RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events In U.S. Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up With Joneses

Ummm...you.



Yeah sure.



But there was law. Just cause it wasn't written on paper doesn't mean it's not rightfully there's. You can argue species semantics all you want but they were there first.





So what? They were incapable of deciding there own fate? They needed the benevolent Europeans to save them?



And I'm sure you'd love for us to consider you the ultimate authority on every conversation you grace with your presence. Nobodies saying there perfect but your demonizing them because they were diffrent.



It's not the word so much as the callous and thoughtless idealogy behind it.



Who's hasn't? It's not appropriate it's minimizing. It was tragic what happened. Does that mean Europe was evil...not necesarily. However, we should learn from them and that's not gonna happen if nitwits rationalize there actions with some nonsense about how they were really just helping the poor ignorant Injins.



Your right. Let's cherry pick through reality and rationalize bad behavior just to put America up on a pedestal. That's much better then facing reality.



First off, the Nazis didn't see Jews as "there own people". Second, they thought the everybody should be like them. It's the same vain mentality who sought, at least in part, to make the Indians like them. Same arrogance.



They were only dying and diseased cause of the settlers. They may have been just fine if we hadn't gone to the mattrices with them. They should have had a choice. And yeah, part does think it's better to die then live under then be "assimilated". If India or Russia invaded tommorow using the same "assmilation" logic your using what would you want the U.S to do? I'm guessing you'd want us to fight back. But when we assimilate others it's A-okay. Can't have it both ways. I realize circumstances vary but I'm talking about a mentality of imperialism where we're better so anything we do or have done is okay.



Well then, I'll keep it simple for now on



See, this is where you begin to tell me over and over again how I haven't "proved" anything thereby not relying on actual substance to make an argument so much as blatant denial. Therefore, this is the part I get more leeway to be immature and deflective.

Cause you see, your logic is Sophistry cause it's the kind of logic that can only exist in a vacuum. A vacuum where the was nothing more to justice then the written letter of the law. Where there's nothing more to life then existence. Where there's nothing more to right and wrong then cold hard logic. It's one dimensional absolutism. But I'm sure you'll prove my point for me.



I'm really not criminalizing anyone other then you or anyone else who would rationalize the actions of the settlers for the sake of eradicating any blemish on America's greatness.



Somehow "insuring your way of life" and "progress" never seem to mesh. In fact there pretty much antithetical. I'm sure theoretically both can be achieved but when people are so dependant on there way of life by going to war with people who aren't really threatening it is usually a sign of people who aren't intrested in progress so much as control. So basically your logic is hollow. Plus, you really can't have progress without dissent so not only is your logic hollow but contradictory.



Alright genius, why were they fighting over the territory or "Holy Lands"? Could it be cause those lands had RELIGOUS VALUE.

I understand your point, but how you don't understand mine without responding with an obnoxious response is just plain dense.

This from a guy that once responded to me in 7 diffrent threads with the same quote? Talk about irony.



This statement-



Shows me an apathy towards what happened since our way of life was better anyway.

You really should be less selective in what you choose to notice.

You still presume way too much. Only way you could really know that is if they were there and if they were miserable they probaly wouldn't have fought in the first place.

Yeah, like I said: I'm white and therefore I'm the scum of the universe.



I'm glad you agree that the modern American black people would be happier living under modern-day African governments.



No. There was no law--Not verbally spoken or written. It was chaos. There's nothing specious or semantic about pointing that out.



I'm not saying they were incapable nor am I saying that the Europeans were benevolent.

I'm saying that their unwillingness to do.....Anything, except for attack each other and slowly let the harshness of the wild kill them off didn't really do much to convince the Europeans not to stake a claim and expand. You say that the Indians were there first and that the Europeans had no right to be there, but by all accounts the Native Americans were more like raid/trade prospects than invaders in their eyes.



I'm not demonizing anyone, I'm saying that they didn't have anything done to them that they wouldn't have done to anyone else by their own standards of living and interacting with others. Then, when the settlers became more and more advanced and became a larger society with more opportunities, the Indians were retarding their growth with a simple unwillingness to recognize that it was better to live in a house than to risk your life in the wild (this was a problem during the 1700s, but moreso in the early 1800s).



