Some people just don't want to "understand."

I stole a pack of gum once. All this time I thought I had conquered it. Thought it meant the same thing. *eyeroll*

Alaska was purchased, as was the Louisiana Territory.

Spain's colonial crimes were far worse than England's and the USA's and anyone else's, history class seems to have largely ignored.

The rest was stolen, in most cases in direct violation of treaties we had with the various parties involved.

It's called being tactical Jack.
War is never pretty.
It was conquered.

No, it was hoodwinked.

But by you're reckning, as in all's fair in ....., you won't mind it being taken back, you know, in the same exact way Tejas was taken from them?

Gimme some of that guac, yo!

No it was called being tactical.
Fighting a war of attrition and starvation.
Conquered.

Tactical? Like the follies of Jefferson and Seward? Manifest Destiny was never ridiculed? You use the term rather loosely.

Violating law set by treaties is ok with you?
Cool, then since law means nothing, you won't mind if it isn't binding to your dreaded Mexicans as it was never binding to your own grandparents when they invaded these shores because they didn't have the ability to make it at HOME in zhe fathurlund.

dont post pictures of nazis please

Technologically stagnant civilization still living in the stone age conquered by civilization with advanced metallurgy, chemistry, and... every other science there is.

Shocker.

Hey, do not discredit the Native Americans, they successfully managed to kick the Vikings out of America, who where much more advanced.

Consider how many Vikings actually made it to North America, and what kind of shape they were probably in when they made landfall in those dragon boats of theirs. It's not irrational to suspect that a couple of little league teams with wiffleball bats could have kicked them out.

I'm sorry, but I have always had a difficult time shedding tears for the conquest of a people who couldn't manage to enter the Bronze Age in 4000 pre-Columbian years.

Oh yeah, not asking you to shed a tier, but the Natives where brutal also, and I do not argue that either.

The Vikings were not killed (though how could such 'superior' forces be?), they starved to death, unable to make it with their bronze tech, which, incidentally, was introduced from where again?

:)

:)

And technically, every human in North a South America is an immigrant. Human beings are not and never were a native species to the two continents. We would actually be classified as an invasive species, arriving via land bridges to the north and boats from the Pacific during the ice ages and then various waves later on from Europe and possibly China.

Technically you can say that for the rest of the planet except for the African coast of the Red Sea.

Also, the aquatic ape is an invasive wherever it goes, including inland off those shores.

Humans have been in the Americas for 35,000, if not longer.
Bison, deer, wolves, cats, bighorn sheep, and much of the fauna people think of as natives are themselves invasives, migrating here over various glaciations.

'Possibly' China, aaaaaand Japan, Polynesia, Melanesia...

Not hating on Neil Degrasse Tyson, I think he's awesome, but I'm talking about the establishment itself

When leftists find out that reality is not like their imagination:
239z9f.gif (click to show)
That is one reason they don't want to understand.

I like how you call them leftists instead of liberals. Leftists are far more radical than Liberals in their way of thinking.

Ben Shapiro is the best!

i don't always agree with him, but goddammit do i respect the man.

I'll read through the article later.

1tna1z.gif (click to show)
Don't get me started on the beliefs that don't line up with actual observable, testable, and repeatable reality.

Mind you, most of our best scientists are atheists/agnostics. Why is that so hard to understand?

"Best" by what standard? And how do the beliefs of scientists prove anything? The only authorities in science are evidence and reason. If a scientist with multiple degrees says something that is demonstrably wrong, then who cares what the scientist's opinion is?

If a scientist with multiple degrees says something that is demonstrably wrong, """ They dont do that, you are thinking of infowars

Actually, if that was true than there would be no need for a peer review process. Additionally, scientists with multiple degrees disagree with one another all the time. I'm willing to bet that you are not a fan of Answers in Genesis, but you cannot deny that they have degrees. I think it is fair to say that a person's hypotheses and theories must be judged by their adherence to logic and evidence, and not by the person's credentials or background.

i very often see some people on the right making massive generalizations about this, not all of them, but it is common. most democratic politicians will agree that legal immigration is ideal. no disrespect though

22ezgf.gif (click to show)
That's a good one!
I like to post "inflammatory political rhetoric" as the leftists like to call it, then watch they hyenas gather around. But I don't even read half the stuff on my front page memes.
20tptk.gif (click to show)

I honestly wish I had the time to create 10,000 accounts on this site for the sole purpose of upvoting this an additional 10000 times.

Non-stop upvotes: 22vkx7.gif (click to show)

If you are on your computer, highlight everything in this link except (click to show) and right click to select "go to..." or "open in another tab" then save that new tab in your bookmarks. You can copy the hyperlink from the saved tab and use it as a comment. Or you can create a document or note called "upvote gifs" or whatever to paste the hyperlink you copied to use as a comment later. Thanks!

Technically, 'illegal immagrints' are a 'problem' because they pose a threat. Who else posed a HUGE threat to the people who ALREADY lived here? Oh, yeah, all the white natives. Then we STOLE people from Africa-legit illegal-and murdered the Natives. Yet we're worried about people who were being persecuted and didn't have two years to fill out paperwork to come to America, because they would be killed before then? Wow, America, wow.

I said white natives, I meant white IMMIGRANTS!!!

I get your point, our ancestors just showed up and started treating the neighbors like crap.

Well, mine didn't show up from Ireland until the 1800s, but still...

The problems with this argument is pretty similar to the racism argument. My ancestors didn't own a single slave and didn't take land from anybody. Millions of other people can say the same thing. So why are we being held responsible for the actions of people whom we aren't even related to?

