I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!!!!!

by **Guiscard** on Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:38 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:So... are we all in agreement, once again, that Jay got completely stomped in this thread?

Aye.

by **Snorri1234** on Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:00 am

Guiscard wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:So... are we all in agreement, once again, that Jay got completely stomped in this thread?

Aye.

Yup.

by **Backglass** on Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:29 am

Snorri1234 wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:So... are we all in agreement, once again, that Jay got completely stomped in this thread?

Aye.

Yup.

by **jay_a2j** on Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:57 pm

radiojake wrote: Again, I point out. What is the difference between an 'illegal person' (i hate this term so much) moving to America, and to what the Pilgrims did?? Seriously, answer me that. Then answer me why you can then even remotely suggest you should be able to stop anyone living where they want to live on this planet? You are just as illegal as anyone else.

You then go and point out that it will 'effect the economy' - Seriously. This is how insanely crazy our human species is. The economy was a system invented by humans to control other humans. It doesn't actually exists, yet you worry about the state it is in?

Also, I really hate when people use the argument of 'ITS ILLEGAL' -who gives a f*ck? Since when has legality had anything to do with what's right or wrong

The difference is.....when the pilgrims came here, it was not a sovereign nation. And after becoming such a nation they passed laws. Laws pertaining to immigration were among them. Just as I, as an American, CANNOT, on a whim, pack up and move to England, France, China, Russia or ANY other nation on Earth! (They have immigration laws too)

To answer the second question....because its illegal!

Now, which is it? The economy system was invented to "control" other humans? Or was that religion? :wink:

"It doesn't exist"? Please tell that to the people at the stock market, the Federal Reserve and the Housing Market this! I'm sure they'd be in shock!

Who cares if is illegal??? Ummm law abiding citizens. You are correct, something being illegal does not dictate whether something is right or wrong (see roe vs. wade) but it does mean we have to OBEY the laws. (We cannot charge a Dr. with "performing an abortion" because it is LEGAL)

I hope this cleared things up a bit.....

by **heavycola** on Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:00 pm

Yes it did, thanks. Please can you point me to these fellows at the housing market, as I would indeed like to put it to them!

by **Snorri1234** on Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:46 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Who cares if is illegal??? Ummm law abiding citizens. You are correct, something being illegal does not dictate whether something is right or wrong (see roe vs. wade) but it does mean we have to OBEY the laws. (We cannot charge a Dr. with "performing an abortion" because it is LEGAL)

Doesn't seem to stop a lot of people trying to prevent it.

by **jay_a2j** on Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:46 pm

heavycola wrote:Interestingly, and ironically, this is the exact same problem I had with that film you posted that was going to 'wake us all up'. The 'journalist' was saying 'rockefeller said this, rockefeller said that', and the film was presenting it as direct speech. In quotation marks. You didn't seem to have a problem with it there. In fact you dismissed my complaint out of hand.

My apologies. This was a misunderstanding of what you were saying. I thought you were asking why they had what the guy was saying up on the screen when we could hear him. That explains my reply of "maybe they figured someone would watch the video who was deaf". (paraphrased)

by **Neutrino** on Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:59 am

jay_a2j wrote:
The difference is.....when the pilgrims came here, it was not a sovereign nation. And after becoming such a nation they passed laws. Laws pertaining to immigration were among them. Just as I, as an American, CANNOT, on a whim, pack up and move to England, France, China, Russia or ANY other nation on Earth! (They have immigration laws too)

To answer the second question....because its illegal!

Now, which is it? The economy system was invented to "control" other humans? Or was that religion?

"It doesn't exist"? Please tell that to the people at the stock market, the Federal Reserve and the Housing Market this! I'm sure they'd be in shock!

Who cares if is illegal??? Ummm law abiding citizens. You are correct, something being illegal does not dictate whether something is right or wrong (see roe vs. wade) but it does mean we have to OBEY the laws. (We cannot charge a Dr. with "performing an abortion" because it is LEGAL)

I hope this cleared things up a bit.....

You answered nothing. How does the lack of existence of a piece of paper make anything more or less wrong? Hell, I would have thought you, with your belief in an absolute morality system would recognise this. Just because there was no formal system for the distrubution of land does not make taking land any "worse".
Of course, I don't care about "illegals" at all, but it is very, very hypocritical for you to try to justify the Pilgrims. They performed the same act that mexicans are doing at this very moment. How can you hate one group but not another? :roll:

by **mac46** on Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:25 am

Actually I think he explained pretty well the difference that America wasn't a sovereign nation then, it was just a land mass. Just like the fact that if you want to move to Antarctica, nobody is going to stop you.

by **radiojake** on Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:59 am

mac46 wrote:Actually I think he explained pretty well the difference that America wasn't a sovereign nation then, it was just a land mass. Just like the fact that if you want to move to Antarctica, nobody is going to stop you.