Whoever said anything about the Europeans trying to help they Indians? They obviously weren't. What I said was that the Europeans probably wouldn't have tried to stake a claim so close to the Iroquois Confederacy if they were both on the same level intellectually. As it was however, the Indians never officially reserved the land and because the Europeans knew they carried a petty tribal mentality that consisted of scavenging and raiding, they were unable to take them seriously on an intellectual level.

The most I've said in regards to helping the Native Americans is that it was in their best interest to assimilate into the growing American culture since their lifestyles would improve a great deal.



I have yet to put America on a pedestal (not too late though I suppose). I am simply saying that, as an entire culture, it did nothing wrong. The reason I say "entire culture" is because there was obviously some general, though unofficial, supremacy issues. At the same time however, I don't believe the Anglos were wrong to divorce themselves from the Indian culture by referring to them as "savages," because that label isn't totally inaccurate.



The Jews they killed were fellow Germans who lived with them on the same level of intellect. The point is not how they saw them, but rather how they were treated by their own brothers. If the Americans had met a different kind of Indian culture that was closer to their intellect and more interested in technology, there probably would have been a lot less friction.



It was only at the point that the American culture got too big to stay completely separated from the Indians that they were given any ultimatums. Telling one culture that they're not allowed to progress simply because another is nostalgic and set in their ways of living is impractical.

The intent of the Americans was not to convert the Indians; there was just very little choice other than suggesting to them that they get with the times.



There is just so much wrong with this paragraph.

First: The Native Americans were dying and diseased before the Anglos showed up. Not only were they "going to the matrices" with themselves, but they weren't doing anything to help their living conditions aside from erecting more tepees. The settlers' tainted blankets weren't the only things making them sick you know.

Second: They had already "chosen" conflict and domination. The Anglos just decided to join in on their multi-tribal fuck-fest--Trading with them all the while.

Third: We are not an inferior culture to India and Russia. The three cultures are on the same intellectual wave-lengths with mutual knowledge of living healthily. Upon an objective observation of their cultures and comparison between the three, they have nothing to add to our lifestyles; as mutually superior intellects, it would only be logical to collaborate rather than dominate. Politics aside, there's no good philosophical or strategic reasoning to seize our land and person for purposes of assimilation when it would be detrimental to a society with an already prevailing lifestyle.

Furthermore, where the Indians lacked concept of land ownership, the Americans most certainly do not. Russia attacking us would be considered an invasion. Us pushing the Indians West is not.

Fourth: Americans have never acted like imperialists. You need to get over that. Indeed we have been prideful of our vaster successes than most other countries, but we don't invade other countries for the purposes of 'enlightening' them; Native Americans were given the option because they a) Were in dangerous proximity and b) Needed to advance anyway.



The concept of justice outside of law can only exist through faith. I don't argue faith outside of religious topics.

In any event, I retain that there was no injustice in forcing the Native Americans to assimilate. It is because I'm using logic that I am logically concluding that our principles as a society of lawfully "justice"-based individuals were not compromised in our dealings with the Indians.



Hell, you think I'm just trying to make the Americans out to be perfect in history's eyes? Lord knows I feel we've done terrible things in the past. This just isn't one of those things.



Of course they can't. That's why progress pauses while the wars are fought. But just because they can't co-exist, that doesn't mean they're no dependent on each other. Progress in technology is required for more efficient war efforts while war efforts are required to give society the ability to progress without threat of dissent foreign or otherwise.

However, I think it's interesting to not that as soon as humanity hit the 20th century, wars actually helped to further the progress of technology. Germany, Britain, and America all made milestone discoveries because they were so concerned with winning the war. I'm not saying it's a constant mind you, but it's interesting to note.



Based on what do you make such a conclusion? Academics and dialectics may be good as food for thought or theoretical politics, but what evidence can you offer up that tells me it doesn't generally slow society down?



Fine. But if you're going to use that as a mediator, the Islamic Seljuk Turks were the only ones fighting a holy war since they were the ones who took Jerusalem and Europe only retaliated after Emperor Alexius asked them for help.

