foremost and will back whoever promises to give them the most leeway and least hassle. There is no liberal media--you have to accept that. There is only corporate media, and right now, corporations support Bush and the Republicans far more often than not.These are not my perceptions these are reports.

No liberal media? How do you explain the fact that no network executive has appeared at any republican rally? Yet you see them at the Democatic functions all the time.A veritable cottage industry has sprung up detailing the ways in which the "liberal" media doesn't exist. Where execs pop up is irrelevant, and I guarantee you, you won't be finding Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes popping up at Democratic functions any time soon. Besides--where are these reports that network execs are popping up at Democratic events? I'd like a little proof on that one.

But the proof is in the coverage. Here's a little example of just how not-liberal the media is. Last weekend, one of the largest protest rallies of all time happened in Washington D.C. It was a pro-choice rally, so if the media is liberal, they'd be all over it, right? Sorry--the lead stories on the cable networks and thir websites were on the death of makeup magnate Estee Lauder and on the Michael Jackson trial. The newspapers had a little more coverage, but many of them ran a single AP story, maybe two on the event. CNN's coverage was perhaps the most liberal of all, as they actually reported that it happened, but covered it as though there were equal numbers of pro-choice and pro-life protestors, when the fact is that there were only about a thousand pro-lifers there.

I could give you example on top of example, but I hope you see my point. If the media has a liberal bias, then it's doing an awful crappy job of showing it. Perhaps it seems biased to you because of where you stand as a conservative--if that's the case, perhaps you should try looking at the coverage more objectively.I do agree that there was very little coverage of the abortion rights protest. However, on the same day the three main networks led off with stories of how many more soldiers had been killed in the war. How the deaths were attributed to US actions. These were the non-cable channels, ABC, CBS, and NBC.
But to keep on the topic of the protest march, there has been a right to life march every year on the anniversary of the passing of Roe v. Wade. How many news stories have been aired on that march? I have attended three of these myself and have yet to see a news crew at any of them.

The best and biggest scam ever pulled on mankind was God.. Oh, there is a really good quote I could put here.. to late to go looking for it.

If you go wayyyy back to the history of how it all came to be.. it's such obvious b*ullsh*t..lol but people still believe.. maybe another hundred years when we're all dead people will be as smart as I had hoped they would be by now.. *Shrug*.. that's my $0.02

I agree. The best argument for this in the book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicarmial Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It's a bit difficult to explain but Jaynes suggests that early man did not have the same level of consiousness as men of today. Early man "created" god in order to assist them in becoming aware of their surroundings. Man reached the current state of consiousness about 3000 years ago, which explains why the society of Ancient Greeks adavanced in a short period of time and to a level unseen in previous civilisations.This is a good one. You expect us to take the word of someone who wrote one book on the subject, while rejecting the words of a book written by several authors, over a period of years, on the subject. I do believe that the words, written by several authors, is a more reliable source.

That's a flawed argument. By your logic Galileo Galilei was wrong in saying that the earth wasn't the center of the universe and spun around the sun on the grounds that it went against conventional wisdom of the time. The same could be said of anyone who has made a major scientific breakthrough. Doesn't mean that the majority says that something is so doesn't mean that it is so.A scientific breakthrough is no more than someone being able to prove that what was beleived to be the truth is false. Now I ask you can you prove that Christianity or any other form of religion is false? When you are able to do so then you will have your name down in history as making a religious breakthrough. And that will only last until someone finds a way to prove you wrong.

I do agree that there was very little coverage of the abortion rights protest. However, on the same day the three main networks led off with stories of how many more soldiers had been killed in the war. How the deaths were attributed to US actions. These were the non-cable channels, ABC, CBS, and NBC.
But to keep on the topic of the protest march, there has been a right to life march every year on the anniversary of the passing of Roe v. Wade. How many news stories have been aired on that march? I have attended three of these myself and have yet to see a news crew at any of them.The deaths of the soldiers is legitimate news--important news, I would argue, worthy of the lead spot on any broadcast. I'm sure you agree with that. But my point is that if the networks have this liberal bias, then why wasn't there more coverage of what is decidedly a liberal issue protest rally?

As far as the pro-life marches are concerned, I've seen my share of news coverage on those marches in the past, but it's also never a major story. But I bet it would be if there were 800,000 people on the Washington Mall for a pro-life demonstration.

