Nature of Our Enemy

[poncho]

"poncho, the smallpox story is a lie that was made up by that evil professor in Colorado, Ward Churchill."

Bottom line is that we worked real hard to wipe the native Americans out because they were in the way of progress and profit.

"Satan wants us to "have an open mind" to a lot of things because thereby lies are able to displace truth. I don't completely discredit the phrase itself because in certain context it has a good meaning. However, in this case, its a reminder that Satan does want Americans to loose confidence in the nation we have built and the causes we have endured."


Satan wants us to have an open mind? Satan wants to control our minds and he seems to be very good at his job. Now, I suppose your going to tell me that Satan only acts through liberals and the liberal press.

Look I don't care what Satan wants, okay? He's a loser that has already lost. God wants us to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. How are you going to become wise as a serpent if your only willing to learn from sources that claim to come from a certain direction? If your so afraid that your mind will be contaminated by using it to read a few books and documents that aren't officially sanctioned by Rush Hannity or the CFR?

It's great to be positive and have a positive outlook and believe in this nation and the good things that have come from it, but don't be so sure that Satan will only attack your left flank that you neglect to protect your right flank and rear.

The real enemy is the one that works to gain your trust and uses it to his advantage. There is only one that will never leave us or fosake us brother and His name isn't George Bush or a Republican controlled congress, okay?

 

[ASLANSPAL]

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Ms. Fenn, did not the British use smallpox as a weapon in the 1800's?

FENN: They did. The best documented incidence of this was in 1763, during Pontiac's rebellion, when officials and fur-traders at Fort Pitt, now the site of Pittsburgh, deliberately gave smallpox-contaminated blankets to the Indians.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/11/05/fenn/

 

[carpro]

So Poncho tried to lay on Americans a British act.

Did he just have his facts mixed up or was he being intellectually dishonest to make a point he couldn't support otherwise?

 

[just-want-peace]

--There is only one that will never leave us or fosake us brother--

Very possibly the first thing you've said that I totally agree with!!!

Did he just have his facts mixed up or was he being intellectually dishonest to make a point he couldn't support otherwise?

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by poncho:
I hope you got alot of resolve then considering this war started in 1805 with the betrayal of the one we were backing at the time.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson was fighting the Muslims before 1805 (the Barbary Pirates), who were committing terrorist acts on the high seas against many nations.

http://www.jeffersonlegacy.org/spring2002.htm#pirates

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the “ Third Great Jihad” and are doing so within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the Seventh century and their attempts to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence.

http://www.insiderreport.net/clash_1-2.html

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
... How are you going to become wise as a serpent if your only willing to learn from sources that claim to come from a certain direction? If your so afraid that your mind will be contaminated by using it to read a few books and documents that aren't officially sanctioned by Rush Hannity or the CFR? ...

Answer: By being careful about the credibility I assign to what I do read. By testing what I read against common sense, personal experiences, opinions of persons I respect, considering the authors and their agendas, checking the references, checking the official reports, etc. Example: I read your postings, and sometimes the referenced material, but I don't assign much credibility to them. They seem very one sided to me and, lined up end to end, they definately point to an agenda I don't like.

 

[poncho]

Oh please. Like the neo-liberals you support don't have a definate agenda. The NWO. They come right out and say it in public but because the mainstream media doesn't bother to report it or dwell on it you won't believe it's happening.

Meanwhile all you hold dear is being systematically erased and sovietized before your very eyes.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
Oh please.

Sure, no problem, I'm always willing to help.

Like the neo-liberals you support don't have a definate agenda. The NWO. They come right out and say it in public but because the mainstream media doesn't bother to report it or dwell on it you won't believe it's happening.

If it's liberal the mainstream media does dwell on it. If it's conservative you probably won't get a balanced view on CBS News.

The people I support don't support the "new world order" idea. I tried to make that clear in the previous post but you're stuck on your agenda and can't understand it.

Meanwhile all you hold dear is being systematically erased and sovietized before your very eyes.