I'd like to accept your hyperbole Grimm. But you're too much of a tool to take seriously. If you'd offer up a source, maybe things would be different. But you didn't and so here we are.



I didn't and wouldn't ever vote for Andrew Jackson if I had-had the chance. As far as I'm concerned, that entire mess was solely on him. And I say that because there was an overwhelming number of Anglo Americans who were against the bill that caused it.

The Cherokee (who I'm descended from) that were forced out of Mississippi had already assimilated and were keeping up to date on the technology developed by the Anglos; they were well on their way to meshing with them. The catalyst for that signed bill was a mandate put in place to keep the Anglos from being harmed by the still existing militant Indian tribes (hence your "shoot on sight" reference). The mandate couldn't exactly be called a leftover relic, but it was a retarded and illogical technicality used by Andrew "Old BASTARD Hickory" Jackson to force out Natives indiscriminately--Which missed the point of their desired 'assimilation scenario' completely. He was so concerned with them originally being from tribes that he didn't bother to look at their progress and realize the bill didn't apply to them any longer since they moved away from their savage lifestyles.

Thanks for the effort and the advice!

I try not to presume what's best for others. Especially when I've never been to Africa.



Yes there was. They had concepts of right and wrong. They were capable of, and often had, peaceful relations with eachother and the settlers. It was not chaos. I'm sure there were conflicts and wars but if that makes for chaos then the whole world is chaotic. Especially these days.

You know I've been reading around places like this-

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825127.html

and it essentially I'm finding your full of shit. For example Indians didn't impeed progress (that would be horrible if the existence of a race of human beings impeeding the progress of another. Thankfully we have things like Genocide to take of it) so much as the Colonies decided it was there "Manifest Destiny" to go west and therefore step on the Indians turf so they fought back. I'll keep reading but it seems the result is gonna be that your full of shit.



Yes you are. Your saying they were savages who should have gotten out of the Europeans way.



That's not the point and you fucking know it. If another country came here to assimilate us for our benefit or there progress what would you want to do?



You duck the question then tell me what to do?

This is precisely the kind of jingoistic byas I'm talking about. You split hairs and act like it makes a world of diffrence. Vietnam and Iraq are times we pushed Democracy on another culture which is trying to "enlighten" them. We get to have bases all over the world and go on floats around the mediteranian and pacific rim expanding our power and influence which is imperialistic to think we have the right to police the world. If you want to put your head in the sand fine but don't try and lecture me.



The idiocy of your statement pretty much negates any possible logic. If you take something from someone who had it first it's considered stealing. Not just by the written letter of the law but by common sense. And stealing is considered wrong not just cause it's against the law but because of the Golden rule.

Like it or not it was there's cause they fucking lived there.



I think your a fake patriot who will rationalize America's action or minimize them any chance you can.

I had alot more written but I lost it. I don't feel like writing anymore. I just wanted to hit on the bigger things.

riiiiiighhhhtt. . .

sorry, I'm not the one who confuses genocide with "assimilation" and thinks there's "nothing wrong" with giving out disease ridden blankets to people in the hopes of killing them off.

[/quote]

I like how you consistently refer to the Natives lifestyles as "savage" while condemning other people for generalizing the issue and overall failing to realize that not all tribes were violence based societies. yet you seem to feel that their destruction (oh, excuse me, assimilation) is just fine and dandy because they had different values than the European immigrants.

get over yourself, kid.

Man.... Is Pariah still trying to reason away genocide?

Yeah, doesn't he realize that's the job of the liberals who defended Pol Pot, Saddam and Stalin?

Yeah, I've never lived under such fine gents as Abacha, Afewerki, Al Bashir, Amin, Barre, Biya, Bokassa, Doe, Eyadema, Gaddafi, Habre, Kabila, Mengistu, Mobutu, Mswati, Mugabe, Moi, Nguema, Taylor, or Toure, but I'm sure they were fair and moral individuals.





Uh, yeah I'm the one who told you about their trade agreements in the first place. Do you know why they never lasted? Because they had no lawful precedent. The Native American philosophy of survival and interaction was base upon whim and necessity. You're trying to tell me that they thought it was generally "right" to be peaceful with each other when they held no such values aside from circumstantial inter-dependence.