I mean, think about that number--800,000. That number of people in one place for one purpose ought to be a news story no matter what they're there for. It ought to be a major story even if they're just a flash mob. :lol:

We could go on like this all night with example after example of how the news media is slacking--and that's what I accuse them of. Not bias--laziness. Or more correctly, cheapness. Good journalism is expensive. It costs money to put reporters on the ground in places and actually investigate and unearth stories, and since news organizations are all corporate now, they're looking at the bottom line all the time, and reading news copy prepared by the administration or by some advocacy group is easier and cheaper than paying reporters to go out and find actual stories to report on. And that's what's happening, and has been happening in the US media for the last 5-8 years at least, maybe even longer.

You tool. My uncle was in Nam and he fought bravely but he admits he was shit scared, who wouldn't have been? Being afraid of going into battle is natural, everyone fears facing death, something GW didn't have to worry about. All my relatives who have been in combat from WW2, Korea and Vietnam all say they were scared of going into battle, anyone who says they were not is a lier in their books.
You may just want to make a note of the fact that I am a Christian, and as a result of that, I have no fear of death. My father was a vet of WWII and Korea, he was also a man of faith and said fear wasn't the mark of a good soldier. His service record shows he served under orders that actually put him behind enemy lines. I don't blame a person for having fear. I just say if they are that afraid there are always safer places to sign up to serve, or don't serve at all.



A soldier who has served his country has just as much if not more justification to protest against government decisions. My uncle is anti-war and protested against Iraq. Democraracy applies to all. They know what it is like to at the sharp end of poor governmental policy. I did not say he didn't have a right to protest against government. I only say that it is a very poor example of a man who now claims to be dedicated enough to his government to deserve the right to lead it.

Get off your one-eyede ultra-nationalist horse and stop going on about how great Bush is, most of us really don't care. You have hijacked this thread to make cheap calls about Kerry.I have made claims to Bush being "great"? If you will look back you will find where I made a comment that both men have honorable discharges. That means they served an honorable tour of duty. Not that they acted in the most honorable way possible. As for highjacking this thread the things I started talking about the most is religion. Now I am answering questions on politics. The first post I made was of a political nature and done with humor. When people started posting against people having a belief in God, I started responding, then the thread turned to politics. Do try to keep up. I have made no "cheap calls" about Kerry, I have only stated things that were reported when msn had a link comparing the military service of both men. Yes I admit that my comments may be/are bias to the right, and that I intentionally did not comment on the negatives of Bush's service record that were mentioned. That is what I consider to be a good debate. If negatives are brought up, by the opponent, let them show it. I fully let everyone know where my information was coming from. If they chose not to look at it and use the negatives, contained in the same report, that shows their lack of ability in debate. I take the time to read the links the opponent post. I may lose some time due to this, but I want to see their sorces. Enough ranting for now. Try not accusing those, unless you know what you are talking about, in the future.

I know what I'm talking about, stop being so condscending all the time. That post of yours angered me a fair bit, I'm not trying to debate, I'm letting you know what think. Allot of your posts have the 'higher than thou' ring to it.

Are you calling my family members cowards? I'm saying that they all were scared but still managed to function as soldiers, sailors and airmen on the battlefield. Overcoming fear was part of their experiances, I'm not going to boast about their service records but religion has nothing to do with if someone is a good soldier or not. Most Australians aren't as religous as Americans yet our Army has earned one hell of a reputation. Are you telling me you seriously don't fear death? That kind of goes against human instincts. I bet if someone put a gun to your head you'd be afraid. Ever been in a life-or-death situation?

You were making cheap calls at Clinton (not Kerry, my mistake) to start with, you're the one who turned it into a political debate. You do make allot of cheap calls that really have nothing to do with politics, why don't you focus on policies, instead of cheap name calling, if you're so interested in politics?

I really don't care if you're christian or not, it dosen't mean you are a better person.

You always go on and on and on how good Bush is

You tool. My uncle was in Nam and he fought bravely but he admits he was shit scared, who wouldn't have been? Being afraid of going into battle is natural, everyone fears facing death, something GW didn't have to worry about. All my relatives who have been in combat from WW2, Korea and Vietnam all say they were scared of going into battle, anyone who says they were not is a lier in their books.
You may just want to make a note of the fact that I am a Christian, and as a result of that, I have no fear of death. My father was a vet of WWII and Korea, he was also a man of faith and said fear wasn't the mark of a good soldier. His service record shows he served under orders that actually put him behind enemy lines. I don't blame a person for having fear. I just say if they are that afraid there are always safer places to sign up to serve, or don't serve at all.