"Erased" and "sovietized"? That goes with the D-connectors instead of belly buttons. They plug right into the propaganda computers for downloading at night while they sleep.

 

[LadyEagle]

http://www.siteinstitute.org/

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/300

 

[poncho]

"The people I support don't support the "new world order" idea. I tried to make that clear in the previous post but you're stuck on your agenda and can't understand it."

Care to back this statement up with some facts and not a bunch of opinion pieces? Show me just how stuck in my agenda I am with the facts, and only the facts. I triple dog dare ya!

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
"The people I support don't support the "new world order" idea. I tried to make that clear in the previous post but you're stuck on your agenda and can't understand it."

Care to back this statement up with some facts and not a bunch of opinion pieces? Show me just how stuck in my agenda I am with the facts, and only the facts. I triple dog dare ya!

"Triple dog dare"? I haven't heard that one since, perhaps, jr. high school! Try not to get so riled up, poncho! This will be the second time you've become a unglued over my comments.

I try not to take people up on dares because usually when people do that it means they're very desperate and seeking to "control" the discussion by "dictating" the agenda. I also try not to dare other people to do things.

This is a forum where opinions are expressed on all sides of issues with varying degrees of "proof" provided. Most of that "proof" will never be accepted by those that oppose it and find the sources of "evidence" to lack any credibility. In politics few things are scientific. You view your sources as rock solid proof and I see them as an attempt to connect a bunch of loose unrelated scattered dots into a straight line theory.

As to my opinions about the "new world order" idea, just go back and read my previous postings, if you're really interested, and it should be clear that I don't support the idea and why I do not.

They are my opinions. Other readers will judge which opinions make the most sense and fit best with the truth.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
http://www.siteinstitute.org/

This is a very interesting site which I'd not seen before. Thanks!

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/300

This one fits right with my comments on another thread that today's "whiz kids" - the authors of the "limited war" theories - view the problem as needing a law enforcement solution rather than a military solution.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
http://www.siteinstitute.org/

This is a very interesting site which I'd not seen before. Thanks!

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/300

This one fits right with my comments on another thread that today's "whiz kids" - the authors of the "limited war" theories - view the problem as needing a law enforcement solution rather than a military solution. </font>[/QUOTE]John Kerry advocated the same approach in 1997 with his book "The New War".

It's doubtful he has changed his approach.

 

[fromtheright]

KJ, so by your definition the truth is also propaganda, right? And so are lies. So does that mean that debate is meaningless or that we should disregard those who throw out the label "propaganda" when it suits their purposes? I think the latter.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by poncho:
"The people I support don't support the "new world order" idea. I tried to make that clear in the previous post but you're stuck on your agenda and can't understand it."

Care to back this statement up with some facts and not a bunch of opinion pieces? Show me just how stuck in my agenda I am with the facts, and only the facts. I triple dog dare ya!

"Triple dog dare"? I haven't heard that one since, perhaps, jr. high school! Try not to get so riled up, poncho! This will be the second time you've become a unglued over my comments.

I try not to take people up on dares because usually when people do that it means they're very desperate and seeking to "control" the discussion by "dictating" the agenda. I also try not to dare other people to do things.

This is a forum where opinions are expressed on all sides of issues with varying degrees of "proof" provided. Most of that "proof" will never be accepted by those that oppose it and find the sources of "evidence" to lack any credibility. In politics few things are scientific. You view your sources as rock solid proof and I see them as an attempt to connect a bunch of loose unrelated scattered dots into a straight line theory.

As to my opinions about the "new world order" idea, just go back and read my previous postings, if you're really interested, and it should be clear that I don't support the idea and why I do not.

They are my opinions. Other readers will judge which opinions make the most sense and fit best with the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]All you had to say is that you don't or can't use facts to back up your statement. Me riled? Quite the opposite. I know I can dig up facts to support my case and all you have to rely on is opinion pieces and propaganda and I believe you know this is the case as well. Too bad, I was looking forward to an honest fact finding debate.