So it's this late in the game that you actually decide to read up on a Native American-Settler history after trying to go by the Hollywood note of, "Those evil whities treated the Indians like shit!" for so long?

Yes, I'm sure you ran crying to a history site after you were unable to dispute any of the history I recited in response to your generalist ideas of 'they must have had morals and the whites must have been evil!' However, that doesn't mean it's going to impress me.



It's taken you this long to refer to the Manifest Destiny? I figured with someone so knowledgeable in the atrocities of the pre-21st century west, you would have made note of it much sooner rather than just find out about its existence.

Here's a Wiki article to complement your little "infoplease" site:

• Native Americans
  
  Manifest Destiny had serious consequences for American Indians since continental expansion usually meant the occupation of Native American land. The United States continued the European practice of recognizing only limited land rights of indigenous peoples. In a policy formulated largely by Henry Knox, Secretary of War in the Washington Administration, the U.S. government sought to expand into the west through the legal purchase of Native American land in treaties. Indians were encouraged to sell their vast tribal lands and become "civilized", which meant (among other things) for Native American men to abandon hunting and become farmers, and for their society to reorganize around the family unit rather than the clan or tribe. The United States therefore acquired lands by treaty from Indian nations, often under circumstances which suggest a lack of voluntary and knowing consent by the native signers. Advocates of civilization programs believed that the process of settling native tribes would greatly reduce the amount of land needed by the Indians, making more land available for homesteading by white Americans. Thomas Jefferson believed that while American Indians were the intellectual equals of whites, they had to live like the whites or inevitably be pushed aside by them. Jefferson's belief, rooted in Enlightenment thinking, that whites and Native Americans would merge to create a single nation did not last his lifetime, and he began to believe that the natives should emigrate across the Mississippi River and maintain a separate society, an idea made possible by the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.

Unfortunately, as it says, Jefferson's belief didn't last, but the point here is that the lands weren't stolen and the Indians weren't actually trampled on. Initially, efforts were made to assimilate them and not push them away. It was post-Jackson that the "Indian Removal" policy came into effect. After that, there was a failure rather than a lack of upholding civil rights for Native Americans. There was indeed unfair tribulations thrust upon the Indians who moved west as requested, but that was due to ineptitude and not official policies. In that rite, the Trail of Tears was a superfluous fumble; because the Cherokee were assimilating, the was no need for them to move, but because they did, neither Van Buren nor Jackson gave them the proper resources to make such a move.

Just some clarification.



Okay...You just ignored everything I said, so I'll repost my previous response:

"I'm not demonizing anyone, I'm saying that they didn't have anything done to them that they wouldn't have done to anyone else by their own standards of living and interacting with others. Then, when the settlers became more and more advanced and became a larger society with more opportunities, the Indians were retarding their growth with a simple unwillingness to recognize that it was better to live in a house than to risk your life in the wild (this was a problem during the 1700s, but moreso in the early 1800s)."

Because I verbalize the fact that they were living savage lifestyles, that doesn't mean I'm demonizing them--I'm not using it as a derogatory term; just as a statement of fact. Their early unwillingness to live healthier by refusing to merge with the very society that they were slowing down was simply mal-productive for everyone in the new world. Just because I make a point of showing that doesn't mean I'm demonizing them. If anything, I'm just saying they were short-sighted at that point.



Actually, it is the point, but since you're so adamant to use a "shoe on the other foot" analogy, I'll ignore the fact that you ignored a relevant observation of how fallacious your comparison is and roll with it:

Assuming that American culture was at the level of the Indians in the 1700s and the Russians or India wanted to build a society here as a means of expansion with technology and ways of living far beyond ours, I wouldn't mind assimilating so as to advance my way of life.

I'm sure you don't like that answer, but it's the only one I'm going to give; your present day analogy just doesn't make any sense.



*sigh* Another bullshit paragraph.