Thats bullshit. North American Indians were living there. They were shat on, then killed in mass genocide and then had their land taken away. It was way more than a 'land' mass. It was a living, breathing, eco-system. Humyns, Non-humyns, trees, rivers all living in a naturally occurring life cycle. More than what we could call it now. (A mess of concrete filled with morons... I'm talking all countries here, not just US) -- Interesting thing I read, apparently American pilgrims all those years ago who for whatever reason ended up staying time within Indian tribes, never wanted to go back to the 'white towns', as such.

What is all this 'sovereign' nation bullshit? So it's not 'official' until western 'civilized' people say it is so?

by **jay_a2j** on Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:03 am

radio...you might want to check out some real estate ...... on the moon. :roll:

by **radiojake** on Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:05 am

jay_a2j wrote:radio...you might want to check out some real estate ...... on the moon.

Land property is theft

by **MeDeFe** on Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:33 am

radiojake wrote:What is all this 'sovereign' nation bullshit? So it's not 'official' until western 'civilized' people say it is so?

Correct, or at least until those primitive tribes are recognised as being official tribes by western 'civilized' people.

Now come on, it's no news that a huge part of the world we live in is made up by us thinking it is made that way. Practically all of society and trade only exist because we think it exists.

by **Tyr** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:52 pm

stop btiching about indians. i was a clash of cultures and ours won. no one bitched whent he lombards invaded italy of when the angles invaded england or when the aryans invaded all of europe and india. any way if america didnt exist then no positive role model for countries wishing to get over absolutism which means no demacracy and no way for leftist intolerant liberals to bitch about rightist inolerant conservatives and vice versa

by **Snorri1234** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:58 pm

Tyr wrote:stop btiching about indians. i was a clash of cultures and ours won. no one bitched whent he lombards invaded italy of when the angles invaded england or when the aryans invaded all of europe and india. any way if america didnt exist then no positive role model for countries wishing to get over absolutism which means no demacracy and no way for leftist intolerant liberals to bitch about rightist inolerant conservatives and vice versa

There is a difference between accepting that it happened and moving on, and denying it ever happened.

by **b.k. barunt** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:06 pm

Tyr wrote:stop btiching about indians. i was a clash of cultures and ours won. no one bitched whent he lombards invaded italy of when the angles invaded england or when the aryans invaded all of europe and india. any way if america didnt exist then no positive role model for countries wishing to get over absolutism which means no demacracy and no way for leftist intolerant liberals to bitch about rightist inolerant conservatives and vice versa

You're obviously young and unread, but that's only a partial excuse for your ignorance - try reading a little so you can offer us an educated opinion, instead of just a boring one.
America didn't "conquer" the Indians, as the other examples you gave did.
We made treaties and agreements with them, then when their guard was down, we attacked them in cowardly manner. We also carried out a pogrom of genocide against the Sioux and other plains tribes - completely wiping out millions of buffalo so that they wouldn't have a food source. We didn't just want their land, we wanted them wiped out as a race. Neither the Lombards, Aryans, or Angles did this - as examples go, those were pretty stoopit.

Honibaz

by **Anarkistsdream** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:10 pm

b.k. barunt wrote:
Tyr wrote:stop btiching about indians. i was a clash of cultures and ours won. no one bitched whent he lombards invaded italy of when the angles invaded england or when the aryans invaded all of europe and india. any way if america didnt exist then no positive role model for countries wishing to get over absolutism which means no demacracy and no way for leftist intolerant liberals to bitch about rightist inolerant conservatives and vice versa

You're obviously young and unread, but that's only a partial excuse for your ignorance - try reading a little so you can offer us an educated opinion, instead of just a boring one.
America didn't "conquer" the Indians, as the other examples you gave did.
We made treaties and agreements with them, then when their guard was down, we attacked them in cowardly manner. We also carried out a pogrom of genocide against the Sioux and other plains tribes - completely wiping out millions of buffalo so that they wouldn't have a food source. We didn't just want their land, we wanted them wiped out as a race. Neither the Lombards, Aryans, or Angles did this - as examples go, those were pretty stoopit.

Honibaz

WELL SPOKEN, BK... As always!

by **Guiscard** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:10 pm

b.k. barunt wrote:Neither the Lombards, Aryans, or Angles did this - as examples go, those were pretty stoopit.

Honibaz

To be fair, the Angles and Saxons may well have been fairly genocidal in regards to the native British population. The view that the native Britons were just pushed into Wales and Cornwall on mass is a little outdated in academic circles.

