The "who, what, when, where and why" of American History.

[CDNBear]

Nixon was the idealogue, he successfully covered up most of his crimes, and the link I posted has brilliantly exposed them.

It did nothing of the sort. What it did, was take common knowledge, make a few assumptions, played connect the dots, spun it around a minute or two, then spat it out to please a predetermined audience.

It worked.

And that is why it is all about common sense.

In your opinion.

Our perceptions may very well differ, but the facts are always the same.

I agree. Which is why I won't argue with the facts in your post. Just the interpretation thereof.

Thinking ones interpretation of facts is the only truth, is the antithesis of commonsense.

 

[commonsense]

The truth is correctness of opinion, so at some point, you have to prove me wrong to effectively attack my opinion.

 

[Goober]

The truth is correctness of opinion, so at some point, you have to prove me wrong to effectively attack my opinion.

Nope.

 

[CDNBear]

The truth is correctness of opinion, so at some point, you have to prove me wrong to effectively attack my opinion.

Opinions aren't wrong, the methods used to formulate them are.

I can go find a dozen interpretations of Nixon's and Reagan's Presidencies, and post a dozen different interpretations thereof.

The facts are all the same, the only difference? Interpretation, based on perception. The outcome, opinion, based on interpretation, guided by perception.

 

[DaSleeper]

The truth is correctness of opinion, so at some point, you have to prove me wrong to effectively attack my opinion.

What is your opinion on 9/11.....Hollograms or inside job

 

[taxslave]

Our perceptions may very well differ, but the facts are always the same.

Are they?

If this was the case we would not need court.

 

[commonsense]

The link and subsequent link I posted above effectively covers the "who, what, where, when and why" of John Lennon's assassination, and since all the facts are historically documented, I don't see any weakness.

It obviously took me some time to review the websites, to satisfy myself that there were no holes that I could poke through to discredit this fascinating, controversial history, but I could not find any.

It is therefore my opinion that what I read was very credible, and when you all take the same amount of time to review all the links, I am sure you will agree with me -if you are motivated by common sense.

History is far more reliable than court.

 

[CDNBear]

The link and subsequent link I posted above effectively covers the "who, what, where, when and why" of John Lennon's assassination, and since all the facts are historically documented, I don't see any weakness.

I oft find myself suffering the same affliction when discussing Israel or the military. I'm wrong sometimes too.

It obviously took me some time to review the websites, to satisfy myself that there were no holes that I could poke through to discredit this fascinating, controversial history, but I could not find any.

Perceptions.

It is therefore my opinion that what I read was very credible, and when you all take the same amount of time to review all the links, I am sure you will agree with me

If we look at them with the same set of perceptions. I'm sure we will.

-if you are motivated by ideology.

fify.

History is far more reliable than court.

You aren't talking about history. You're making a common mistake. You're talking about someones opinion of history.

If you say Nixon did "x", and the proof is there, he actually did "x".

If you say Nixon did "x" because...barring his actually commentary, or that of someone in the Presidents office, under orders from the President. You're talking about someones interpretation of why Nixon did "x". Not historical fact.

 

[commonsense]

All history is someone's opinion.

Just because there are bad historions with bad opinions, that does not mean that there are not good historians with correct opinions.

I do not make common mistakes.

 

[CDNBear]

All history is someone's opinion.

No it isn't. The US dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, fact, not opinion. Why did the the US drop a bomb on Hiroshima, opinion, based on interpretation of facts.

Just because there are bad historions with bad opinions, that does not mean that there are not good historians with correct opinions.

I never said there weren't. But I like building my own opinions, on examining sterile facts.

I do not make common mistakes.

Actually, you do. But don't feel bad, it's a common mistake.

 

[Chiliagon]

well commonsense seems to be a popular guy today.

 

[CDNBear]

well commonsense seems to be a popular guy today.

Because he's common, and making no sense.

 

[Chiliagon]

let's talk about Sex baby!.. not about you and me!

haha ya no..

 

[taxslave]

Why would we care about American history? Other than a general overview. There are much more important things in the world that are relevant to us than which American conspiracy theory to believe.
As Bear said it is largely a matter of perception.

 

[CDNBear]

Why would we care about American history? Other than a general overview. There are much more important things in the world that are relevant to us than which American conspiracy theory to believe.

As Bear said it is largely a matter of perception.

Now that's a fine example of commonsense.

 

[Chiliagon]

hey American History has a lot of fascinating stories and things to learn you know. it's not all stupid.

 

[commonsense]

Arthur Schopenhauer said,

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

I think this applies, because it has evidently taken a great deal of denial to keep somebody like Richard Nixon out of prison.

 

[CDNBear]

hey American History has a lot of fascinating stories and things to learn you know. it's not all stupid.

No one is saying it's stupid.

Again we come back to perceptions.

Examining US history, especially foreign policy, can lend greatly to a balanced understanding of current global phenomenon. If you examine the whole of broadly.

If you examine it looking strictly for the purpose of applying blame, of course you're going to find it.

If you put as much energy into examining Canadian history, you can find equally damaging or abhorrent actions.

But that all depends on your perceptions.

Some people think it's good that the Canadian and British Gov'ts of the day barred entry to the League of nations, an eligible nation. Or some may even think that going into Iraq was a good idea.

Perceptions, perceptions, perceptions...

 

[Chiliagon]

well the only thing that American History taught me so far is that they are extremely quick to blame the unfortunate and despite the desire for rights and freedoms they declared for all, they sure didn't do a great job of it.

 

[CDNBear]

Arthur Schopenhauer said,

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Tony Montana said, " In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women. "

Your point?

I think this applies, because it has evidently taken a great deal of denial to keep somebody like Richard Nixon out of prison.

True, because my perception is, it was good for the country. I would have likely done the same thing. What would have been the implications of putting Nixon on trial. What secrets may have been revealed. Who would have been hit by collateral damage.

But on the other hand, he should have been tried.

I wonder if this makes sense to you cs.