A soldier who has served his country has just as much if not more justification to protest against government decisions. My uncle is anti-war and protested against Iraq. Democraracy applies to all. They know what it is like to at the sharp end of poor governmental policy. I did not say he didn't have a right to protest against government. I only say that it is a very poor example of a man who now claims to be dedicated enough to his government to deserve the right to lead it.

Get off your one-eyede ultra-nationalist horse and stop going on about how great Bush is, most of us really don't care. You have hijacked this thread to make cheap calls about Kerry.I have made claims to Bush being "great"? If you will look back you will find where I made a comment that both men have honorable discharges. That means they served an honorable tour of duty. Not that they acted in the most honorable way possible. As for highjacking this thread the things I started talking about the most is religion. Now I am answering questions on politics. The first post I made was of a political nature and done with humor. When people started posting against people having a belief in God, I started responding, then the thread turned to politics. Do try to keep up. I have made no "cheap calls" about Kerry, I have only stated things that were reported when msn had a link comparing the military service of both men. Yes I admit that my comments may be/are bias to the right, and that I intentionally did not comment on the negatives of Bush's service record that were mentioned. That is what I consider to be a good debate. If negatives are brought up, by the opponent, let them show it. I fully let everyone know where my information was coming from. If they chose not to look at it and use the negatives, contained in the same report, that shows their lack of ability in debate. I take the time to read the links the opponent post. I may lose some time due to this, but I want to see their sorces. Enough ranting for now. Try not accusing those, unless you know what you are talking about, in the future.

I know what I'm talking about, stop being so condscending all the time. That post of yours angered me a fair bit, I'm not trying to debate, I'm letting you know what think. Allot of your posts have the 'higher than thou' ring to it.

Are you calling my family members cowards? I'm saying that they all were scared but still managed to function as soldiers, sailors and airmen on the battlefield. Overcoming fear was part of their experiances, I'm not going to boast about their service records but religion has nothing to do with if someone is a good soldier or not. Most Australians aren't as religous as Americans yet our Army has earned one hell of a reputation. Are you telling me you seriously don't fear death? That kind of goes against human instincts. I bet if someone put a gun to your head you'd be afraid. Ever been in a life-or-death situation?

You were making cheap calls at Clinton (not Kerry, my mistake) to start with, you're the one who turned it into a political debate. You do make allot of cheap calls that really have nothing to do with politics, why don't you focus on policies, instead of cheap name calling, if you're so interested in politics?

I really don't care if you're christian or not, it dosen't mean you are a better person.

You always go on and on and on how good Bush is
Calm down the pair of you, or take it outside!

You tool. My uncle was in Nam and he fought bravely but he admits he was shit scared, who wouldn't have been? Being afraid of going into battle is natural, everyone fears facing death, something GW didn't have to worry about. All my relatives who have been in combat from WW2, Korea and Vietnam all say they were scared of going into battle, anyone who says they were not is a lier in their books.
You may just want to make a note of the fact that I am a Christian, and as a result of that, I have no fear of death. My father was a vet of WWII and Korea, he was also a man of faith and said fear wasn't the mark of a good soldier. His service record shows he served under orders that actually put him behind enemy lines. I don't blame a person for having fear. I just say if they are that afraid there are always safer places to sign up to serve, or don't serve at all.



A soldier who has served his country has just as much if not more justification to protest against government decisions. My uncle is anti-war and protested against Iraq. Democraracy applies to all. They know what it is like to at the sharp end of poor governmental policy. I did not say he didn't have a right to protest against government. I only say that it is a very poor example of a man who now claims to be dedicated enough to his government to deserve the right to lead it.

