27
   

What States or Portions Thereof of The USA should be told to GET OUT!

 
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2012 10:45 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You do realize that the Spanish that conquered Mexico and all the now American states that were then a part of it, were, themselves, grand imperialists and stole the land of many different Indian tribes. When the US stole the land of Mexico, the Spanish/Mexicans were hardly in the process of giving the land back to the Indians, or treating them very well either.


Yes, of course I realize that, Finn, and have never said otherwise. But, just like so many of JTT's posts, that's really quite irrelevant. The fact that the wallet I stole from you was one which you had stolen from someone else does not make me any less of a thief.

Quote:
It's hard to find sympathy for one set of imperialists when another steals the land they themselves stole.


Not for me it isn't hard to find at least a modicum of sympathy. They may well have been as guilty as we were but the fact remains that they were in there first and so had a certain amount of squatters' rights. If, say, the French had come in and taken over the Massachusetts Bay Colony that the Pilgrims had settled, could they then legitimately justify this by saying, "Well the English took the land from Massasoit and the Pequods"?

Quote:
For that matter a number of the larger Indian peoples residing in North, Central and South America were imperialists too. Sort of why they are known as the Aztec, Incan and Mayan Empires.


Totally irrelevant. Gad, you're good at this straw man horseshit, aren't you?

Quote:
The notion that Mexicans have some sort of historical right to the Southwest and California is pretty amusing.


Show me, please, where anyone on this thread has expressed that notion. The conversation has been about a historical lapse of ethics, nothing more. I don't believe that even JTT is advocating giving Caliifornia back to the Mexicans. (Myself, I wouldn't miss the whole Greater L.A. area, but that's a different, personal matter. Smile)

Quote:
If JTT didn't have such tunnel vision when it came to American imperialism and was able to spread his disdain around a bit more evenly, his screeds might not be seen as so fanatical.


What about your own tunnel vision, Finn? You keep misquoting others and then imputing all sorts of leftist motives for their beliefs. I think you intentionally misunderstand what some of us are saying just so you can spread your own brand of jingoism around quite evenly.




Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2012 11:18 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You do realize that the Spanish that conquered Mexico and all the now American states that were then a part of it, were, themselves, grand imperialists and stole the land of many different Indian tribes. When the US stole the land of Mexico, the Spanish/Mexicans were hardly in the process of giving the land back to the Indians, or treating them very well either.


Yes, of course I realize that, Finn, and have never said otherwise. But, just like so many of JTT's posts, that's really quite irrelevant. The fact that the wallet I stole from you was one which you had stolen from someone else does not make me any less of a thief.

No it doesn't but it certainly makes me a far less sympathetic victim, and one who can hardly lay claim to the moral high ground.

Quote:
It's hard to find sympathy for one set of imperialists when another steals the land they themselves stole.


Not for me it isn't hard to find at least a modicum of sympathy. They may well have been as guilty as we were but the fact remains that they were in there first and so had a certain amount of squatters' rights. If, say, the French had come in and taken over the Massachusetts Bay Colony that the Pilgrims had settled, could they then legitimately justify this by saying, "Well the English took the land from Massasoit and the Pequods"?

Now who is setting up straw men? I've not argued that American imperialism is legitimized by the fact that the lands stolen, were stolen from thieves.

Imperalism isn't legitimized by moral arguments, it's legitimized by power, and once an Empire becomes weak, the basis of it's legitimacy as the holder of its conquests is gone. The use of squatter's rights as a metaphor is valid only if the property seized is vacant. The lands the Spanish seized were not.


Quote:
For that matter a number of the larger Indian peoples residing in North, Central and South America were imperialists too. Sort of why they are known as the Aztec, Incan and Mayan Empires.


Totally irrelevant. Gad, you're good at this straw man horseshit, aren't you?

Totally relevant, although the relevance obviously escapes you. But why am I not surprised? You've already discarded the Indians' claims to the land the Spanish seized because of squatters rights.

My point is that the history of mankind is a history of one people conquering another and taking their land for their own. American took land from the Spanish who took land from the Aztecs who took land from smaller tribes. At some point in time, America will no longer have the power to hold onto to its empire (no matter how it may have shrunk) and then some people will take the land from them. Maybe a bunch of proto-humans on the Serengetti can truly be considered native, but not many more.

