@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oristarA wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Oristar wrote:The challenger: David, former New York City trial lawyer
The challenged: George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States
Bush had and has favorable approval ratings nationwide.
Please be noted, he gave his point of view (see the opening post
of this thread) eight months before 911 terrorist attacks, when the
United States was a God-like prosperous nation on this planet.
No one 's approval ratings are relevant to the factual
veracity of anything that he says; e.g., if a
popular person
says that 3 + 3 = 7, that allegation remains
incorrect
no matter
HOW MUCH people like him.
David
Don't try mixing up the fuzziness of social science with the accuracy of mathematics of formal science, Dave.
Because doing so exposes the
falsity and the
deception of the authoritarians ??
David
Oh no, quite the contrary.
@OmSigDAVID,
Oristar wrote:Abraham Lincoln was fighting for the proposition (See Address at Gettysberg),
DAVID wrote:He was fighting to prevent
the withdrawal of a large block of States from the USA. He said so.
Quote:Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
You're challenging the fundamental value of the United States of America, Dave.
Gettysberg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:U can Ignore the truth, if u wanna; many folks do.
You're a world leader in that, Om. It's hard to hear the truth when you hide in your stinky little hole.
@oristarA,
Quote:Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
More crap, Ori, fatuous US propaganda.
Quote:Oristar wrote: Abraham Lincoln was fighting for the proposition (See Address at Gettysberg),
DAVID wrote:
He was fighting to prevent
the withdrawal of a large block of States from the USA. He said so.
Lincoln was fighting to protect northern industries which had huge tariffs protecting northern US business interests. The south was for free trade and that was making northern business really scared.
The US always makes a huge pretense that what it does it does for moral purposes but history has shown that that has never been the case.
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Quote:Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
More crap, Ori, fatuous US propaganda.
Quote:Oristar wrote: Abraham Lincoln was fighting for the proposition (See Address at Gettysberg),
DAVID wrote:
He was fighting to prevent
the withdrawal of a large block of States from the USA. He said so.
Lincoln was fighting to protect northern industries which had huge tariffs protecting northern US business interests. The south was for free trade and that was making northern business really scared.
The US always makes a huge pretense that what it does it does for moral purposes but history has shown that that has never been the case.
Well, how do you explain The Emancipation Proclamation, JTT?
@oristarA,
Quote:Well, how do you explain The Emancipation Proclamation, JTT?
Propaganda, plus it was meant to kill the South's industry and prevent them from engaging in free trade. The US never does anything for others. But it loves, and needs propaganda like this to keep up the Potemkin village.
Isn't it strange that Oristar, who is, I believe, Chinese, has a better grasp of American principles and ideals, and the beliefs this country was founded on, than OmSigDavid does.
@MontereyJack,
What is
"strange" is your concept
of the origin of this Republic.
If those notions were historically accurate,
then the Supreme Law of the Land wud
have been written differently.
David
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
Oristar wrote:Abraham Lincoln was fighting for the proposition (See Address at Gettysberg),
DAVID wrote:He was fighting to prevent
the withdrawal of a large block of States from the USA. He said so.
Quote: Lincoln also redefined the Civil War as a struggle not just for the Union,
but also for the principle of human equality.
Did he have
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do that, Oristar??
I
don't believe that he did. If u disagree, then please cite
to any part of Article II of the Constitution
to obtain a definition of his power that supports
your allegations. I look forward to seeing that.
Quote:Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
You're challenging the fundamental value of the United States of America, Dave.
[I dispute that, Oristar.]
Lincoln 's saying
that (or anything he wants)
does not change the citizens' Constitutional Rights, nor can it
impose new obligations upon the citizenry. Lincoln was guilty
of
ultra vires USURPATIONS of power.