Get off your one-eyede ultra-nationalist horse and stop going on about how great Bush is, most of us really don't care. You have hijacked this thread to make cheap calls about Kerry.I have made claims to Bush being "great"? If you will look back you will find where I made a comment that both men have honorable discharges. That means they served an honorable tour of duty. Not that they acted in the most honorable way possible. As for highjacking this thread the things I started talking about the most is religion. Now I am answering questions on politics. The first post I made was of a political nature and done with humor. When people started posting against people having a belief in God, I started responding, then the thread turned to politics. Do try to keep up. I have made no "cheap calls" about Kerry, I have only stated things that were reported when msn had a link comparing the military service of both men. Yes I admit that my comments may be/are bias to the right, and that I intentionally did not comment on the negatives of Bush's service record that were mentioned. That is what I consider to be a good debate. If negatives are brought up, by the opponent, let them show it. I fully let everyone know where my information was coming from. If they chose not to look at it and use the negatives, contained in the same report, that shows their lack of ability in debate. I take the time to read the links the opponent post. I may lose some time due to this, but I want to see their sorces. Enough ranting for now. Try not accusing those, unless you know what you are talking about, in the future.

I know what I'm talking about, stop being so condscending all the time. That post of yours angered me a fair bit, I'm not trying to debate, I'm letting you know what think. Allot of your posts have the 'higher than thou' ring to it.

Are you calling my family members cowards? I'm saying that they all were scared but still managed to function as soldiers, sailors and airmen on the battlefield. Overcoming fear was part of their experiances, I'm not going to boast about their service records but religion has nothing to do with if someone is a good soldier or not. Most Australians aren't as religous as Americans yet our Army has earned one hell of a reputation. Are you telling me you seriously don't fear death? That kind of goes against human instincts. I bet if someone put a gun to your head you'd be afraid. Ever been in a life-or-death situation?

You were making cheap calls at Clinton (not Kerry, my mistake) to start with, you're the one who turned it into a political debate. You do make allot of cheap calls that really have nothing to do with politics, why don't you focus on policies, instead of cheap name calling, if you're so interested in politics?

I really don't care if you're christian or not, it dosen't mean you are a better person.

You always go on and on and on how good Bush is
Calm down the pair of you, or take it outside!

Sorry, he just pisses me off sometimes with what he says. I think we're polar opposites. I'll drop it now.

So, some more perversions of history -

The USSR being more aggresive than the US/West, not true. We were the ones who had forces closer to its borders, we were the ones who interferred with other countries to ensure socailist and/or communist governments didn't work. We also intervened militarily more than they did, Korea and Vietnam for example, which were far from our borders, unlike the USSR in Afghanistan. We were really the ones going for 'world domination'.

The Greatest Perversion in History? The Children's Crusade.

The Children's Crusade is one of the more unusual events in Medieval England. The Children's Crusade took place after the Fourth Crusade. By the end of the Fourth Crusade (1202 to 1204), it was clear that the Christian crusaders had gained no long term success. In fact, the Fourth Crusade had been a disaster for the Christians as many crusaders had not even got to the Holy Land let alone fight for Jerusalem and many Christians had used the crusade as a means to plunder valuable goods from abroad. The Children's Crusade seemed to put some Christian belief back into crusading.

Two groups appeared in 1212 which seemed to indicate that the beliefs of the First Crusade were still alive.

In 1212, two groups - one from France, the other from Germany - set off on a crusade to the Holy Land. There was nothing unusual about this as many 'armies' had gathered before to fight the Muslims. The major difference about these two groups was that they were composed entirely of young children. These children became convinced that they would be protected by God and that because of this protection they would get to the Holy Land and take Jerusalem for the Christians.

Not a great deal is known about the Children's Crusade other than it was a disaster. The person who seemed to be in charge was a boy called Stephen of Cloyes. We know very little about him. We know that he was a shepherd and that in 1212 he was 12 years of age. With a peasant's background, he would not have been able to read or write and at his age he would have done very basic work around a farm.

In May 1212, it is said that he turned up at the court of King Philip of France and told him that he had a letter from Christ ordering him to organise a crusade. Not surprisingly, King Philip was not impressed by the 12 year old and told him to go away and come back when he was older!!

Regardless of this rejection, Stephen went around preaching to children about his letter from Jesus and his desire to go to the Holy Land to capture Jerusalem. He told his followers that crossing the Mediterranean or any other waterways was easy as the waters would part and they would walk across as they were protected by God. By June 1212, Stephen is said to have gathered 30,000 followers around him - all children.

As they marched south through France, they clearly had no idea of what to expect. Adults cheered them along the route. It was as if their innocence shone through and made their success a certainty.