First: Vietnam was fought for the sake of cutting off communism. Not spreading democracy. Giving Iraq a democracy was a secondary objective for the sake of building an ally after we've eliminated a threat (I'm not going to both arguing on whether or not it was worth it). That's not the same as simply wanting to enlighten society just for the sake of doing so.

Second: America is not the only country that has bases situated all over the world. Being strategically setup is not the same as "policing." We have never attacked another country for the sake of anyone else aside from ourselves.



What do you think it is that forms that common sense of yours? It's the context of the time-frame that even begins to form a common sense structure of logic. It's only because the Europeans brought over philosophy that there is any perception of common sense and concept of ownership in the first place. It's only because of the Anglos that the Indians were even able to develop concept of ownership over land in the first place.



I'm not sure wha "fake patriot" means, but...Well, you're wrong. As I said, I do believe America has done bad things as a country in the past. This just isn't one of them.

The Anglo Americans were involved in a WAR with the Native Americans both when the French were still in America in the 1700s and when there were territory disputes in the 1800s. That's not the same as committing genocide. In the case of the Cherokee emigration, the 4,000 who starved to death were indeed the fault of the government, but it wasn't murder so much as it was reckless ineptitude.

As for the disease ridden blankets: Please prove that they were given with murderous intent before saying, "in the hopes of killing them off." The Anglos and the Natives both lived in completely different environments and both gotten over different varieties of diseases. Just because the Anglos had given the Natives blankets infested with strains they had gotten over themselves, that does not mean they knew they would get sick.



Like Halo, you suffer the ignorance of thinking the term "savage" is a derogatory meaning that defines someone as being brutish and blood-thirsty. Generally, "savage" is synonymous with "primitive" and its not strictly derogatory unless used withing a denunciative context. In which case, I've been using the term "savage" as way of describing their basic lifestyles and not simply any violent behavior by the Iroquois Confederacy and other assorted tribes.

I'm sorry to disappoint your sweeping opinion of me, but I'm well aware of the less hostile tribes that collaborated with the European missionaries in the North East. I haven't been mentioning them as much as the West Virginian tribes because, unlike the Iroquois, the Shawnee, and the Delaware, they had assimilated much more successfully.



Likewise. Might I suggest that, in the future, you stick to your insulting sideline comments rather than try to confront me head on? Because that seems to be all you're good at.

you are completely fucking retarded.

There you go. Stick what what you're capable of.

if we all stuck to what we were "capable of" you'd never post.

No, but you have lived under Nixon, Bush, Cheney, McCarthy (not sure if you lived under him). Gonna have to face facts that history is riddled with bad people in every continent.



They didn't last cause they were out gunned. Who's to say they still wouldn't be living the same way today if not for our expansion. There are still Eskimo's and shit. That's a fact you keep ignoring. Tribe's that aren't all that technilogically advanced still exist.



It had nothing to do with Hollywood so much as the fact I know your an idiot...so I assumed your wrong.

I had a very basic knowledge of this. Just enough to tell your twisting things with your ideological prism.



Unable? Dube, all you've done is throw out conjecture. It's not hard to refute that. And now I can almost smell the desperation on you to take attention away from the link I provided.



Alright, it's important that we establish something here. I'm about to blow you off. Not because I can't refute your claims but because it's clear that your perception of reality is so twisted there's no point taking what you say seriously.

But you know what...here's another intresting quote from Wiki-

In the nineteenth century, the incessant Westward expansion of the United States incrementally compelled large numbers of Native Americans to resettle further west, often by force, almost always reluctantly. Under President Andrew Jackson, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the President to conduct treaties to exchange Native American land east of the Mississippi River for lands west of the river. As many as 100,000 Native Americans eventually relocated in the West as a result of this Indian Removal policy. In theory, relocation was supposed to be voluntary (and many Native Americans did remain in the East), but in practice great pressure was put on Native American leaders to sign removal treaties. Arguably the most egregious violation of the stated intention of the removal policy was the Treaty of New Echota, which was signed by a dissident faction of Cherokees, but not the elected leadership. The treaty was brutally enforced by President Andrew Jackson, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated four thousand Cherokees on the Trail of Tears.



