Montgomery for McCain

Discuss the author's literature and life.
Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Post by Wild Roses » Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:15 am

Ronald Reagan was another governor without foreign experience and he defeated communism and was one of the greatest presidents.
This contradicts your own argument about Barack. It shot a big flapping hole in it. It makes all your arguments look less credible because you can't stay consistant in your arguments. (I.E. If a Democrat has no foreign policy experience you call him 'inexperienced' but if a Republican has no foreign policy, you excuse it.)

Of course, your arguments are already less credible because you don't know or understand how nations work under Empires. Canada was during WW1 belonging to Great Britain, i. e. The British Empire. Empires don't run the same way democracies do.

No do you understand or know about Canadian politics. If you did, you wouldn't be assuming Canadian conservativism is the equal and same as U.S. conservativism.

Besides, if you don't believe Shelly and I about our claims about Canada, all you have to is pick up a BOOK and READ it. Just go to the library and ask the librarian to help you locate a good book on Canadian history (or order one through the library system). There are tons of books out there about the British Empire too. Until you get yourself better read, at any rate, your arguments about why McCain would have been a better choice don't have a shot at converting anybody because of their factual errors and inconsistancies.
"We couldn't buy the logic that Jesus was the only way. That meant the Buddhists and Hindus who had never even heard of Christ Almighty were doomed to hell, while Ku Klux Klan members were not." From THE HUNDRED SECRET SENSES by Amy Tan.

TrueChristian
Planted Magic Seeds
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:05 pm

Post by TrueChristian » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:35 am

You clearly didn't understand my first post. I said IF Montgomery was a US citizen and living now, this is how she would vote. And as far as her known voting record when she lived is concerned, when Montgomery voted, she voted in favor of a war against evil. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time understanding this.

The republican party is sore about the loss so they need someone to blame. Instead of blaming the crumbling economy or a poorly ran campaign, they blame Palin. The race was a lot closer until the financial meltdown happened and then McCain dropped liek a rock. Theres no one that could have overcome those odds.

I did not contradict myself. The difference between Obama and Palin is that Palin wants to win the war in Iraq and Obama wants to cut and run. President Bush said that we have to fight them there or else we fight them here. So while they are both inexperienced, Palin knows what we have to do to beat terrorism, just like President Bush. Biden beliebes that we are going to get hit agin by terrorists under Obama.

About Katrina, you should consider these facts before listening to everything the liberal media tells you. The people of New Orleans knew a cat4 storm was coming, but the Democratic Governor of Louisiana Blanco and the mayor of New Orleans Nagin did nothing to evacuate the people. They did not follow their emergency procedures, didn't get food water and security for the people, and didn't ask for federal assistance until it was too late. They are the elected leaders and it was their responsibility to keep those people safe and yet they continued to fight with each other before the crisis and after the crisis. The Democratic leadership in that city and state failed the people, not Bush.

Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Post by Wild Roses » Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:55 pm

Again, your ignorance about LMM is profound. She is not as conservative as you suggest she is. Read her 5 published journals, and the countless biographies that have been published on her.

Furthermore, LMM did not give a damn about U.S. politics. At all. Her novels, her journals, and her various letters make this clear. So defending your argument by using "if" is ridiculous because if she lived today, she'd still be belittling the Yankees. (Yankees being the Canadian term for Americans.)

LMM didn't VOTE to enter World War I. Canada had no choice but to join in once England joined the war. If you had a freaking clue, you would understand how empires work. But, you don't. And, I have no respect for stupid people who respect the same points over and over again. (All you need to do is pay attention in history class or go to the freaking library and you'll understand just how messed up you have your basics.)

Obama won, so it doesn't matter about Palin now. Except that even McCain and McCain's aides are at odds with her.

Oh, and honey, don't lecture me on Hurricane Katrina. I remember the news coverage quite well--and I'm quite a few years older than you, at that. Yes, the Louisiana Democrats bear some of the blame, but the Bush administration did NOTHING post-Katrina. ALL presidential administrations step in and help out states that have been hit by hurricanes. Bush waited for more than a WEEK--and then put an incompetent official in to hire the disaster ("Brownie" as Bush referred to him.)

And, don't think that just because I'm a liberal I blindly accept anything the news media tells me. I get my news from a variety of sources, thank you very much. I followed the news coverage of Katrina on a variety in a variety of places, and even the conservative news places said George W. Bush fucked that one up.
"We couldn't buy the logic that Jesus was the only way. That meant the Buddhists and Hindus who had never even heard of Christ Almighty were doomed to hell, while Ku Klux Klan members were not." From THE HUNDRED SECRET SENSES by Amy Tan.

