Comments on: Taking down New Orleans’ monuments: Not what you think

By: Li D

Li D — Mon, 29 May 2017 00:07:31 +0000

#43.
You are welcome.

By: Wow

Wow — Sun, 28 May 2017 23:54:30 +0000

No, it happens. Probably fairly often, too.

But you don’t notice amity unless you really REALLY weren’t expecting it, and even then, it’s not as newsworthy as conflict, even if you really expected fireworks.

By: Tyvor Winn

Tyvor Winn — Sun, 28 May 2017 23:46:32 +0000

#31: Thanks for the links. I read the legal one and listened to the song. They made a good pairing. Not surprisingly, it seems a similar story to what happened in North America — although in the North American case, there were wars both involving and against the Native Americans. Early on when France and England were squabbling over who was going to rule what parts of the continent, the Native people had to choose sides and they chose the wrong side. That didn’t turn out too well and things didn’t get any better later when the various so-called Indian Wars occurred.

I wonder if there’s anywhere or anytime that 2 peoples’ of such different cultures mixed without major violence, cultural imperialism, land theft, etc. Or maybe it is just beyond human capabilities.

By: Wow

Wow — Sun, 28 May 2017 06:52:22 +0000

“No, I think it’s likely to be true”

No you said you didn’t think it could be true, which is the only conclusion to the idea that this could not be enforced. You WANTED it to be true.

That’s as much likely true as Ken Ham’s thinking god is likely to be true because he WANTS it to be true. Every evidence against it could be accepted, but the premise is still believed, because there’s no “think” behind it. Only need.

By: Wow

Wow — Sun, 28 May 2017 06:49:51 +0000

You probably never read his shit on Mann v Steyn. “mike” doesn’t care what the documents say and support, he “knows” Mann is wrong and therefore there’s a cover up therefore AGW is a scam and all people supporting it liars.

Dick shows up with the BS “Well, it’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it” and “mike” is doing the same.

Rality doesn’t matter when ideology is on the line.

Same with Ken Ham: no evidence will be sufficient to prove their ideological assertion wrong, but any evidence will be sufficient to prove it right, and nothing possible can prove THAT wrong.

This, like I said, is no surprise to anyone here, though.

By: Li D

Li D — Sun, 28 May 2017 02:09:36 +0000

Sigh.
You mob know sports right?
Cricket, Netball, Longjump etc.
Well theres histories of these things.
Page after page of stats .
Set in stone. And easily accessable.
Theres no ROOM FOR ARGUMENT or variety
of personal view on these things.
Well this civil war shit is the same.
Its utterly, meticulously, forensicly documented.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 27 May 2017 20:42:55 +0000

No, I think it’s likely to be true, to the point that the Senate was split and was using its blocking power to keep slavery in place.

By: Wow

Wow — Sat, 27 May 2017 19:27:41 +0000

“>Liked it too much to pass it up?

Yup.”

So if you like it, even when you think it’s really unlikely to be true (because you see no way it was enforced), you’ll just believe it anyway.

This, unfortunately, surprises nobody here.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 27 May 2017 19:12:59 +0000

>Liked it too much to pass it up?

Yup. It extends the even split a little bit further than 1850 and California’s admission. Missouri was held up until Maine was provided as balance, technically going in first while both sides fought there.

By: Wow

Wow — Sat, 27 May 2017 18:15:21 +0000

So why did you pass on this “nugget”, “mike”? Liked it too much to pass it up? Maybe your reading of things like McIntyre’s releases are likewise bogus but cherished because they make a claim you prefer to be true?