Attempting to invest one group of conquerers with a moral or (God forbid) legal legitimacy is an expression of personal preference, likely based on romantic fantasies and political bias.


Quote:
The notion that Mexicans have some sort of historical right to the Southwest and California is pretty amusing.


Show me, please, where anyone on this thread has expressed that notion. The conversation has been about a historical lapse of ethics, nothing more. I don't believe that even JTT is advocating giving Caliifornia back to the Mexicans. (Myself, I wouldn't miss the whole Greater L.A. area, but that's a different, personal matter. Smile)

I tend to allow opinons and arguments to bleed from one thread to another and often I am commenting on a postion taken by others in a response to someone who may not have taken that position. This is a flaw in my arguments to which I need to attend.

Quote:
If JTT didn't have such tunnel vision when it came to American imperialism and was able to spread his disdain around a bit more evenly, his screeds might not be seen as so fanatical.


What about your own tunnel vision, Finn? You keep misquoting others and then imputing all sorts of leftist motives for their beliefs. I think you intentionally misunderstand what some of us are saying just so you can spread your own brand of jingoism around quite evenly.

Who did I misquote Merry. For that matter, who did I quote?

I don't impute leftist motives, I discern them. Obviously I could be wrong, but it's equally as obvious that I don't believe I am. Just as the people who discern all sorts of motivations in my arguments (eg racism) don't think they are wrong. When you direct your indignance to them as well as me, I will take it more seriously.





0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:54 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
They don't want to go to the Blue Utopia Finn. That's the point you seem to miss. They prefer sucking on a blue tit while whining about how much they hate it.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 11:49 am
@Lustig Andrei,
And, of course, anglo-americans are probably going to feel and express great moral indignation over the fact that Mexican-America is conducting (by purely demographic means) a sort of re-conquest (Reconquista) of the U.S. southwest.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 12:51 pm
Does that mean Texas will be joining the Mexican republic again?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 12:53 pm
@RABEL222,
I'd agree only if Austin is kept a part of the US. Mr. Green 2 Cents
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:17 pm
Do you think Texas is old enough to be told that Mexico is their biological father?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:18 pm
@fbaezer,
Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:22 pm
@fbaezer,
Hawl in the loads of diapers..
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:31 pm
@ossobuco,
I have my biases, and FB straightened me out once, which made sense to me then. Whatever I say, I don't know the complexities. Not that he is always right, and that would add other complications, but I tend to listen.

I'd like to hear what JlNobody thinks, but not to be nosy. I feel like an bull in a china shop, I know little.

I think border areas have some natural connections. How's that for saccherine? But I mean it.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:33 pm
Sort of topic, but relevant to my earlier post: This is why I cannot stand Quebec politicians - STOOPID, STOOPID, STOOPID - and they don't have the populace behind them.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/11/20121120-070903.html

Here it is:

It's tough being the newly elected separatist government in Quebec.

They only won 31.95% of the vote, compared to 31.20% for the Liberals and 27.05% for the CAQ. And with just 54 out of 125 seats in the legislature, it's a minority government that is doomed to accomplish very little.

But solving real problems - like unemployment and corruption - has never been a forte of the Parti Quebecois.

So the new government is doing what it does best - showboating, trying to pick symbolic fights with anglos.

This time the PQ has done something really weird. They have decided to demonize - get this - English-speaking oil.

The PQ's new environment minister, a life-long protester named Daniel Breton, has decided there's a political advantage to be found in attacking Alberta oil. Technically the oil doesn't speak English, of course. But if it's produced in a place that speaks English, that's good enough for him. Get the language cops on it!

Breton has denounced the proposed reversal of a pipeline built in the 1970s to take oil from western Canada to Montreal.

Some years ago, it made economic sense to switch the direction of the oil flowing in Line 9 - to import cheaper oil from overseas, and use that same pipe to ship the oil west, to Ontario.

