OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
 

In article ,
"jeryy" wrote:

On a percentage basis, I suppose we're about as ****** up as the Americans.

Snip

Well, at least you have made a good first step toward recognizing how
screwed up you are but you must get over the envy next.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
 

On Feb 22, 6:33 pm, wrote:
I studied some History too.I also get History Net email newsletters at
one of my other webtv usernames.www.devilfinder.com abraham lincoln: Tyrant,Hypocrite,or Consummate
Stateman?
(He was a Traitor)

Also, www.patriotist.comwww.chuckbaldwinlive.com
cuhulin

I went to www.devilfinder.com and typed in: "Abraham Lincoln:
Tyrant,Hypocrite,or Consummate Stateman?" and came up with the article
by that name. The writer defends Lincoln against the libertarians and
other critics. It's a good read. He does not say Lincoln was a
Traitor; just the oposite.

OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
 

California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression.
cuhulin

(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
 

Those ''democrats'' in d.c.(District of Criminals) they go to lincoln's
statue to get their pictures taken,then they head on over to the nearest
church's chicken grease joint.Oregon Magazine, www.oregonmag.com
has a good article too,if you know how to find it.If you see
Mrs.Margaret Whitcombe (Peggy) in there,she is one of the good gals.
cuhulin

(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
 

m II will show up and throw up that bianca.com thingy.
cuhulin

OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
 

On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, wrote:
California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression.
cuhulin


I've read and studied much about the civil war. I still cannot make
up my mind about whether or not it should've occurred. I think
perhaps that the Southern states may had better presented their case
to the North petition. By presenting the proofs and evidences of the
will of the peoples of the Southern States. Send delegations to speak
to Congress. Reason things out, point out to the Northern States that
as the first 13 colonies (states) decided to separate from the British
Empire and form their own destiny, then naturally others have the
exact same right as they deem proper and necessary. If it was done
with reason and not emotion, the Southern secession perhaps could had
occurred peacefully and smoothly. One of Lincolns arguments was that
the association of the states together, united, under a federal
government, was a sort of "contract" together, and all sides must
agree. Of course Lincoln was saying that the North did not agree with
the breaking of this "contract". That could've been used against him,
and his position undermined, if the proposition was placed before the
Northern people with persuasive argument.
I still think that Providence had a hand in it all. Considering the
events of the 20th century, I think that it would been very difficult
for the divided continent to get cooperate to triumph over foes in
Europe and Asia. The territories and lands in the west may had ended
up in the US, or in the CS, or as their own country. Who knows. What
would had happened during WWII? The cold war? I don't know.

OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
 

On Feb 22, 9:32 pm, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, wrote:

California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression.
cuhulin

I've read and studied much about the civil war. I still cannot make
up my mind about whether or not it should've occurred. I think
perhaps that the Southern states may had better presented their case
to the North petition. By presenting the proofs and evidences of the
will of the peoples of the Southern States. Send delegations to speak
to Congress. Reason things out, point out to the Northern States that
as the first 13 colonies (states) decided to separate from the British
Empire and form their own destiny, then naturally others have the
exact same right as they deem proper and necessary. If it was done
with reason and not emotion, the Southern secession perhaps could had
occurred peacefully and smoothly. One of Lincolns arguments was that
the association of the states together, united, under a federal
government, was a sort of "contract" together, and all sides must
agree. Of course Lincoln was saying that the North did not agree with
the breaking of this "contract". That could've been used against him,
and his position undermined, if the proposition was placed before the
Northern people with persuasive argument.
I still think that Providence had a hand in it all. Considering the
events of the 20th century, I think that it would been very difficult
for the divided continent to get cooperate to triumph over foes in
Europe and Asia. The territories and lands in the west may had ended
up in the US, or in the CS, or as their own country. Who knows. What
would had happened during WWII? The cold war? I don't know.


What's that bianca.com?

OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
 

On Feb 22, 9:34 pm, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:32 pm, "tack" wrote:





On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, wrote:

California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression.
cuhulin

I've read and studied much about the civil war. I still cannot make
up my mind about whether or not it should've occurred. I think
perhaps that the Southern states may had better presented their case
to the North petition. By presenting the proofs and evidences of the
will of the peoples of the Southern States. Send delegations to speak
to Congress. Reason things out, point out to the Northern States that
as the first 13 colonies (states) decided to separate from the British
Empire and form their own destiny, then naturally others have the
exact same right as they deem proper and necessary. If it was done
with reason and not emotion, the Southern secession perhaps could had
occurred peacefully and smoothly. One of Lincolns arguments was that
the association of the states together, united, under a federal
government, was a sort of "contract" together, and all sides must
agree. Of course Lincoln was saying that the North did not agree with
the breaking of this "contract". That could've been used against him,
and his position undermined, if the proposition was placed before the
Northern people with persuasive argument.
I still think that Providence had a hand in it all. Considering the
events of the 20th century, I think that it would been very difficult
for the divided continent to get cooperate to triumph over foes in
Europe and Asia. The territories and lands in the west may had ended
up in the US, or in the CS, or as their own country. Who knows. What
would had happened during WWII? The cold war? I don't know.

What's that bianca.com?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That website you pointed out to me: www.patriotist.comwww.chuckbaldwinlive.com
Has some good information. I like the quotes of the Founding Fathers.

(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
 

On 22 Feb 2007 12:01:08 -0800, "tack" wrote:


the QUALITY of the American people isn't the same in this generation
as in that one, (as evidenced by folks like yourself) there is still
a significant patriotic core.

http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5990

OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
 

On Feb 22, 9:44 pm, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:34 pm, "tack" wrote:





On Feb 22, 9:32 pm, "tack" wrote:

On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, wrote:

California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression.
cuhulin

I've read and studied much about the civil war. I still cannot make
up my mind about whether or not it should've occurred. I think
perhaps that the Southern states may had better presented their case
to the North petition. By presenting the proofs and evidences of the
will of the peoples of the Southern States. Send delegations to speak
to Congress. Reason things out, point out to the Northern States that
as the first 13 colonies (states) decided to separate from the British
Empire and form their own destiny, then naturally others have the
exact same right as they deem proper and necessary. If it was done
with reason and not emotion, the Southern secession perhaps could had
occurred peacefully and smoothly. One of Lincolns arguments was that
the association of the states together, united, under a federal
government, was a sort of "contract" together, and all sides must
agree. Of course Lincoln was saying that the North did not agree with
the breaking of this "contract". That could've been used against him,
and his position undermined, if the proposition was placed before the
Northern people with persuasive argument.
I still think that Providence had a hand in it all. Considering the
events of the 20th century, I think that it would been very difficult
for the divided continent to get cooperate to triumph over foes in
Europe and Asia. The territories and lands in the west may had ended
up in the US, or in the CS, or as their own country. Who knows. What
would had happened during WWII? The cold war? I don't know.

What's that bianca.com?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That website you pointed out to me:www.patriotist.comwww.chuckbaldwinlive.com
Has some good information. I like the quotes of the Founding Fathers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


OK I looked up bianca.com on wikipedia. I see what it is now. They
said that bianca.com is: ". . . a sort of petri dish for incubating
deviant behavior . . . "