Two good ones from the Mountain Meadows, Utah, massacre:
We’ll escort you to safety if you disarm.
The Paiutes did it.
Just about every treaty with just about any Native American tribe.
We love the sinners, but we hate the sin.
It’s a matter of a story being created to fit the prophecy, not the event occurring to fulfill it.
On the one hand: The overwhelming preponderance of scientific and biological fact precludes a pregnancy without sexual intercourse (in vitro insemination being a modern invention), and therefore a virgin birth (although technically I suppose the hymen wouldn’t have to be ruptured during sex). If you can find one doctor or scientist on the planet who can refute this and provide medical proof, I’d sure like to see it.
On the other hand: We have a story in a book, written at least 60 years after the events supposedly took place, wherein one lone woman claims to have been impregnated by the holy spirit, sans witnesses, sans any proof whatsoever.
If Mary couldn’t be shown to have given birth according to the prophecy, then Jesus would be just another guy with a robe and a gift of gab. Ascribing events to fit one’s agenda amounts to a lie in my estimation.
The American Civil War was about slavery, and freeing the slaves.
Of course I’m on the pill.
- Believe me darling * Of course I’ll respect you in the morning, you are the only woman I have * EVER * loved
akrako1: You’re correct in saying that the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves, but it was about slavery. Surficially it was about states rights, and representation of the south (and its interests) in Congress. But the whole dispute was underpinned by the institution of slavery.
Well you apparently believe that most of these emails actually come from Africa even though everything else in them is false…
Except ‘xtisme’ already stated all major points, as usual.
Anyway, here’s my take:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”,
(or to be exact when some people that call themselves Patriots decide to take over the country by force)
“…and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,…”
(can we see that “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” code, where we can read who is “entitled” to what?)
“…a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Yes, let’s see “the causes”. But wait, more rhetorics…
“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,…”, the very statement! What is your position on occupation of Iraq, BTW? Bush and Co. didn’t go that far in making their case. They were providing references. Can you imagine the howls of resident lefties here if Bush were to say such a thing?
No, it’s not “self-evident” that men “are created”, that they are “equal”, that they “are endowed … with certain unalienable Rights”, especially not “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness”, as such an assumption flies into the face of whole of human history, and “Governments” were not “instituted to secure these rights”, because nobody knows how we all got saddled with all those stupid “Governments” in the first place, and where are they “deriving” those unjust “powers” they seem to prefer practicing. In short, XVIII century propaganda, that in due course brought French and Russian revolutions and many other smaller disasters. Americans were fortunate to contain the damage to the minimum.
As far as “the causes”, I will not judge. They didn’t like it and they were men enough to do what they have done about it and there is their justification.
To prevent any misunderstanding, I admire those men and their actions. I only laugh at the rhetoric.
My opinions on slavery are besides the point.
To recite: “…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth.” That presupposes that such goverment already existed and needed to be protected, apparently by Union prevailing over Confederacy. Pre-Civil War US government was a government of slave-holding country, which obviously didn’t make it any less “of the people, by the people, for the people” in view of AL himself and many of his contemporaries.
Therefore, the issue of slavery is completely irrelevant here.
No, I don’t think so. Even if the immaculate conception had been a fact, how could anyone possibly have known about it? Somebody had to flat out make it up.
Just because millions of people believe something, doesn’t mean it’s not a lie; in fact it’s an even bigger lie.
And then there’s the infallibility of the Pope.
You mean. . . they lied about that, too? :eek:
No, slavery is at the heart of the matter - perhaps I was too succinct. Slaves were people. Government in slave territory was of them, but certainly not by or for them. The war was fought to extend the protection of human rights that existed elsewhere to the southern states as well.
“Pre-Civil War US government was a government of slave-holding country” ??? C’mon now. The majority of the country was NOT “slave-holding”. Slavery was tolerated in the South before then as a measure to keep the Union together while the Grand Experiment got established. Even the Founding Fathers, at least the northerners and even some of the southerners, saw it as something that would have to be ended fairly soon, but that it couldn’t practically be done immediately. Government of, by, and for the people was incomplete, certainly - but the plan was to fix that when it could be done. Only when it dragged on to the point where the southerners decided they’d rather end the endeavor than recognize slaves’ “self-evident” equality was there a war.
The Gettysburg Address was hardly a lie, but a noble and inspiring statement of what the war was for and why it was worth the bloodshed. You desperately need to read Lincoln’s second inaugural address, too. Here is just some
“The issue of slavery is completely irrelevant here”? What the hell???
To prevent any misunderstanding, I kinda laugh at your twisted interpretation of the Declaration of Independence.
Nobody has intentions to build a wall.
Erich Honecker
Read my lips: No new taxes!
- George Bush, Helmut Kohl, etc. *
No doubt about it, I can sail west and get to the (East) Indies.
I got to the Indies.
I’m a uniter, not a divider.
I’m a compassionate conservative.
Laughing is good for you.
Australian man busted for running Nigerian Scam.
It’s the same old song, but with a different meaning since he’s been gone.
Here’s one which might qualify:
To learn that lesson from history, I think one might have to omit the history of Africa in the 19th century, the US war with Mexico, the Spanish-American War, the rise of the Roman republic, and the Athenian destruction of Melos, if not the entirety of the Peloponnesian War. Oh, and probably that Iraq thing which went down a few months after Perle’s quote, too.