B. Max

Go to this link for my response. THe UN, and not just UNIFIL, should be taken out. If Harper would get us out of the UN it could lead the way for other nations who want to be free of that leftist cesspool of corruption to take the same steps. The UN'S collapse would then be almost immediate.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004340.html

There is no such evidence....Better tell Yale and South Carolina Professors then: Occupation of the Americas American Humans It is well known that early explorers plundered gold and other metals from the Americas...Where else would stolen booty be? The Smithsonian holds the copper artifacts... Copper Smelting Smithsonian O:nen Radio carbon dating is suspect at best and acknowledge to be infective behond 40,000 years. Even if it were not it doesn't say who it was. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...a-eie032102.php What you call plunder is actually what the rest of us call work. I mentioned that indians probably dabbled in metals. Which ever way you cut it, there is no doubt what so ever that the white man was in the americas before 1492.

The terrorist supporting UN seems to be in the business of reporting and withholding troop movements. Israel should have taken out UNIFIL the very first day.

Agreed. I tend not to take extreme positions on most issues, except the UN and the War of Civilizations. Extreme postions depends on who controls the goal posts, but i need to make a correction. I said BC in an above post. That should be AD.

But that which you are saying is a far cry from saying the stupid " read between the lines " white man had no concept of individual rights. The history of the second amendment reads like a journey into individual rights dating back just before 1000 BC. I personally will not let them separate historical fact from the text.

The white man can definitely be put in north America as early as the European bronze age. This is a proven fact from the great lakes copper mines and the quality of European bronze age copper. The quality of that bronze was not achievable at that time from their refining technology using European copper. The source of that copper has been traced to the great lakes mines. The concept of individual rights in England dates back to at least the Magna Carta when it was put to paper in 1215. The process to wrestle power away from the king began a hundred years before that. Jefferson, and others with a classical education of the times were not stubble bums who had no concept of individual rights. For four hundred years after Magna Carta the king and parliament often argued over supreme power. The king claiming an inherent right from god to be the ultimate power in decision making. Arguments which eventually led to a civil war. Jefferson, who wrote the declaration of independence turned that around to say that all men were endowed with certain unalienable rights from their creator. Stating that certain rights were not granted by man or government but that they could only be, recognized by government. That which can be granted by man can be taken away. Thus the concept of positive and negative rights. That which is endowed by the creator can not be taken away but can be trampled on by government. The idea that all this was invented by the Indians is ridiculous in the extreme, and as ridiculous as the notion that the Indians created American democracy. The united states is a republic not a democracy. Democracy is a subject term, republic is not. The so called great Indian law really resembles neither of these concepts but looks more like communism. A proven system of failure that has been thrown on histories trash heap time after time. Only a true system of individual rights and freedoms can produce innovation through creativity which has led to the technological society we have today. Something that would never have happened under the Indian system. From this alone, one must conclude that the Indians had no concept of basic individual rights. Let alone that those rights must be vested and placed in a higher power for safe keeping. The atheist communists understand that very well. Which is why they work so hard to remove god from society. Once removed those rights soon follow. The first amendment to the US constitution and its miss representation as the separation clause is a good example of that endeavor. By that interpretation and the fact that tyrants never sleep they seek to separate man from his god and replace god with government. Even a world government, such as the UN. Often using the phrase freedom from religion, but only to be slave in the their new world order. An order where government hands out special collective rights like candy. As is evident in the canadian charter of wrongs and special rights.

I thought the UN was principled, effective, fair and neutral. he he he, that depends on ones definition of principled, fair, and neutral. I can't say that it gets any worse, on the other hand it doesn't get any better. http://www.canadafreepress.com/united-nations.htm

It should not surprise anyone. The UN is a cesspool of corruption.

This isn't Isreal defending itself. It is placing Lebanese civilians at risk, regardless of their affiliation. Isreal has every right to defend itself with reasonable means, but this to me seems unreasonable. Fortunately for Israel it's not your call.

An excellent question for those who advocate abortion. However, so as to not take your post out of context or intent. The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000. Ecclesiastes OR, THE PREACHER 3 A Time for Everything 1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6 a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7 a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Strawman back. I didn't say anything in defense of Hezbollah - condemning one is not an endorsement of the other. Why would you condemn Israel for defending its self. I don't buy the fence sitting argument.

Strawman back. I didn't say anything in defense of Hezbollah - condemning one is not an endorsement of the other. Why would you condemn Israel for defending its self. I don't buy the fence sitting arguement.

You're saying as long as it doesn't cause MASS destruction its OK. Multiple sites of indiscriminate MODEST destruction are something to be proud of? Multiple sites of enemy operations are legitimate targets. It has nothing to do with proud. It is simply a fact of reality. Are you proud of sounding like an apologist for Hezbollah who fired thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities that were packed with ball bearings.

I gotta ask: who? Syria? A somewhat scarier Hizbullah? I was speaking in general terms. However, Syira is only a potential battle. The war is the one that the Islamics are promising. Global jihad and world wide Islamic conquest. Hitler promised and laid out his plans, and then delivered. Aided and abetted by the appeasers of the day. Fast forward to today and we could actually be in much worse shape. When one considers the infestation of cultural Marxism and its many faces, or better known as political correctness. It doesn't look good. Why? Why?, because it has, when? is debatable.

Tell that to the kids getting blown up playing in tobacco crops. What difference does that make.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories The irrelevent UN is in there identifying where these bombs are to try and save lives. This is in the religion and morality forum because the use of WMD's is immoral. Israel should be ashamed as a nation for this action. A cluster bomb is not a WMD. Israel has nothing to be ashamed of.

Apparently this judge is a Carter appointment. A little back ground on the ACLU http://www.christianexodus.org/modules.php...34a2b7933a2c6bf

What is the inevitable you speak of? The chance to not get wiped out themselves? Anyway, read my reply to Argus: The inevitable is a larger war with an even better organized and better equipped enemy. The chance to not get wiped out themselves? Anyway, read my reply to Argus: That time has long ago past.

Appeasement in this case as history will bear out, is the act of delaying the inevitable, more often than not leading to greater bloodshed. Forget the socalled palestinians and try answering the question. What do you offer someone whos intent is to wipe you off the map.

Nevil Chamberlain likely couldn't have said it better. The policies of appeasement work as well today as they did in the past. Tell me, what do you offer someone who wants to wipe you off the map.

That's a pretty safe bet. You can also bet that Iran Hezbollah and Syria recognized that Olmert and his government were in its self a sign of weakness that began with Sharon in his last couple of years. The people of Israel must be in shock over the handling of the war. Hopefully this ridiculous cease fire will serve at least the purpose of getting rid of the Olmert government and replace it with a Netanyahu government.

And many events in the Bible have been since been shown to be at least partially true through the discovery of independent archaeological evidence. However, that does not mean that non-Christians should be expected to accept that every story in the Bible is the absolute truth on par with a scientific study. But that is a different matter from being accidentally changed or deliberately altered.

Native oral history is no different than the "history" in the Bible. Many events in the Bible actually occurred but the story has been altered over years and years of retelling - sometimes accidentally and sometimes deliberately. I respect that some people choose to base their religious beliefs on these stories, however, it is ridiculous to suggest that any scientific or legal decision should be based on such stories. The bible was copied from ancient manuscripts. It is not a writing in its own. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls, and what so far has been deciphered indicates that which is the bible was copied word for word.