That title seems open enough that very little would be 'off topic.'
Questions: What is 'reality." Who defines what constitutes reality? When someone studies history, doesn't it matter that 'those who 'win' write history? Should we study only what the 'winners' write? (I don't think so. Might does not mean right.)
Comments: George Bush is already speaking about his worries about how 'revisionist' history will portray his administration's future actions.
[Read, the 'history' that hasn't yet happened , will be wrote by those 'crazy' revisionists who look at things from other's perspectives.]
That, TO ME, is one of the most hilarious things I've heard out of him, and he spews funny (meaning so absurd, you need to laugh, or you'd CRY).
He is talking about how he worries that 'history' WILL, in the future, describe his presidency in a bad light. LOL, LOL) I've got many thoughts on that alone, but that is certainly enough for Anonymous (he's a sharp guy) to reply. My questions are the main topic, though. My comment, an example.
Questions: What is 'reality." Who defines what constitutes reality? When someone studies history, doesn't it matter that 'those who 'win' write history? Should we study only what the 'winners' write? (I don't think so. Might does not mean right.)
Comments: George Bush is already speaking about his worries about how 'revisionist' history will portray his administration's future actions.
[Read, the 'history' that hasn't yet happened , will be wrote by those 'crazy' revisionists who look at things from other's perspectives.]
That, TO ME, is one of the most hilarious things I've heard out of him, and he spews funny (meaning so absurd, you need to laugh, or you'd CRY).
He is talking about how he worries that 'history' WILL, in the future, describe his presidency in a bad light. LOL, LOL) I've got many thoughts on that alone, but that is certainly enough for Anonymous (he's a sharp guy) to reply. My questions are the main topic, though. My comment, an example.
Comment