Shelly
Leader of the Suffragette Movement
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: new england
Contact:

Post by Shelly » Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:26 am

Just like in this country (the US), TC, it was (and is) NOT up to the everyday citizens whether or not a country (Canada, in LMM's case) would declare war.

In the case of WW1, the Canadian government had no say-so. When England declared war, Canada became involved automatically, because Canada was still a part of the British Empire. It was not an independent country. That is a fact.

As for Maud's own views...

An excerpt from LMM's journal entry from August 5, 1914 (the day England--and, by extension, Canada--entered WW1). You can find it in the second published volume of her journals (1910-21)...

England has declared war on Germany!

Good God, I cannot believe it! It must be a horrible dream. It has come up like a thundercloud.

(snipped)

The Globe came as we went to dinner. I sat down weak and unnerved. I could not eat. I could only sit there dumbly trying to realize it--to realize that our Empire was at war. And such a war! No paltry struggle in an out-of-the-way corner--no Boer conflict which we all thought so terrible at the time--but a death grapple. For Germany comes to conquer or to die.

(more snipped)

It has come. Britain or Germany must fal. But the death-grapple will be awful beyond anything ever known in the world before. Oh, if I could but waken up and find it all a dream! These last four days have seemed like a nightmare. Already Canada is ablaze. Volunteers are being call for Red Cross and patriotic funds are being started. The bottom has fallen out of the world's markets. Civilization stands aghast at the horror that is coming upon us.


Over the course of the war, LMM catalogued (if you will) the news from the front in her journals. I imagine her attention to what was happening helped her immensely when she would write Rilla of Ingleside. While she was horrified at what was happening, publically, she had to keep up appearances. That included joining a chapter of the Red Cross and contributing to the war effort that way. Being openly against the war, or being a pacifist, was frowned on; you'd risk being branded a German sympathizer or a coward (especially if you were male and did not enlist).

As for the US's entering of WW1 in 1917? Only one short snippet from her entry for April 15 of that year...

The U.S. has formally declared war at last. I wonder if future historians will acclaim Wilson as a great statesman or a man of straw. It seems impossible to decide just now. I incline to the straw theory. He is too fine a phrase-maker to be anything else.

That short excerpt was, pretty much, her only mention of anything related to US politics in her journals. Maud was much more concerned about what was happening at home, how her family on PEI was doing, and--with the war on--what was happening in Europe.

(It's also interesting to note that when the Titanic sank in 1912, she made no mention of it in her journals. At the time, she was pregnant with Chester and was preparing for that, not to mention she was starting work on The Story Girl. On the other hand, five years later, she would make note of the Halifax Explosion. (Of course, LMM lived in Halifax for a brief time in the 1890s while attending university classes at Dalhousie, and working for a local paper, so she did have a connection to the city.))

On Monday, December 17, 1917, Maud voted for the first time ever. (By then, women had the right to vote in Ontario.) Two days later, she wrote about it in her journal. In the entry, she admitted that she didn't have that much interest in politics; nor did she have any real desire to vote until then. Yet, she believed women should be allowed the vote, if only on principle.

In the same entry, this bombshell of sorts (emphasis mine)...

It is rather too bad that I, who have called myself a Liberal all my life should have to cast my first vote against Wilfrid Laurier--whom at one time I thought a little lower than the angels. This was simply because I was brought up that way. In P.E. Island in the old days--and even yet for that matter--one was born Grit or Tory and so remained. My earliest political recollections are of anathemas hurled at old "Sir John A. [MacDonald]" whom Grandfather Macneill seemed to regard as a demon in human form. Wilfrid Laurier was Grandfather's political idol and I, who was nothing if not loyal to my clan, worshipped him also....

(snipped)

Well, Wilfrid Laurier is an old man now and he has outlived his glory and betrayed his country. Why? Senility--superstition--base political cunning? It is vain to ask. Perhaps even Laurier himself does not know. But on Monday I voted, with a queer little qualm of regret and a queer feeling of disloyalty to my own traditions, for the Government which is Union but which is headed by Laurier's long rival, the Conservative chief, Borden.

....The candidate I voted for was Major Sam Sharpe who has always been a rank "Tory". If Hogg, his opponent, had not been an equally rank anti-conscriptionist I would have found it much harder.