You see that Pariah, the part about them being reluctant? The US having to use force to take what they want? That's a fact you can't deny. There was no necesity to us moving out west therefore no need for force.



I didn't ignore it. I'm just getting tired of saying how your rationalizing and exaggeratating.



It's a simple question you keep dodging. I didn't ignore anything it's bullshit to get out of answering. It's a valid comparison. Of course no two situation are gonna be exactly the same but it's close enough.



It does when your using there savage lifestyle to justify genocide and assimilation.



I'm talking about the 1700's I'm talking about right now. Tommorow.





Again, you act like the two can't be alike because there not absolutely symmetrical. It's this kind of lopsided logic that makes me and others think your full of shit.



God bless those anglos. If not for them the world would still be flat and barren.




Is it really that hard to figure out? And if it is you truly are a moron.

I do believe your full of shit. But that's just a hunch.

yeah... he'd never leave the tranny porn forum rob set up for him...

Jeez, listen to this guy. He twists the past to his benefit and he thinks he's a great historian.

Your not so special. I can make shit up too.

When Pariah wise 5 years old Aliens came from Alpah Centauri and abducted him. They assimilated him into there race of morons while conducting experiments on his brain (tragicly leaving him braindead). But it's okay though cause Pariah was a savage who visciously sodomized squirls.

oh, but don't you know Halo, that all those things are merely "growing pains" from their "assimilation" into the culture.

Pariah can apparently rationalize any act into some sort of "logical cultural expansion" at least in his own infantile, self absorbed mind.

I don't get how you guys take Pariah seriously - he's a joke with no punchline. He takes pride in his cringe inducing stupidity, his lame insults, and his ridiculously erroneous comments, all of which are pathetic cries for attention. You can't have an intelligent conversation with a misogynistic, racist, self loathing gay man who is so deeply in denial of his own homosexuality that he's buried himself in the proverbial closet with his shemale pics. And he's so far in that closet that he doesn't know enough to realize he should be embarrassed by his laughable ignorance and staggering stupidity.

He's completely irrelevant.

You forgot sadistic. I mean, who messes with Squirls? Donkeys, cows, dogs, cats okay...but squirrels?

the aliens probed Pariah, and he liked it! he is the gay ass teletubby.

squirrels mean the start of a hardcore match. . .

"Squirls"

I really need to get laid.

Don't say that too loud on these boards. You'll get responses, that's for sure, but I'm not sure how much you'll like them.

Good point. Thanks.

Just lookin out for ya dude.

I think you know...but just in case...I wasn't being facetious.

Uh huh. Sure.

you should try it more often. being facetious. it has its rewards.

So this means you will help me overthrow him as an Arcade Room mod...?

Am I the only one who knows pariah trolls just to piss people off? Do you not get the irony of his signature?

who bothers to look at his sig?

Just because he echoes some..ok, most right wing views doesn't mean you have to defend his defending of genocide.

Y'know, i'd completely forgotten that it was Pariah who was into the shemale hentai. I remembered it being SOMEBODY here on the boards but couldn't place the name.

I think this discussion warrants a move to the "another gay Republican" thread.

Back on topic: What scares Conservatives.



How convenient. I mean, nobody could have anticipated an influx of citizenship applications, right? I’m sure that it has nothing to do with the growing and changing Hispanic electorate. (/snark)



And there it is. It's not so much that they want to change the U.S.into Mexico, which is frankly bullshit, it's that they have the power and numbers to completely obliterate the Republican Party who inexplicably have alienated and angered Hispanics en masse repeatedly. They're in danger of transforming America all right. Into DEMOCRATIC country. And that sends shivers down the spines of the Pariah's and Wonder Boys the nation over. After all, how can you lob "anti-American" slanders when you're (even more than now)the most minor of minority views in the nation?

To Bush and Rove's credit, they saw the handwriting on the wall and tried to reach out to Latinos who were even a few years ago, still a decent percentage of the Republican base. But the far right wingers who fear "Mexicans", will alienate anyone, race bait anyone, just so long as it fires up the nativists and xenophobes and gets them to the polls. All to their detriment. Fitting I say. Goodbye far right wingers. Please provide more heated racial baiting and hatred. It's the best, fastest, and surest way to be rid of you all forever.