But yeh, his point is still invalid. The Saxons never tried to claim they invaded or slaughtered legally. It was obviously rape and pillage, and no-one denied that.

by **MeDeFe** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:14 pm

But back then it was pretty much ok because everyone did it. right?

by **b.k. barunt** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:42 pm

The worst thing about it, as with all things American, was the hypocrisy. Other people did what we did, but they didn't try to justify it.

by **Guiscard** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:49 pm

MeDeFe wrote:But back then it was pretty much ok because everyone did it. right?

No, not by any standard. No-one is really saying it was. We study history from as objective a viewpoint as possible (unless you start going down the post-modern track)...

At the absolute worst, you could take an ultra-orthodox Rankean line and consider the period in its own right and in its own context only (rather than in relation to other periods or issues), in which case its hard to place moral judgement... but then that approach is fairly flawed by most historiographical standards.

by **mandalorian2298** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:31 pm

b.k. barunt wrote:
Tyr wrote:stop btiching about indians. i was a clash of cultures and ours won. no one bitched whent he lombards invaded italy of when the angles invaded england or when the aryans invaded all of europe and india. any way if america didnt exist then no positive role model for countries wishing to get over absolutism which means no demacracy and no way for leftist intolerant liberals to bitch about rightist inolerant conservatives and vice versa

You're obviously young and unread, but that's only a partial excuse for your ignorance - try reading a little so you can offer us an educated opinion, instead of just a boring one.
America didn't "conquer" the Indians, as the other examples you gave did.
We made treaties and agreements with them, then when their guard was down, we attacked them in cowardly manner. We also carried out a pogrom of genocide against the Sioux and other plains tribes - completely wiping out millions of buffalo so that they wouldn't have a food source. We didn't just want their land, we wanted them wiped out as a race. Neither the Lombards, Aryans, or Angles did this - as examples go, those were pretty stoopit.

Honibaz

You are a truth-distorting liberal, B.K.! :evil:

In truth, the peacefull Buffalo were being enslaved by the evil Indians. So, the Pilgrams came in a foreign country to liberate the Buffalos by killing Indians. Thy were succesfull in 'pacifying' the Indians, but most Buffalos died, as a result of collateral damage (which was hardly Pilgrims fault. They have been risking their lives to help the Bufallos :shock:

).
At that point, it would have been pretty dumb to de-pacify the Indians and give THEM the land, so the Pilgrims decided that the only fair solution would be to take the land for themselves. THE END

by **Frigidus** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:02 pm

mandalorian2298 wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:
Tyr wrote:stop btiching about indians. i was a clash of cultures and ours won. no one bitched whent he lombards invaded italy of when the angles invaded england or when the aryans invaded all of europe and india. any way if america didnt exist then no positive role model for countries wishing to get over absolutism which means no demacracy and no way for leftist intolerant liberals to bitch about rightist inolerant conservatives and vice versa

You're obviously young and unread, but that's only a partial excuse for your ignorance - try reading a little so you can offer us an educated opinion, instead of just a boring one.
America didn't "conquer" the Indians, as the other examples you gave did.
We made treaties and agreements with them, then when their guard was down, we attacked them in cowardly manner. We also carried out a pogrom of genocide against the Sioux and other plains tribes - completely wiping out millions of buffalo so that they wouldn't have a food source. We didn't just want their land, we wanted them wiped out as a race. Neither the Lombards, Aryans, or Angles did this - as examples go, those were pretty stoopit.

Honibaz

You are a truth-distorting liberal, B.K.!

In truth, the peacefull Buffalo were being enslaved by the evil Indians. So, the Pilgrams came in a foreign country to liberate the Buffalos by killing Indians. Thy were succesfull in 'pacifying' the Indians, but most Buffalos died, as a result of collateral damage (which was hardly Pilgrims fault. They have been risking their lives to help the Bufallos ).
At that point, it would have been pretty dumb to de-pacify the Indians and give THEM the land, so the Pilgrims decided that the only fair solution would be to take the land for themselves. THE END

You forgot the part where John Smith kicked Opchanacanough in the teeth. THIS IS AMERICA!!!

by **graeme89** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:35 pm

Going back to the original post, guns dont make you a killer? I think they do. All the guns in the USA couldnt protect the students in Columbine or Virg Tech. So where does that leave you? Arm prefects to protect students?
And what if the prefect goes crazy?.
The gun law in the USA was written over 200 years ago when the world was a totally different place. If George Washington was alive today i think he would probably agree with restrictions on firearms.

by **unriggable** on Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:38 pm

graeme89 wrote:All the guns in the USA couldnt protect the students in Columbine or Virg Tech.

I think we'd be safer if there was a 50 cal. turret set up in the corner of every room.

I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!!!!!

Who is online