"Grit" = synonym for Liberal.

In that election, the Conservatives won a majority. The big issue at the time was conscription (also see Wikipedia).

In 1931, Canada declared its independence from Britain, which would then allow the Canadian Parliament to declare war on its own (again, the regular citizens DO NOT have a say in the matter...only the Members of Parliament). When WW2 broke out in 1939, Canada declared war a week after England did. Canada still considered England a strong ally, and vice versa, which is largely why they entered the frey.

Maud's own thoughts on WW2 are unknown; but based on her entries from when WW1 was taking place, I can't imagine the Second World War did anything to help her already much-broken disposition.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, yes, Canada--overall--IS more liberal than the US. I've followed Canadian politics for close to a decade. I live mere miles from the Canadian border. Members of my family and people whom I associate with offline are quite conservative politically (I'm probably the only one among them whose politics are left-of-centre)...and I would be willing to bet that if they talked to a Canadian who self-identified as being conservative politically, they would think that person was more liberal than they. Their views are quite different.

Bottom line: Read Maud's journals and some of the other literature on her that is out there. I also recommend, if at all possible, tracking down her episode of Life and Times that CBC aired several years ago (it's not on DVD, but it is on VHS). Do some research on Canadian history and politics. There's a plethora of information online and in book form. Inform yourself. It'll do you a lot of good.
foreverzach.net
"Luck. It had nothing to do with it." ~ Izzy Pettibone

Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Post by Wild Roses » Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:58 am

TrueChristian, I've gone through all your posts that you've made (because there is a button in the forum that allows people to do so) and I notice in every all of them except for a few (those mostly being in the 'Is Avonlea racist' topic), you

1. Try to impose your brand of Christianity and conservativism on us

2. You bash us without evidence. One of your very first posts ever was in the 'Are LMM's works evil' and does just that--and both Timothy and Shelly shot you down and you never once apologized for bashing your fellow forumners in that topic.

3. You make assumptions in all your posts that are factually wrong and continue to persist in holding them after it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that your assumptions are wrong. Since I have a multicultural studies degree, I'm going to look up books for you read to correct your misassumptions in other topics. (Not that you would read books recommended by a flaming feminist. However, you are quite welcome to do research on your own if you think my political stripes make my book recommendations invalid.)

Now, I don't deny I've had my fair share of fights on this forum. But, I usually only get fired up when someone tries to impose their beliefs on me or on the forum itself (because I want to discuss LMM's work, not whether Barack Obama is a Mason or not). I will attack back in that case. (I'm not a diplomat--I try to be, but I'm not.)

And, yes, I am sorry I ranted at you, TrueChristian. However, I will have no problem belittling you in the future if you continue to persist in imposing your beliefs on the forum. From the posts you have made, it is abundantly clear you aren't here to talk about LMM or RTA, but to sound off on your own beliefs. This is a small forum and people will catch on if they haven't already to what you are up to, and you won't be liked if you persist in making the types of posts you are making especially the ones where you put down forumners in general or specifically. You owe us an apology.
"We couldn't buy the logic that Jesus was the only way. That meant the Buddhists and Hindus who had never even heard of Christ Almighty were doomed to hell, while Ku Klux Klan members were not." From THE HUNDRED SECRET SENSES by Amy Tan.

TrueChristian
Planted Magic Seeds
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:05 pm

Post by TrueChristian » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:47 pm

Shelly wrote:Just like in this country (the US), TC, it was (and is) NOT up to the everyday citizens whether or not a country (Canada, in LMM's case) would declare war.
I appreciate you WildRoses and Shelly for wanting to educate me and suggesting books to read. Now let me encourage you to read something... my posts. I never said that one citizen could declare war by voting. I said that Montgomery voted in favor of the war. She voted in favor of the conscription bill that made military service mandatory and everybody knows that her vote was in favor for Canadians to go fight in the first world war. As far as her support for the US goes, htats easy. If she supports the allies, she supports the US becasue they are an ally.

like many Americans after 911, Montgomery changed her political ideas out of fear due to a threat. She voted for a conservative who was going to make sure that Canadians were able to fight in the war. She writes about this vote in a letter to Ephraim Weber and writes about the war like a savy military straetegist.