The Roman Catholic Church was not so sure. The Children's Crusade was never officially a crusade as it was never blessed by the pope. However, this did not deter the children. The Church could not bless a 'crusade' that was doomed to failure but the Church also did not stop it. Why ? It is possible that the Church believed that the actions of the children might shame kings and emperors into getting a proper crusade going to capture Jerusalem.

The Children's Crusade was doomed to failure. Many of the children had never walked such distances before and for many the effort proved too much. The journey from Vendome to Marseilles caused many children to drop out. Some even died of exhaustion. The sea did not part as Stephen had said and they had to cross the Mediterranean Sea by boat.

The children boarded seven boats in Marseilles and that was the last anything was heard of them.

However many years later a priest returned from traveling around northern Africa and he claimed to have met some of the surviving children (now adults). He claimed that two of the seven ships had sunk killing all on board and that pirates had captured the other five ships and the children were sold into slavery. White skinned children were considered to be a valuable prize in Algerian and Egyptian slave markets.

There is no proof that any of this is true as none of the children who left Marseilles ever returned. As a priest, it is unlikely that he would have knowingly told a lie as Catholic priests would have believed that God is omnipresent (everywhere) and omnipotent (all powerful). Therefore if he told a lie, God would know and he would have been condemned to Hell. However, he may have been told incorrect information and told this story in good faith not knowing if it was incorrect. As historians, we just do not know.

A German Children's Crusade also took place in 1212. This was lead by a boy called Nicholas and he had 20,000 followers. His dream was exactly the same as Stephen's - take Jerusalem for Christianity. This crusade also included religious men and unmarried women so it was not fully a Children's Crusade. Their journey south from Germany to Italy included a very dangerous crossing of the Alps and many died of the cold here. Those that survived pushed onto to Rome in Italy.

Here, they met the pope. He praised their bravery but told them that they were too young to take on such a venture. With this, they returned to Germany but a great many of them did not survive the journey back. A few stopped off at the Italian port of Pisa and boarded a ship for the Holy Land. No-one knows what happened to them.

Therefore both crusades can be seen as a disaster but they are also an indication of how important Jerusalem was to Christians.

SOURCE.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/children's_crusade.htm

COMMENT.
Today, some historians dispute whether such a thing ever occured. But, some dispute the Holocaust.

DP. :cry:

A scientific breakthrough is no more than someone being able to prove that what was beleived to be the truth is false. Now I ask you can you prove that Christianity or any other form of religion is false? When you are able to do so then you will have your name down in history as making a religious breakthrough. And that will only last until someone finds a way to prove you wrong.

From importanceofphilosophy.com :

The concept of God is usually defined by a lack of definition. God is usually said to be unlimited in power, knowledge and goodness and unknowable to us mere mortals; but these are all traits that are defined by a lack of something.

"God" is not a concept at all because it subsumes no particulars. Unlike a real concept, there is nothing in reality to which one can refer and say, "That is God". To be unlimited in power, omnipotence, is a contradiction. To be unlimited in goodness, omnibenevolence, is taken without any standard of good. Regarding God, it is said that God is good. What is good? God's will. What characterizes God's will? Goodness. The circle is without substance and meaningless. Some people claim that all these objections are silly because God is simply unknowable. How do they know that God is unknowable?

The notion of God is nothing but a mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.

We view with mirth the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and other peoples with their patheons of various Gods controlling various aspects of the world. We laugh at contemporaries who claim to have been visited by aliens or seen Bigfoot. Some even laugh and deride those scientists who make claims with only a little evidence in support of their views. But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine" either because someone they know believes it or because a large portion of the population believes it. Truth is not a social phenomenon. Reality is absolute and can only be understood through reason.

The belief in God and the acting on that belief is evil. It divorces one's knowledge and actions from reality, with consequences ranging from the trivial (wasting one morning a week) to the disastrous (crusades, having unwanted children, Israelis and Arabs slaughtering each other over a patch of desert, wasting one's entire life working for a purpose not one's own, etc.)

As for your claim of actually seeing the ossuary, I will take you at your word. This issue has already been covered nicely by Incertonia, but I thank you for the additional links. They will come in handy later, I am sure. I tend to find myself in religious debates often.
Well, gee, that's big of you. As it happens, the owner shipped the ossuary to the ROM in Toronto, because there were four conferences going on at the time relating to the study of the Bible. I attended one of them (SBL). It remained on display in Toronto for the next month. I didn't say I went all the way to Israel to see it.