I try not to take people up on dares because usually when people do that it means they're very desperate and seeking to "control" the discussion by "dictating" the agenda. I also try not to dare other people to do things.

This is a cop out pure and simple. If you actually believed in what you were saying I would think you'd be only to happy to show me the errors of my way with some facts. The fact is you can't and you know it so your sidestepping and making excuses.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
All you had to say is that you don't or can't use facts to back up your statement. Me riled? Quite the opposite. I know I can dig up facts to support my case and all you have to rely on is opinion pieces and propaganda and I believe you know this is the case as well. Too bad, I was looking forward to an honest fact finding debate.

Your postings don't seem like "facts" to me. For the most part, you seem stuck on the "new world order" issue as the root of all evil in this world and the predetermined irreversible destiny of America. I just don't buy that "case". It doesn't fit with reality and, actually, the more you "preach it" the less believable it becomes.

What I see in your postings are just opinions and propaganda in which you, and some others, believe. The "fact" label is one added to boost those opinions. I often choose a different set, based on the criteria given in my previous response, and also express my own opinions which, I suppose, someone else could quote as "fact" in their debate.

Most posters, think for themselves and don't just quote lengthy but empty dissertations and news reports that some want validated as the absolute truth. These sources just don't have that kind of authority over many posters.

Originally posted by poncho:
This is a cop out pure and simple. If you actually believed in what you were saying I would think you'd be only to happy to show me the errors of my way with some facts. The fact is you can't and you know it so your sidestepping and making excuses.

I really feel no need to respond with pages of "facts" to support my thoughts. I'm not really interested in "winning" a debate - such a goal is really not possible in this forum - but, rather, in expressing my thoughts as clearly as possible. However, like many people, I do enjoy a good argument which I'm not sure is such a good trait to have.

I'm certainly not inclined to jump when ordered or dared into a "debate". I find "debates" that toss raw "facts" back and forth to be virtually useless because, very often, the credibility of the "facts" remain unproved and purely a matter of opinion. We've all watched politicians attempt to prove their points with "facts" slanted by bias to their favor. In these debates the rule of "200% of nothing" frequently applies. Those "debates" that involve philosophical or political concepts will probably be argued largely with opinions.

I prefer to reason with information and give my ideas, observations, commentary, etc. about them supported with data when appropriate. I typically try - which certainly acknowledges a lack of perfection in the attempts - to explain my opinions in depth. I do admit that I'm probably not always 100% correct but I'm very comfortable with the positions. Each reader must decide for themselves what is credible.

So, poncho, my Christian brother, we will continue to disagree, to express different opinions, and each will present that along with any "facts" they may have as they see fit. Dares will likely not solicit the desired results nor "prove" one right and the other wrong.

Only God Almighty can, ultimately, rule on what is the truth even though we know there is only one truth in all things.

 

[poncho]

"I really feel no need to respond with pages of "facts" to support my thoughts."

Translation, facts don't matter, yeah yeah I know that already. That's why we've been losing the fight to keep our sovereignty and borders secure.

 

[Rocko9]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
[.[/qb]

I really feel no need to respond with pages of "facts"


[/QB][/QUOTE]
Sounds like what George Bush has been saying all along.
You've made a good case Poncho as usuall.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
"I really feel no need to respond with pages of "facts" to support my thoughts."

Translation, facts don't matter, yeah yeah I know that already. That's why we've been losing the fight to keep our sovereignty and borders secure.

That's a typical example of connecting unrelated dots into a straight line theory!

My comments had nothing to do with my thoughts on maintaining our sovereignty and keeping our borders secure. I doubt you even know what my thoughts are on those subjects!

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Rocko9:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragoon68:
I really feel no need to respond with pages of "facts" [ to support my thoughts."]

Sounds like what George Bush has been saying all along. ...</font>[/QUOTE]It's easy, Rocko9, to grab a sentence from a person's comments and turn it into some completely different meaning. Even I can do that!

In the context I made that statement, President Bush, if he made the same point in the same context, would be just as correct in doing so.