"I have a vote in the election - you know, because of my brother. I fancy the next election every woman will have it. I shall vote for the Gov't for I believe that Conscription is a necessity now if Canada is not to be shamed in the eyes of the world. The Italians have been in a bad mess. I pray God that Venice may be saved--yet they have taken the famous brass horses away from her for safety and that according to the old superstition is a bad omen. This latest British victory near Cambrai may ease matters up a bit. Russia is pitiful as a woman in travail--but I yet believe she will bring her freedom to the birth."

Montgomerys hope for freedom in Russia would have made President Reagan proud. of course it would ultimately be Ronny Reagan that would deliver the birth of freedom in Russia. Next Montgomery talks about wantng the British to drive the Muslims out of Isreal.

"And will the British capture Jerusalem? I hope it, for sentimental considerations, if none other. It will mean something if the banner of the Cross displaces the Crescent over the Holy Land, after its 800 years of Islam domination."

Guess who else wanted Isreal? Saddam Hussein. Based on this, it is highly likely that MOntgomery would have supported the US/British war against Iraq. In the footnotes for Montgomerys letters to Ephram Weber it says 'The Union government, which favoured conscription, won, and Montgomery slept peacefully...' I know that I can sleep peacefully for at least another month as long as George Bush is president.

TrueChristian
Planted Magic Seeds
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:05 pm

Post by TrueChristian » Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:32 pm

Wild Roses wrote:And, yes, I am sorry I ranted at you, TrueChristian. However, I will have no problem belittling you in the future if you continue to persist in imposing your beliefs on the forum. From the posts you have made, it is abundantly clear you aren't here to talk about LMM or RTA, but to sound off on your own beliefs. This is a small forum and people will catch on if they haven't already to what you are up to, and you won't be liked if you persist in making the types of posts you are making especially the ones where you put down forumners in general or specifically. You owe us an apology.
I apologize if I offending anyone personally but Im not going to apologize for giving my opinions on Montgomery related topics. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean im imposting my ideas.

TrueChristian
Planted Magic Seeds
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:05 pm

Post by TrueChristian » Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:34 pm

Wild Roses wrote:And, yes, I am sorry I ranted at you, TrueChristian. However, I will have no problem belittling you in the future if you continue to persist in imposing your beliefs on the forum. From the posts you have made, it is abundantly clear you aren't here to talk about LMM or RTA, but to sound off on your own beliefs. This is a small forum and people will catch on if they haven't already to what you are up to, and you won't be liked if you persist in making the types of posts you are making especially the ones where you put down forumners in general or specifically. You owe us an apology.
I apologize if I offending anyone personally but Im not going to apologize for giving my opinions on Montgomery related topics.

Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Post by Wild Roses » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:50 pm

We are reading your posts and you have an astonishing degree of ignorance when it comes to politics and LMM. Furthermore, you seem to assume you know exactly how LMM [would have] thought. Shelly and I make no claims that we know exactly how she thought but at least we are very well-read where her work is concerned. We quote her and we leave it at that. We don't assume how she would have voted one way or another.

I'm not going to reply to your other dumbass answer in the Montgomery suicide topic. I have a huge respect for the Montgomery relatives, and so do many of us here. I have already defended them in that topic. Although if you want to continue making slams, however, subtle against them go right on ahead.

And, read up on your freaking political history. Russia in Maud's time had quite different politics from Ronald Reagan's time. I can only roll my eyes at your stupidity. [Politics are ever-evolving. You can't broadstroke and apply World War 1 politics to today's issues or the Gipper's. Any political science professor, conservative or liberal, could tell you that.]
"We couldn't buy the logic that Jesus was the only way. That meant the Buddhists and Hindus who had never even heard of Christ Almighty were doomed to hell, while Ku Klux Klan members were not." From THE HUNDRED SECRET SENSES by Amy Tan.

Shelly
Leader of the Suffragette Movement
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: new england
Contact:

Post by Shelly » Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:34 pm

Wild Roses wrote:[Politics are ever-evolving. You can't broadstroke and apply World War 1 politics to today's issues or the Gipper's. Any political science professor, conservative or liberal, could tell you that.]
*nods*

Is it wrong that I want an ignore function around here now?
foreverzach.net
"Luck. It had nothing to do with it." ~ Izzy Pettibone

TrueChristian
Planted Magic Seeds
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:05 pm

Post by TrueChristian » Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:18 am

Wild Roses wrote:We are reading your posts and you have an astonishing degree of ignorance when it comes to politics and LMM. Furthermore, you seem to assume you know exactly how LMM [would have] thought. Shelly and I make no claims that we know exactly how she thought but at least we are very well-read where her work is concerned. We quote her and we leave it at that. We don't assume how she would have voted one way or another.
Yes, I am assuming. This is why its a hypothetical thread. Just like all the "would Sara and Arthur get together" type threads.

My assumption is based on the way Montgomery has voted in the past. I velieve she is a person that stood up against evil in the world. And by voting for conscription, she was voting in support of Canadian soldiers fighting in the war against eveil, just as she likely would if she were alive today. heres more from her letter to weber.

"Oh, the war: I would wish to avoid it-- but I can not. When you live and breathe and eat and drink and sleep and pray war, you can't ignore it even in a letter. We have conscription here now, with a Union Government and such an election coming off in December as was never fought out here before. The old party distinctions are completely gone, for the present--the issue is simply the Union Gov't + Conscription and Laurier - Conscription. I hope with all my heart that the government will win."
Wild Roses wrote:And, read up on your freaking political history. Russia in Maud's time had quite different politics from Ronald Reagan's time. I can only roll my eyes at your stupidity. [Politics are ever-evolving. You can't broadstroke and apply World War 1 politics to today's issues or the Gipper's. Any political science professor, conservative or liberal, could tell you that.]
Mauds letter to Weber was written after Lenin's overthrow of the provisional government in Russia, meaning that the same evil and hated government would still be in power during Reagans time. The same communist group fronted by Lenin would be the same communist group Reagan would help defeat. heres a great quote by Ronald Reagan on the evil empire.

"It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history.... [It is] the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people."

Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Post by Wild Roses » Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:56 pm

Yes, I am assuming. This is why its a hypothetical thread. Just like all the "would Sara and Arthur get together" type threads.
Snerk. Really, because you started it off quite literally assuming Montgomery was a conservative until Shelly called you out on being factually wrong on that--and, then, pretended like you never made the factual error in the first place. I'm quite sure you're only calling it a 'hypothetic' thread now because you've been called out on your bullshit too many times.

Furthermore, your own title works against you. It *presumes* Montgomery would have voted for McCain, end all be all. If this *was* originally a hypothetical thread it would have been worded "Would Montgomery have been for McCain?"

Hypotheticals don't presume facts. They teach you that in science class. Hypotheticals are what-ifs, but you never started this with what-if intentions. I reread your posts, and I all I see (paraphrase) "Montgomery was a conservative so go out and vote for McCain." That isn't a what-if, honey, that is an opinion and a command.
"We couldn't buy the logic that Jesus was the only way. That meant the Buddhists and Hindus who had never even heard of Christ Almighty were doomed to hell, while Ku Klux Klan members were not." From THE HUNDRED SECRET SENSES by Amy Tan.

Wild Roses
Rose Cottage Resident
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:34 am

Post by Wild Roses » Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:57 pm

Yes, I am assuming. This is why its a hypothetical thread. Just like all the "would Sara and Arthur get together" type threads.
Snerk. Really, because you started it off quite literally assuming Montgomery was a conservative until Shelly called you out on being factually wrong on that--and, then, pretended like you never made the factual error in the first place. I'm quite sure you're only calling it a 'hypothetic' thread now because you've been called out on your bullshit too many times.

Furthermore, your own title works against you. It *presumes* Montgomery would have voted for McCain, end all be all. If this *was* originally a hypothetical thread it would have been worded "Would Montgomery have been for McCain?"

Hypotheticals don't presume facts. They teach you that in science class. Hypotheticals are what-ifs, but you never started this with what-if intentions. I reread your posts, and I all I see (paraphrase) "Montgomery was a conservative so go out and vote for McCain." That isn't a what-if, honey, that is an opinion and a command.
"We couldn't buy the logic that Jesus was the only way. That meant the Buddhists and Hindus who had never even heard of Christ Almighty were doomed to hell, while Ku Klux Klan members were not." From THE HUNDRED SECRET SENSES by Amy Tan.

Shelly
Leader of the Suffragette Movement
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: new england
Contact:

Post by Shelly » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:54 pm

Here's the thing, TC...

"Montgomery for McCain" (the subject title, that is) makes it seem like it is fact that, were LMM living in the US in 2008, and she were a registered voter, she would've voted for McCain. Now if the thread had been shaped in the form of a question, like "Would LMM have voted for McCain?" or "How would LMM had voted in the US election?", that would've been a better idea. Then later on, stating explicitly that it is your opinion that she would've voted for John McCain would've made things at least somewhat easier on you. Instead, you pass off your opinions as facts, you get called on it, and now you're trying to (unsuccessfully, I say) cover your arse rather than own up to your crap.

Also, you seem to be hung up on 1980s US politics. Last I checked, it was 2008, going on 2009.

Oh, and that whole communism and socialism thing? One could say it started in the book of Acts with the early Christians, not with Marx and Lenin.

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. (Acts 2:44-45, NASB)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism (pay attention to the first definition)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism (first definition)
foreverzach.net
"Luck. It had nothing to do with it." ~ Izzy Pettibone

The Chef
Cured Peter Craig
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:20 am

Post by The Chef » Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:09 pm

TrueChristian,

Don't get drawn into this fruitless blethering about Mr. Prince Hall Mason Barack Obama. If you really want to know what Obama is about, get Alex Jones' soon to be released documentary about Obama. You can get it here:

http://www.cuttingedge.org/detail.cfm?ID=1994

He's not what he seems to be. All this babbling about democrats and republicans doesn't help you at all. What you see on the surface (in the media), is just the surface. The difference between republicans and democrats is only superficial. I am referring to the top-leaders here. The simple party-members do of course have different opinions on where the country should go. That's not the point. The double-headed eagle has two heads, granted, but both are attached to the same body. There's a lot of smoke and skirmishes on the surface, but it's nothing substantial. Remember what Bush jr. said? "When our founders declared a new order of the ages, they were acting on an ancient hope, that is meant to be fulfilled." America's founders, in Bush's own words, talked about an "ancient hope, which was meant to be fulfilled." It is Plato's dream of a one world order, world democracy. Whether it had been McCain or Obama, both would have played their part to achieve that goal. The difference is that a republican president focusses on one aspect of that goal, and a democratic president on another aspect. The republican presidents Bush sr. and jr. have been busy making war, destroying America's reputation; Obama will be more focussed on internal affairs and promoting liberalism (a path that surely leads to destruction and divine judgment anyway). Why do you think America's establishment, goes around the world spreading "democracy" by force? Remember, America started as a republic! It's done to fulfill that ancient hope. But it is democracy rammed down other people's throat. That's the American way (of the establishment, not "we the people").

If you want to know the real background of America and it's founders, and also, perhaps even more important, where America is going, watch the trailers of the 3 dvd's below.

Direct links to trailers:

Opens in Windows Media Player: the new atlantis

Opens on site, embedded player: riddles in stone

Opens on site, embedded player: phoenix

Oh by the way, on the first (full-version) DVD you can also see an interview with a mason who also has appared on the History Channel (and you can also see for yourself how he is being refuted with facts - giggle).

PS: the dvd on the dollar bill was really an eye-opener. Get your copies and change your worldview.

You can buy the dvd's at cutting edge or at amazon.

America is going to be destroyed, and a new world order will arise from it's ashes, just as in the story of the mythical phoenix bird. It's the old illuminist or masonic credo in full swing: ordo ab chao, or to create order out of chaos, or in other words, hegelian dialectics. If you think about American polictics in terms of republican and democrat, you're really don't see the big picture, and are missing the point. Please inform yourself, arm yourself with real facts, with real knowledge, knowledge upheld by Scripture. I'm speaking of course as a christian to a fellow-christian.

By the way, to stay on-topic, I very much doubt whether she would have voted McCain, considering her liberal mindset. Read also this: Who was L. M. Montgomery?

Piere (long time no see).

PS: I do own a Road to Avonlea Xmas Mug :wink: I wouldn't want anyone to think I don't really like (most parts of) the show. The only thing I resent is how the show portrays religious life; for example in the two episodes with a robust teen called Booth. O how church-life is painted black and gloomy, judgmental, narrowminded and restricting and void of joy, as opposed to the free and gay life-style of a worldly ministers family. This alone shows that LMM did not really know Jesus. Sad but true. Who wouldn't hate the christian church with sinful backbiting gossipers such as Mrs. Buegle. RTA only shows us nominal christianity, completely void of the true Christ. That is the one thing that I find disturbing. Would Alec King if he were a true christian have ever said I'd take the devil over a rainy day anytime ... ? These are the sort of things that discredit everything "christian" in this show.
Last edited by The Chef on Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:20 am, edited 5 times in total.
A man fell in a deep pit and suffered greatly. A Buddhist said: 'Meditate and ignore your circumstances.' A Hindu said: 'You must have bad karma, you deserve your fate.' But Jesus had pity on the man, climbed down and rescued him.

Post Reply