I re-iterate: from the Big Bang until now,
no 2 men have ever been created equal (not even identical twins);
no matter
WHAT Lincoln said. Differences however small
have existed between them, tho thay have also been alike in some aspects.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
........"I re-iterate: from the Big Bang until now,
no 2 men have ever been created equal (not even identical twins);
no matter WHAT Lincoln said. Differences however small
have existed between them, tho thay have also been alike in some aspects."
Pardon me if I'm getting it all wrong, but isn't this simply alluding to being created equal
in the eyes of the law?
I don't think that many people
actually interpret this in the literal sense, do they?
Unless they want to nit pick in order to score points, of course.
@Lordyaswas,
DAVID wrote:........"I re-iterate: from the Big Bang until now,
no 2 men have ever been created equal (not even identical twins);
no matter WHAT Lincoln said. Differences however small
have existed between them, tho thay have also been alike in some aspects."
Lordyaswas wrote:Pardon me if I'm getting it all wrong,
OK. I can be magnanimous.
Lordyaswas wrote:but isn't this simply alluding to being created equal in the eyes of the law?
Does he
SAY that??
I judge his intent by what he
SAID. Its not my job
to become a charlatan mind-reader.
Lordyaswas wrote:I don't think that many people actually interpret this in the literal sense, do they?
I have not taken a survay on that point.
I was enjoying our dialog in the O tolerance policy thread.
I hope u will return to it.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
..........."I was enjoying our dialog in the O tolerance policy thread.
I hope u will return to it."
Nah, when it comes to guns, you're an idiot who will never change his mind.
It's a Robert Heinlein/pig situation, when all is said and done.
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:After all, his political allies in the US Supreme Court had just stolen the 2000 US Presidential election from Al Gore and had handed Bush the White House.
That is nearly the exact opposite of the truth. What happened was that the
Democrats repeatedly tried to steal the election, and they failed in every attempt.
Once things reached the point where the Democrats no longer had any chance of successfully stealing the election, and their continued unsuccessful attempts were only going to damage Bush's legitimacy, the Supreme Court stepped in to end the charade.
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:I was enjoying our dialog in the O tolerance policy thread.
I hope u will return to it.
Nah, when it comes to guns, you're an idiot who will never change his mind.
Nonsense. While it is very true that you will never convince any American to give up our freedom and live instead in the manner of serfs, your allegation of idiocy is not at all true.
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
..........."I was enjoying our dialog in the O tolerance policy thread.
I hope u will return to it."
Nah, when it comes to guns, you're an idiot who will never change his mind. . . .
If I were an idiot, then I 'd not be able to type, nor to read.
I will not change my mind because I am right.
U have surrendered because u
cannot disprove what is correct,
however much u yearn to do so. Good sportsmanship requires that u
ADMIT IT.
David
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Lordyaswas wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:I was enjoying our dialog in the O tolerance policy thread.
I hope u will return to it.
Nah, when it comes to guns, you're an idiot who will never change his mind.
Nonsense. While it is very true that you will never convince any American to give up our freedom and live instead in the manner of serfs, your allegation of idiocy is not at all true.
His philosophy is:
if u cannot disprove the truth,
then berate the messenger.
I was having fun on that other thread, tho.
David
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Kolyo wrote:After all, his political allies in the US Supreme Court had just stolen the 2000 US Presidential election from Al Gore and had handed Bush the White House.
That is nearly the exact opposite of the truth. What happened was that the
Democrats repeatedly tried to steal the election, and they failed in every attempt.
Once things reached the point where the Democrats no longer had any chance of successfully stealing the election, and their continued unsuccessful attempts were only going to damage Bush's legitimacy, the Supreme Court stepped in to end the charade.
After all of the re-re-counts, the left-leaning press
went to Florida,
re-counted again and it confirmed that Gore lost.
Gore never won
ANY of all those re-counts.
If the press had discovered that Gore had actually won, then
it wud have screamed it in headlines bigger than OJ's trial
or bigger than Lindbergh 's crossing the Atlantic.
OBVIOUS.
David