Every short term initiative, every election disenfranchisement scheme is just winning the battle but losing the war. And yes, I have to frame it that way because this is the way these people see it. A "war".

All the Hispanic community sees is a bunch of fucks who never distinguish legal over illegal, And American from 'white person'. And they've been repelled and disgusted, just as most Americans of the caucasian persuasion, most of whom don't happen to be paranoid racists, ALSO have been. The GOP in flames.



Writing in the Washington Post yesterday, former Bush Chief White House Speechwriter Michael Gerson described the changes in the Hispanic electorate this way:






In fact it's really tempting me to start a project I've been mulling over for quite some time, a door to door voter registration drive in some of the most underrepresented latino districts in the southwest. Where even if people are residents, you get the LEGAL citizen of that household (usually a voting age son or daughter) to be the voice of the family and get them to the polls to represent the entire family.

It would be monumental and seismic!

FOR THE RECORD: Halo considers the men he named as being comparable to all the African dictators. Of course he's right, because Nixon, Bush, Cheney, and McCarthy are all Caucasian Americans that are inherently evil and tyrannous.



....What? Wha-What does this have to do with what I actually wrote?



You assume a lot of things. For example: You've been assuming what the structure of Native American "law" was composed of all the while refusing to actually check your references see that they had no lawful indoctrinations.



Okay, so first you say that you didn't believe me because you figured me to be mis-quoting history and now you're saying you started talking to me because you knew history in the first place?



Ah. An ad hominem generalization. Do me a favor an point out all of my conjecture and then express in detail how it qualifies as conjectural. You carry the burden of proof, so this should be easy for you.



What do you mean "take attention away" from it. You didn't actually highlight anything from it with which to argue over. On a glance, I couldn't even find a topic mention of the Manifest Destiny Jacksonian propoganda you based your paragraph around. There wasn't even anything in there that disputed disputed my claims let alone make me ignore it.



The exact words of someone who can't even refute someone else's claims.

If you look back Halo, the most you've done here is say, "No, it didn't happen like that," over and over again. You have not once offered any sort of counter citation ground in history.



As the previous paragraph I quoted pointed out, while there was intimidation, there was no real force when they bought the land--And the land was bought; not stolen or seized.

And by what reasoning do you declare it as unnecessary to expand across the entire land mass? Do you really think a series of colonial societies would be able to sustain a country with any sort of security whilst non-unified and in the placement they were in? Every growing society in the world has known it best to occupy the entirety of the land.



On the contrary: You're the one repeatedly exaggerating the term "genocide" in regards to the friction experienced between the Anglos and the Natives.

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Please point out where in history, since you've proven yourself such an astute observer of past events, where the American government put together a mandate that called for the military/militia to seek out the Indians and slaughter them by the truck-load.

Don't bother looking for it. You won't find it. The Anglos and the Natives had a war and the Anglos were too incompetent to keep 4,000 Cherokees from starving to death. But you see, those are not examples of extermination; they're examples of conflict. Whether or not there may have been individual prejudice in the hearts of some of the Anglos does not mean there was official or personal intent to exterminate the Native Americans. The most you can throw together is a case that America, under the later (very unpopular) Jacksonian policies, wanted to segregate themselves from the Natives.



I have not dodged a thing and I have explained exactly why your analogy is flawed and indeed not "a valid comparison." In fact, I have gone at length to explain to you what's wrong with the scenario you presented and the most you could tell me was, "That's not the point and you fucking know it," or, more specifically, an ad hominem evasion of my analysis.



Again: Please point out to me where genocide was committed and please to use the actual standards by which "genocide" is actually defined to give me your answer rather than your own tainted perception.

And why exactly is assimilation generally a bad thing?



Okay. We are not an inferior culture to India and Russia. The three cultures are on the same intellectual wave-lengths with mutual knowledge of living healthily. Upon an objective observation of their cultures and comparison between the three, they have nothing to add to our lifestyles; as mutually superior intellects, it would only be logical to collaborate rather than dominate. Politics aside, there's no good philosophical or strategic reasoning to seize our land and person for purposes of assimilation when it would be detrimental to a society with an already prevailing lifestyle.