But the economics have changed back. Today, made-in-Canada oil is about $25 a barrel cheaper than OPEC oil that currently feeds the pipeline. So Enbridge, the company that owns the pipeline, has applied to the National Energy Board to switch the direction of the flow again.

And that's when Breton pounced. "What I see is Alberta wanting to transport its oil on our territory without our consent. Are we masters of our own territory or not?" he said.

Except it's not the province of Alberta that is doing something to the province of Quebec. It's customers in Quebec who want to buy the oil from a supplier in Alberta. But to Breton, everything is political, and a cause for outrage.

The oil isn't some sort of anglo plot. It's because there are customers in Quebec who need it. Paying a premium to the Saudis for crude oil is one reason why Quebec refineries have gone out of business in recent years.

Bringing in cheap Alberta oil might save the province's two remaining refineries - and the thousands of jobs that rely on them.

One Quebecer desperate for that anglo oil is Michel Martin. Not because he's a secret spy for Alberta, trying to undermine Quebec's distinct society. But because he wants to save the jobs of his men, at Quebec's Ultramar refinery.

"We have done everything in our power to stay competitive, so if we can't access this oil, mid- to long-term, we will be vulnerable to a closure," he said.

Martin isn't alone. A Quebec pollster, CROP, surveyed the province: Should Quebec consume Alberta oil rather than oil from foreign countries?

Seventy-four percent of Quebecers said yes. Only 14% said no. That's five-to-one for Alberta oil. No one in Quebec is nuts enough to think that using Alberta oil makes you an anglo, any more than driving a Honda makes you Japanese.

Of course, Breton isn't boycotting all oil. He's fine with Shariah oil from OPEC.

For someone who has made a career out of being a preening, morally superior twit, don't you think he has some answering to do about his own moral compass?

~~~

Feckin' twit

cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:39 pm
@Mame,
You,
Quote:
Sort of topic, but relevant to my earlier post: This is why I cannot stand Quebec politicians - STOOPID, STOOPID, STOOPID - and they don't have the populace behind them.


No different than in the US; the GOP still believes they have political power, so they're doing everything in their power to delay and make big deals of a) the fiscal cliff, b) Susan Rice, c) approve the debt ceiling, and d) approve of Obama as their President.

STOOPID, STOOPID, STOOPID~! Except here in the US, many conservatives approve of what they're doing. STOOPID, STOOPID, STOOPID~!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:54 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
is interesting to discuss in a history class kind of context but certainly makes no sense getting worked up over.


As we agree, the important point is that the truth isn't taught in these history classes. There is a great deal to get worked up about in that these crimes against humanity began with Manifest Thievery and they only escalated through time to this very day.

Why continue to teach these lies? Gracie's teacher, a history teacher, didn't know the truth. Her dad didn't know. You are all people who love to brag that it is you, the people, who control the government.

It seems that y'all don't give a rat's ass about the millions slaughtered but why are y'all so complacent about having been [still are] so terribly, terribly misled? Pretty much all you've been told has been a humongous lie.


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2012 07:57 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
And it didn't stop there. It goes on to this day.


Quote:
No argument there.


Notice how you completely avoided the current stuff, Merry.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2012 07:01 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
If JTT didn't have such tunnel vision when it came to American imperialism and was able to spread his disdain around a bit more evenly, his screeds might not be seen as so fanatical.


Note well, Finn, the people who see them as fanatical.

To any reasonable mind, the fanaticism obviously flows from the constant big lie that the US has been some sort of white hat savior.

More later.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2012 07:46 am



Obama's plan is to make all states welfare states and now that the dumbmasses with the help of some serious shenanigans
have reelected this turd there is a very good possibility that all 50 states will be blue in the very near future.

American's had the opportunity to tell Obama to GET OUT and they blew it big time.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2012 09:25 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
American's had the opportunity to tell Obama to GET OUT and they blew it big time.


you're not an American anymore? where'd you move to?
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2012 10:53 am
@ehBeth,
Texas.
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2012 11:04 am
@RABEL222,

waterbuoy is running out of places to live.

he will need a time machine to go back to when his outdated ideals were still in play...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2012 01:51 pm
@Region Philbis,
There are many places in Africa.....
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 08:23:43