Who Supports the War(s)

[elSicomoro]

Well golly gee, do we have ourselves a Holy Roller here?

Originally posted by Cairo
The Bible is a Historical journey of events that happened from Third Century B.C.E. thru 68 C.E.
Sounds like History to me...unless you haven't the faith that it happened. The Bible is also a book of instructions by God.

That is your interpretation. There are at least 2 interpretations with which I am familiar (and there may be even more): The first is literal interpretation, which is used by more conservative Protestants. They tend to take the Bible word-for-word, and as a history book (i.e. The Earth was created in 6 days, everything that Revelation describes is indeed going to happen). The second is contextual interpretation, which is used by Catholics and more liberal Protestants. They tend to believe that the Bible is a book of faith, not a history book, and that many parts of the Bible are more symbolic than anything.

Which one is right? No one really knows...it all depends in how you look at it.

Your link is not working now, and was not earlier as well.

No, 6 months ago some councilman here

Where is here?

He lost and the courts upheld the true History!

I'd certainly be curious to learn more about this. Do you have any links or references?

How does a perspective born out of lies enhance ones knowledge? I contend it "dumbs-down" our children because the truth is erased.

It depends on if it is actually "lies" or not. You haven't provided any real detail on the situation yet, other than some of your cute color commentary...

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/9/2002
No, 6 months ago some councilman here petitioned the court to revise the History of the Alamo to omit parts of the last stand because some Hispanics might be ancestors and be offended at the slaughter, or some such B.S....He lost and the courts upheld the true History!

Given your penchant for slant, I'd love to see some sources for this.


Then you threw this out...

As for Jefferson...there ya go propagating the truth again! Seems the revisionist fabrication into History fooled even you!
The link clearly states that Eaton Hemings has the same Y-chromosome as 25 different Jefferson males in that area at that time, who ranged in age from 16-68 years old,

Call me crazy, but...

Originally posted by Sycamore on 12/5/2002
the only definite link is that a male descendant of Sally Hemings has the same Y-chromosome DNA as the Jefferson males.

Male descendant--a male-line descendant of Eston Hemings
Jefferson males--the "s" at the end of "males" means "more than one." I am well-aware that there were many.

So, where is the revision in my above quote? Go ahead, try and find it.

Thomas Jefferson being the oldest at 68 years when this boy was conceived! 68 years old back then, is equivalent to 88 years by todays standard of life, and there was NO VIAGRA back then, Dumbazz!

Viagra was not necessarily needed. Men can father children well into their later years, as opposed to women. (e.g. Tony Randall)

I merely provided the statement from the Monticello folks for further information. Again, I think it's worthy of talk in the annuls of history.

I believe I was asked Why do "you think" or How do "you know" binLaden is dead...ask for my opinion, and you get it! That's what this forum is for, 'nes pas?

I did not ask for your opinion.

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/4/2002
Our forces killed bin Laden during the attack on Tora Bora. Bin Laden is dead

As I mentioned previously, this is considered by most folks to be a statement of fact. I merely asked you to back up this "fact" you were claiming. Sources...you know...BBC, Fox News, MSNBC, The Washington Times, etc.

Then you come back with...

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/4/2002
I can tell you how I reached my opinion that bin Laden is dead...

And you added to this what appears to be your opinions on why bin Laden is dead. No sources, nothing. Just a bunch of shit I could hear on any cable news channel.

Debating the issue is NOT crying about it, crying about it is what you do when I check your sorry socialist rear! Typical!

Checking me? Please! I don't get checked too much on shit like this b/c it's unwarranted. When I come to the table, I tend to either qualify myself (by using "I think," "I believe," etc.) or back it up with sources. (Go ahead, look through my 2900 posts.) Therefore, there is little need to check me. And when I do stumble, I admit my fault and roll on.

In the end, you're just a sad oxygen-stealing puke who was fortunate enough to get an internet connection so that you can spew your shit online. You could stand to take a cue from others in the community in the areas of diplomacy and responsibility of your posts. You apparently have no diplomacy, and that's why I have no desire to try and converse with you in an overly diplomatic and respectful manner.

So, why don't you wrap yourself up in that big blanket of ignorance for now, get your shit together, and come back when you're ready to play some real ball, mmmkay? Until then, I can no longer spend time dealing with your insanity.