Can't say for sure. I have to go on hearsay.
Kind regards, Vincent
An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
Re: An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
So, thousands of authenticated reports from participants of both sides and thousands of archaeological finds either don't count for you or you are not aware of them? And that from the same guy who, in the beginnign of this thread claims, his ideology would allegedly stand always for "more education" ... yeah, right!
Oookaaay then, let me, the bad uneducated Fox-viewing conservative, help you, the educated all smart-liberal out here ...
In history, we can estimate the credibility of a report by the number of reports from independent sources that describe the same events. As an additional measure, we can use archaeological findings but those are sometimes a problem because they are less explicit in their expression than written reports. For example, we can see the pyramids of Giza, but the meaning becomes only entirely clear by written reports describing them.
So, if you have a report, that is supported by say three other independent reports, you can assume some reliability. About the US Civil War, we don't speak about three confirming souces but rather about the range of 300,000 ... so yes, can you admit, the Civil War happened or not? Or are you so afraid, supporters of your ideology did wrong things there, that you have to wriggle on for all eternity like Hilary about her emails?
Oookaaay then, let me, the bad uneducated Fox-viewing conservative, help you, the educated all smart-liberal out here ...
In history, we can estimate the credibility of a report by the number of reports from independent sources that describe the same events. As an additional measure, we can use archaeological findings but those are sometimes a problem because they are less explicit in their expression than written reports. For example, we can see the pyramids of Giza, but the meaning becomes only entirely clear by written reports describing them.
So, if you have a report, that is supported by say three other independent reports, you can assume some reliability. About the US Civil War, we don't speak about three confirming souces but rather about the range of 300,000 ... so yes, can you admit, the Civil War happened or not? Or are you so afraid, supporters of your ideology did wrong things there, that you have to wriggle on for all eternity like Hilary about her emails?
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!
Re: An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
By all the hearsay evidence, you say it happened for sure, and i say it likely happend. Is there a problem with that?
Kind regards, Vincent
Kind regards, Vincent
Re: An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
Yep, there is a problem. Because you implement now the "hearsay" claim even there is no reasonable argument to deny that the US Civil War happened.
So, in the next step, when the question comes up, why it happened, who started it, by what actions, and what events led to it, you are already in denial mode. Not because anybody could actually deny the historical fact but to remain in denial to protect his ideology.
So, like every good US liberal, even you are not in the US, you prepared here already your base for denial reality to protect your ideology. Now, one could of course say something about followers of an ideology that as base requirement demands the denial of most historical facts to begin with. To me, this has always this smell of Irenaeus of Lyon "we can't acknowledge a pagan is right, even if he is right because he is a pagan". You are one of those highly educated liberals, so you should know what I refer to. It's another example for lets call it for now an ideology that took its credibility by the actions of its followers even the basic historical fact would at least parts of the basic tenements as far as they played in the mundane world.
So, want to remain on your base of denial or can you admit, that the Civil War happened? You look more and more like this desperate follower of an ideology who can't admit to anything without green light from his political handler.
So, in the next step, when the question comes up, why it happened, who started it, by what actions, and what events led to it, you are already in denial mode. Not because anybody could actually deny the historical fact but to remain in denial to protect his ideology.
So, like every good US liberal, even you are not in the US, you prepared here already your base for denial reality to protect your ideology. Now, one could of course say something about followers of an ideology that as base requirement demands the denial of most historical facts to begin with. To me, this has always this smell of Irenaeus of Lyon "we can't acknowledge a pagan is right, even if he is right because he is a pagan". You are one of those highly educated liberals, so you should know what I refer to. It's another example for lets call it for now an ideology that took its credibility by the actions of its followers even the basic historical fact would at least parts of the basic tenements as far as they played in the mundane world.
So, want to remain on your base of denial or can you admit, that the Civil War happened? You look more and more like this desperate follower of an ideology who can't admit to anything without green light from his political handler.
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!
Re: An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
Saying likely happened does not equal denial. If you want to discuss the civil war, i can bear with you long, probably till the end.
Kind regards, Vincent
Kind regards, Vincent
Re: An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
Okay, lets try this then. But if you go later and try to roll back based on your theory, the Civil War was only hearsay, I have to yell, told you so, the liberal will roll back. Just for the protocol.
So, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded, quoting the questions of the right to self-determination of the Southern states and the question of slavery. This was result of a long going on tension which had already led to the split into Democrats and Republicans. Democrat Laurence Massilon Keitt for example told in a speech in January 1860 before the Congress of South Carolina
and he referred with "anti-slavery party" to the Republicans.
Later, in December 1860, in the six days between the secession and the first shots fired at Ft. Sumter, he declared
Thus, we can see here (I could bring more speeches from Democrats of that time, most of them were written up at the time and are in the Library of Congress, so take those only as examples), the Democrats were
a.) the ruling party in South Carolina and the ones voted for secession
b.) the Democrats were the pro-slavery party.
Are you admitting to those facts?
So, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded, quoting the questions of the right to self-determination of the Southern states and the question of slavery. This was result of a long going on tension which had already led to the split into Democrats and Republicans. Democrat Laurence Massilon Keitt for example told in a speech in January 1860 before the Congress of South Carolina
The anti-slavery party contends that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right...
and he referred with "anti-slavery party" to the Republicans.
Later, in December 1860, in the six days between the secession and the first shots fired at Ft. Sumter, he declared
Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.
Thus, we can see here (I could bring more speeches from Democrats of that time, most of them were written up at the time and are in the Library of Congress, so take those only as examples), the Democrats were
a.) the ruling party in South Carolina and the ones voted for secession
b.) the Democrats were the pro-slavery party.
Are you admitting to those facts?
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!
Re: An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
Well, for me those facts are new. But i trust you represented them truthfully, so i acknowlege them. Yet i fail to see the relationship of 1860 and the sweet old dame Hillary. She is not that old, is she?
Kind regards, Vincent
Kind regards, Vincent
Re: An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
Thinking of age, what kind of country is the US where pensionados vote for pensionados? I mean Hillary is what? 68? And Trump is a factor 2 of that.
Kind regards, Vincent
Kind regards, Vincent
Re: An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
Well, there is no age limit for running for an office. Neither there is in most European countries. And pensionados, I take it you use it as a derogative term for retired people like David, have voting rights too. Actually, you are only the second liberal after Oprah who wants to cut retirees out of voting rights (Oprah actually stopped one step short of calling to poison them all, another nice example for how liberal American liberals can be).
See, here is an admittedly very conservative opinion about this: People who are citizens of a country should have voting rights there. Those who are retired have already worked a whole life in and hopefully for that country and that earns them some right that, in my conservative opinion should be irrevocable. But maybe some of your retired liberal brethren like David, I think Lester or Ray, are willing to give up their voting rights?
See, here is an admittedly very conservative opinion about this: People who are citizens of a country should have voting rights there. Those who are retired have already worked a whole life in and hopefully for that country and that earns them some right that, in my conservative opinion should be irrevocable. But maybe some of your retired liberal brethren like David, I think Lester or Ray, are willing to give up their voting rights?
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!
Re: An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory
Nice try. There is no question about retreating anyones right to vote. This is about what is effectively is happening. I get a bad feeling that only the elderly are going to show up to vote, apart from a few fanatic youngsters.
Kind regards, Vincent
Kind regards, Vincent
Return to “Unrelated Nonsense”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests