Prev: «   |   Next: »

76 Responses

← Previous Page 2 of 2
  1. shawn corrigan
    shawn corrigan at |

    the example of the depression is a good one, it should be taught in shcools and dissected by everyone. here is my take. the world went into a dive (i believe from the banking groups plans)europe had a recession america worse,why? hoover made the mistake of punishing the source of prosperity the businesses who produce jobs and products,however it was appealing ,and is today to penalize them because of jealousy. hoovers mistakes were doubled down by fdr. the new deal was a huge disaster but like obama it is viewed as a great effort to steal from those who have and distribute to those who need,this is always seen as a political win. only those who have brains can see the failure in killing the horse that pulls the cart. then fdr does the unthinkable,after his failure and hoovers failure he does what any good communist idiot government control freak would do,he triples down ,he does the …get this… the new new deal ,look it up. how any people can survive communism is beyond me.

    Reply
  2. Steve Finnell
    Steve Finnell at |

    FACT OR FICTION?

    Is everything you have been taught about Christianity fact or has there been a lot of fiction presented as Biblical truth?

    Here are some doctrinal positions, are they fact or fiction?

    1. The New Covenant was in force during the three year ministry of Jesus. Fact or Fiction? That would be fiction.

    Hebrews 9:16-17 where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

    The New Covenant was not in force while Jesus was alive.

    2. The apostle Peter used the keys to the kingdom heaven (the keys to enter the church of Christ) before the Day of Pentecost. Fact or Fiction? That would be fiction.

    Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven….

    Luke 24:47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all nations beginning from Jerusalem.

    The apostle Peter first used the keys to enter the Lord’s church, at Jerusalem, on the Day of Pentecost. Three thousand entered the kingdom of God on earth. The kingdom of God on earth is the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    The three thousand who were saved and added to the church of Christ on the Day of Pentecost believed that God raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus was was both Lord and Christ. They repented and were immersed in water so they could have their sins forgiven and then they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:22-41) They were saved under the New Covenant terms of pardon.

    3. The thief on the cross was saved from the punishment of his sins. Fact or Fiction? That would be a fact.

    4. Men today can be saved just like the thief on the cross. Fact or Fiction? That would be fiction. The thief was not saved under the New Testament terms of pardon.

    The thief did believe in his heart that Jesus had been resurrected from the grave. (Romans 10:9 that is you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.)

    The thief was not immersed in water for the forgiveness of his sins. (Acts 2:38 …be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…)

    5. Moses, Elijah, Job, Enoch, Abraham and Noah were all men of faith and saved . Fact or Fiction? That would be a fact.

    6. Men living today can be saved just like Moses, Elijah, Job, Abraham, and Noah. Fact or Fiction? That would be fiction. These men lived and died before the New covenant was in effect.
    Men, today, can only be saved by believing in Jesus. (Acts 4:10-12, John 14:6)

    7. Jesus did not say baptism was essential in order to be saved. Fact or Fiction? That would fiction.

    Jesus said “and has been baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16)

    8. Peter and the apostles never taught water baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. Fact or Fiction. That would be fiction. (Acts 2:37-38)

    9. Men are added to the body of Christ before they are baptized in water. Fact or Fiction? That would be fiction. (Acts 2:41)

    10. Saul was saved on the road to Damascus before his sins were forgiven. Fact or Fiction? That would be fiction. Men cannot be saved without having their sins forgiven. Saul had had his sins forgiven three days later, when he was in Damascus, not on the road to Damascus. (Acts 22:16)(Acts 9:9)

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. http:/steve-finnell.blogspot.com

    Reply
  3. Lin Tse-hsu
    Lin Tse-hsu at |

    Here’s #11 for your list: Claiming that Educators Teach that FDR’s New Deal Ended the Depression.

    There’s nothing quite like inventing a myth and then exploding it. People on the political right have been “debunking” the myth that FDR ended the Depression with the New Deal claim for decades despite the fact that schools and textbooks do not make this claim.

    I cannot speak to what any individual teacher may do or say in the classroom, but I can speak to what appears in curricula and textbooks. *At best* historians claim that the New Deal prevented the Great Depression from becoming worse or from carrying the U.S. into a state of social upheaval. Most agree that World War II truly “ended the depression”. In response those seeking to manipulate history to put government action in the worst light have engaged in moving the goalposts by claiming that WWII did not end the depression, rather the lifting of government controls at the end of the war was the “true end” of the depression.

    Reply
  4. Rob W
    Rob W at |

    The part about the New Deal is very much opinion rather than fact. In fact, your whole write up on the issue sounds like talking points from Fox News or a Republican debate.

    Reply
  5. alex
    alex at |

    The stuff they teach us in school. :/

    Reply
  6. Peter Boucher
    Peter Boucher at |

    There may be a geographical misunderstanding here. First, Columbus, correct me if I am wrong, landed in the West Indies. Where as the Vikings (as I well know were before Columbus) landed in Greenland and Newfoundland, Canada. I guess what it boils down to is who was it that actually discovered the land of the soon to be UNITED STATES OF AMERICA at that time. I think that’s where the confusion is.

    Reply
  7. Russo
    Russo at |

    what is worse than peddling lies for years is polishing and re-packaging them to prolong their shelf-life. Christopher Columbus discovering America in 1492 sounded ridiculous when moors where trading with the continent since 60,000 BC! Amending it to say he was the first to discover it in “modern” times is nothing short of comical… worse still that 500 years before, the Vikings were travelling there as you mentioned it… at what time does your modern history begin and how exactly do you define it?

    Reply
  8. Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
    Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz at |

    Actually Bjarni Herjolfsen saw North America and told Leif about it but Leif landed there first Bjarni just saw it

    Reply
  9. Jim
    Jim at |

    most Is common knowledge and others really aren’t a surprise

    Reply
  10. James
    James at |

    This author is very political in his writing. If you are a strong conservative or identify with the right, you may already think what this author thinks. If you are a liberal or “lefty” you may view this author’s history as suspect and a little light on details. His/her summations are highly debatable.

    Case in point – Kennedy assassination – The film and audio from the Zapruder film make it very clear how much time elapsed between shots. We “know” what rifle Oswald used to take the shots. Yet, to this day, not a single person in the world has been able to fire three shots from the rifle Oswald used in the time that he fired them. That is not even accounting for accuracy. Some of the best marksman alive (then and since) have attempted to make those shots with that rifle and have failed. While this does not point to the CIA or Mafia (or whoever) as a a likely candidate, it certainly puts compelling evidence out there that he did not act alone.

    The other one that is highly debatable (and highly political) is the FDR/New Deal thing. To say the New Deal is the reason we got out of the Depression is ignoring a whole host of other factors that could have contributed. However, to say it had nothing to do with the recovery is ignoring quite a bit as well. Are you an economics professor? do you have something other than “well if it was the New Deal, then why did Europe recover faster?”

    The truth likely lies somewhere in between. I can be sure of one thing, it is not in this article.

    We will never know the truth for sure, so it cannot be a fact.

    Reply
    1. Peter Boucher
      Peter Boucher at |

      Hello James. I read your post very carefully and found it to be very informative. What was the type of Weapon that Oswald used as I have heard that the one he used would be impossible to shoot it 3 times as fast as he did. I am also interested in the “grassy knoll” aspect of it. I was only 15 months old when it happened so obviously I was to young to remember. Just for the fun of it, speaking about the Kennedy’s conspiracy (John and Robert) study up on Aristotle Onassis. Not only was he a billionaire, but he married JFK’s wife and gave her a sum of $3,000,000 if she were to marry him (that’s a proven fact) but I also have read about how corrupt of a person he was. He had very strong ties with the Mafia, the Drug and Oil cartel and many other things. Let’s look at the chronology of it all. JFK, assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963 ; RFK, assassinated on June 5, 1968, Aristotle Onassis marries Jackie on Oct. 20, 1968. Here’s my summary of the JFK assassination. If you watch the Zapruder film (and there are many more videos of it) in slow motion, you will see JFK putting both of hands around his throat which probably indicates the shooting from behind (Oswald) but just a couple of seconds later is when his head was blown off. You will see Jackie climb on top of the rear of the car and was quoted as yelling, “They have killed my husband” and also, “I have his brains in my hand”. So with those facts in mind, wouldn’t one think that his head and his brains would go into a forward direction as opposed to being on the back of the car ? Bottom line, Oswald did not act alone, but we will probably be both dead and buried by the time that the truth comes clear. After all, The Lincoln assassination conspiracy has yet to be fully cleared and that was 146 years ago.

      Reply
  11. peter8172
    peter8172 at |

    Just a tidbit note regarding this list about Charles Lindbergh and him crossing the Atlantic, here’s another one for you. Charles Lindbergh was also a PRO-NAZI. Had The Axis (or Adolf Hitler) had won World War II, he would have appointed Lindbergh as President or Dictator of the United States. Its been documented.

    Reply
  12. list is terrible
    list is terrible at |

    number 10 alone discredits the entire list and proves it’s written by a bigot American…

    Reply
  13. Jacob
    Jacob at |

    As a matter of fact the author of this article is correct in asserting that the US did not lose the Vietnam War. Some simple key facts:
    a) They beat the Vietcong soldiers during the Tet Offensive in 1968,
    b) Nixon’s ‘peace with honour’ proved effective in the Paris Peace Treaty in 1973 – the North and South Vietnamese would respect the border lines that separated them, and the US would return its forces home (this is what Nixon wanted as soon as he was elected)
    c) It was only in 1975, two years after the final withdrawal of US troops, that the North Vietnamese took the initiative to invade Saigon (April 1975 to be precise) and a few months later the ‘domino effect’ would take place in Cambodia and Laos.
    d) The ‘Nixon Doctrine,’ 1969 – moving away from Truman’s containment of Communism policy in Asia and making Asian countries have their own self-defence against potential Communist threats. In this respect, by 1975, Vietnam was irrelevant to the US (theoretically) as it became their own responsibility to fend off the Communists.
    e) The Vietnam War for the US ended in 1973 with no loss – every battle in the war was won – and the only reason the North was able to invade was for the reasons mentioned above.
    f) One historian – John Rohwer – suggests that actually, because the US involved itself in Vietnam in the first place, it inspired neighbouring countries (i.e. Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore) to fight against Communism, which is why today they’re not exactly Communists.
    g) In terms of the ACTUAL war, the Vietnam war was a success for the US as, up to the point where it concerned them, Communism was contained; regardless of the quantity that was absorbed by Communist expansion, that is North Vietnam, they were able to sustain one part that would remain democratic until two year later when the North would invade.

    I know I’ve repeated myself a few times above and that’s reduced the cogency of my argument, the point is: South Vietnam became Communist 25 months after the US had washed their hands and left the region. Yes, containment failed, but it was not in their interest (as seen in the Nixon doctrine) to contain with US involvement.

    I’m apathetic towards the other 9 points.

    Reply
  14. Skooter
    Skooter at |

    haha, well the US hardly WON the Vietnam war!

    Shame this list is mostly opinion not fact.

    Reply
  15. Vishal
    Vishal at |

    I disagree with the usage of the brain one. They tested it on Mythbusters, and even though you don’t use only 10% of your brain, you only use something like 35%, even while your whole brain is working. This was stimulated by a person getting an MRI scan while he recited a story out loud.

    Reply
  16. Decky Wecky
    Decky Wecky at |

    An interesting addendum to the Darwin entry, or well, it should actually come before, is that it was his grandfather who inspired him. I am not going to say ‘fact’ as it is a dangerous and dirty word. The countless rage-filled idiots with their ad hominem attacks prove that. Attack the idea not the person readers. Erasmus Darwin postulated a theory akin to C.Darwin’s theory. It was something like direct descendance, but I am open to correction. In any case, Erasmus was a great friend of James Brindley -an engineer. Brindley was the godfather of the modern canal in the UK and Ireland, whilst working, he and his navvies used find skeletons and fossils. He passed them on to Erasmus, who then thought about his theory, which in turn (along with others) influenced Charles Darwin. So one can, in part, thank the evolution of the canal for the theory of evolution.

    Reply
  17. matt
    matt at |

    If I can say anything about this article it would be to do your own research about every single one of these topics and become enlightened that way rather then just going on the information in this article. These brief paragraphs are way to simplistic to have any kind of validity in my opinion. Especially on these topics. These topics have been studied by hundreds of thousands of people over hundreds of years and are way to complex to be generalized in a mere paragraph. To state a few fallacies in my own opinion, the war in Vietnam was a loss! Your argument about numbers is very similar to what the Army brass was focused on during the war; kill ratios and total deaths. The United States was trying to stop the spread of communism and they failed. The U.S. morale fell on the homefront, the troops became dissillusioned about what they were fighting for etc. . . There exist a lot of tallies that you can put in the loss column that I would say outnumber the amount of victories in Vietnam.
    As for the inventors argument, you could go on for days arguing who invented what. A lot of the time it comes down to who can sell it, who has the patent, or who documented it. I can promise you that there exist thousands of people that thought of and attempted to make the electric powered car or the solar-powered calculator, but it always comes down to the person that can produce a concrete idea and then sell it or document it. Inventing is also always a huge process of borrowing(euphamism for stealing) and sharing of ideas and a process of trial and error. Instead of calling them the inventors, call them the fathers of these products or whatever it may be, at the end of the day its all vernacular and semantics. These gentlemen were the key components to why we have light and a phone and why we believe in survival of the fittest and natural selection. As for the rest of the list I did not touch on, they need to be researched for yourself and draw your own conclusions because there exists a lot of information on all these topics and there exists too much to be summed up in a paragraph or two.

    Reply
  18. Barry
    Barry at |

    Re: the Darwin item, Lamarck’s concept of evolution was VERY different from Darwin’s. The famous example of his understanding of how the environment influenced traits is that the necks of giraffes grew longer as a result of generations of them reached for higher leaves. Darwin’s concept is that the taller ones would be better equipped to survive, leading the long-necked ones to more successfully reproduce.

    And re: Vietnam, the U.S. is widely regarded as losing the war because it the Communists won, not because it was politically unpopular.

    Reply
  19. Perry
    Perry at |

    The agreement ending the Vietnam War left 100,000 allowed the North to keep 100,000 troops in South Vietnam, that’s how we could have the country was going to renege.

    Reply
  20. George K
    George K at |

    Stopped at the first one. “Hey um… the US didn’t like “lose” the war, they just sent a bunch of guys to die without achieving what they set out to achieve and then were “too tired” to help out when the north invaded. How does that count as a loss?”. Nice article.

    Reply
  21. Andreas
    Andreas at |

    Just because you disagree with Government spending as a method to relieve the effects of an economic recession does not mean that the positive effects of the New Deal are historically inaccurate. First of all, Hoover believed that by letting the economy correct itself, that economic conditions would return to normal; however, anyone who has ever read a credible book can see that his “hands off ” approach to the economy was a miserable failure. Second, while I agree it was World War II that ultimatly brought demand to equilibrium with supply, that was only through MASSIVE government spending, which you have overlooked entirely. Third, the most grossly inaccurate statement you have made here is that a reduction in tax rates following the Second World War caused an economic boom, fact: taxes remained at 91% for a family who made more than 200,000 dollars and increased in the early fifties. reading before writing usually helps.

    Reply
  22. Tomek
    Tomek at |

    5. Charles Darwin Was the First to Conceive of the Theory of Evolution

    OMG – this is much more complicated that what is stated here, I guess the credit should go to both gentlemen. Definitely one cannot say who was the first one.

    I am just wondering, in how many others the author(s) got wrong too.

    Reply
  23. Enno
    Enno at |

    On the question of Columbus being the ‘discoverer’ of America we have only to look at the name that the continent was given. Common practice for mapmakers is/was to name new discoveries for their discoverer. Hence America would have been Columbia or something similar if its discovery were attributed to Columbus. Modern opinion is that early map makers knew of the continent through the earlier voyages of Amerigo Vespucci and this is where the naming rights were assigned. It has to be said a lot of that argument is speculation though as surviving maps from that time are scant (they were considered strategic and closely held by the aristocrats who usually commissioned them) and of course there are no documents citing references or illuminating what sources the maps were developed from.

    As noted Columbus was not of the opinion that the earth was flat, he knew it was spherical, a theory that had been promulgated as early as the 6th century BC by Greek philosophers. Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC even managed to calculate the circumference of the planet to within 5-20%. Columbus though had attempted to refine the figure and had produced a result which seriously underestimated the size of the Earth and thus the possible distance from Spain to the East Indies. The fact that the Earth was larger and that an entire extra continent lay in his path was not something he had expected.

    Reply

Leave a Reply