It is because of this that it would be perfectly appropriate to fight and die trying; they have nothing to teach us and nothing to add to our culture because we're as advanced as they are if not moreso. This wasn't the case with the Native Americans and the Anglos though, which is exactly why your analogy is not valid. The circumstances aren't comparable to the situation being discussed.



Lop-sided logic? The situations you try to compare to the Native American incidents as being justification for calling America a "democracy-pusher" are a little more than "not absolutely symmetrical," they're downright inappropriate. You're not simply mis-using the incidents incorrectly as an example, but you're also mis-quoting the intent of the Americans in every single situation (see also: "Spreading enlightenment")--Which is the point me going out of my way to shoot your comparisons and citations down--THEY DON'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE.



So you use your facetiousness as means of denying that the Europeans exported philosophy to the new world. Makes sense.



If you wish. Now can you please tell me exactly what it means?



Where have I twisted anything. Highlight the situations I've cited and tell me exactly how I've twisted them.



.....What? Did you actually say that? I didn't even claim I was special and yet you say this? Inferiority complex much?

Because you're the foremost expert on the subject, perhaps you could do us all a solid and define "genocide" and then contextualize it with the history being discussed here.

I know it's no problem for you buddy.

So, to be clear on the proceedings: I make a fool out of Grimm because he proves himself stupid enough to make claims he can't prove. As a result, he resorts to petty insults that ignore any detailed replies that actually refute what he tries to argue.

Harley realizes that this is Grimm's Pariah-defense mechanism when his ability to respond intelligently has been exhausted through consistent use (or two posts worth). And so she decides to lash out at me so as to back her spam-based conversational fuck buddy with whom she enjoys trading romantic emoticons with for the sake of feeling fun-loving even if being totally unaware of her overall germane and extraneous redundancy. She even goes so far as to deny my individual relevance as if I didn't exist. I suppose denying reality as a means of shunning dissent would be her forte; it's best to live in a fantasy realm where it's only what she thinks that holds merit and so she'll say whatever she wants without actually expanding on the assertions she makes...For example: Feeling that there's warrant to call someone racist and yet refusing to actually highlight the exact words of that someone to show them how "racist" they are. I suppose I should point out her bandying of the word "misogynistic," but basically I don't care what she says about me because, as I already pointed out, I'm not relevant (see also: I lack tangibility; I don't exist; I am a stray figment of Harley's imagination and therefore am not suitable enough to respond to or reply to even if I verbally disagree with here line reasoning). I doesn't matter what I say because I am irrelevant and cut off completely from Harley's intellectual consciousness. Therefore, she lacks any true identity I might be able to identify with. How tragic...But not really.

And then when Harley's finished setting the scene, Grimm feels vindicated to start his usual circle-jerk in the thread with whomever else would be willing to trash who it was that made a fool out of him. Halo was apparently his nearest reinforcement after Harley decided it best not to imagine this thread anymore and zipped away. He went so far as to try and satirically label my arguments in conjunction with Halo. Even though I know he only speaks with him in an attempt to stave off his attraction to me, it's only logical to assume, on a cursory glance, that he collaborates with Halo through insults because he actually agrees with everything he says and the way he says it. Harley must be behind Halo as well since she popped in to say, "Pariah's irrelevant," during my and Halo's little conversation. Logic aside, I'll ask for clarification anyway:

Grimm, Harley: As an example of your exemplary and uncanny ability to separate bullshit from facts, I would like to hear what you think of Halo's performance.

I already know that I (or any other conservative here for that matter) am the safe primary target because everyone hates me anyway, but since we're doing reviews on peoples' expression of facts (or lack thereof), perhaps you could tell me that you agree with everything Halo says and the way he says it since you're not approaching him with the same level of criticism. I mean, it only makes sense right...This guy has shown himself to be the very bastion of truth and historical accuracy, which is why you favor his posts over mine in this conversation. Don't you think so?

And Harley, I know I'm a figment of your imagination, but it's not technically unhealthy to humor your imaginary friends some of the time. So please feel free to answer the question.