Exactly, much of my family came from Germany, and historically Germans opposed slavery and helped fight for civil rights over the years of this nation. This is just an example of some racist person cherry picking random facts(some of them fabricated) so he/she can have an excuse to hate people of a certain skin color....while at the same time claiming to oppose racism. Libtards make no sense.

But it can't be racist if it's against white people...........................

They were not immigrants....they were colonists. And not all of them were like that. Just pick up a history book and learn how Rhode Island was founded. We didn't steal that land, we conquered it. Most of it we actually purchased from Mexico. If you actually read history books you wouldn't be so angry all the time. But hey, if you want to be ignorant and miserable and hateful, it's a free country so have at it.

On the contrary, I love history books. I know this sounds weird, but sometimes I literally just pick up a History text book and read it. Like, I actually do that. Anyway, colonists, immigrants, what's the difference, really? In fact, the dictionary definition of immigrant a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country. That sounds like 'colonists' to me.

And "conquer" is not the same as "stolen," yet some people seem to get those two words mixed up, like the white man stole this land when in fact they conquered it.

Conquered...you know, just like the "natives" were doing to each other long before the evil white man came along. Except when the evil white man dropped by, they progressed from sailing in wooden ships to landing on the moon. The "natives..." not so much.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............so you're a Native American hater. Let me guess: you probably think that Columbus came in and asked the Natives nicely for their land? "The "natives"...not so much." What the heck do you mean by that? There's this page you could go to: https://web.stanford.edu/group/bioaims/images/Native%20American%20Scientists.pdf
Or you could check out some famous people of Native decent, like Jimi Hendrix ("The Native American Music Hall of Fame actually inducted Hendrix as their first member! Through his grandmother, this famous musician was one-quarter Cherokee. While his father was African-American, Jimi's mother had Cherokee and Aztec blood."), or "The Cyrus family is quite vocal about their Native American heritage. Miley and her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, claim they are part Cherokee." No, I don't know how credible these sources are, but my point is, you shouldn't hate on Native Americans. Keep in mind that no matter how the colonists came, they were here first.

Not sure what all that rambling was about. Jimi Hendricks and the Cyrus family? Hmmmmm.... What do they probe the "natives" weren't a bunch of savages chucking rocks at each other?

A native hater? Because I know a little something about the people that lived here before the Europeans arrived and I said some things you don't like, I'm a hater? Lol!

The "natives" were very violent toward each other. They were here thousands of years before us and did nothing but murder and r@pe each other for land. They were brutal toward each other.

But the evil white man...no, they were the devils that violently took "their" land. Too bad.

Who said they weren't violent toward each other? Are you suggesting that if us and Mexico suddenly got in a war, and then, like, France settlers came in and slaughtered every citizen of the USA, they were totally okay in doing it, because we were violent anyway? Or if during the American civil war, if, like, Spanish colonists had come over and killed us all, who cares? I mean, we were fighting anyway. The Natives fought because what kind of country would they be if everything was happy and peaceful and perfect? Seriously, are you saying that you can kill someone if they're already being violent-toward someone else, whom you've never met, and who agreed to the fight, and who had a running thing going? Christopher Columbus had no excuse for what he did, and we don't have an excuse for turning down all illegal immigrants. The ones that are smuggling in weapons and drugs? You can arrest them, they deserve it. But the fact is, we're wasting time on the ones who just didn't have two years to fill out paperwork. It's like the world has forgotten that the citizens of America smuggle more drugs than the immigrants do...

And by the way, I explained what I meant, which you would know if you read the whole thing.

Your scenario is why I am a strong proponent of our country's defense. You know, our military. So we don't get wiped out by a foreign country. Nations have been conquering each other since the beginning of time, so why are you preaching about Americans being the evil people? I don't understand your so-called logic.

And just a pointer, if you want people to read your long and drawn out comments, I would suggest using paragraphs. If you use paragraphs others are more apt to read the whole thing because it's easier to follow and looks less boring.

You have a point with the paragraphs. You'd think I (who writes five paged essays for fun) would have realized that...thanks. (And by the way, I don't want to call Americans evil, sorry if I came across that way.) And I'm quite proud of our military, by the way. I didn't mean to make it sound like I'm not. And technically, C.C wasn't American, he was Spanish.

They didn't steal people from Africa, they bought them fair and square from African slave merchants (their own rulers). Africans selling Africans to Europeans...sounds like a bad black nightmare, huh?

So nothing has really changed much with the black culture. I mean, they go from selling each other to foreigners to shooting each other up in the hoods and ghettos. I'd like to know what black people have against their own race.

Black people in Africa SOLD other black people to americans. 2nd, Democrats fought against the republicans who were trying to outlaw slavery. Democrats wanted to make money at the time by selling slaves to other countries. But you're probably a democrat, thinking that they are fighting for the common people. Every country has immigration laws but it's somehow bad that the USA has immigration laws? wow, libtard, wow.

Okay, so Southern Democrats were who supported slavery, and "In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jeffersonian democracy." In case you don't know what the Jeffersonian democracy is, "The Jeffersonians were deeply committed to American republicanism, which meant opposition to aristocracy of any form, opposition to corruption, insistence on virtue, with a priority for the "yeoman farmer", "planters", and the "plain folk". They were antagonistic to the aristocratic elitism of merchants, bankers and manufacturers, distrusted factory workers, and were on the watch for supporters of the dreaded British system of government. Jeffersonian democracy persisted as an element of the Democratic Party into the early 20th century, as exemplified by the rise of Jacksonian democracy and the three presidential candidacies of William Jennings Bryan. Its themes continue to echo in the 21st century, particularly among the Libertarian and Republican parties."
Democrats and Libertarians are different, by the way. Libertarians are described as sort of a mix of both parties. So, in a way, the ancestors of the modern-day Republican party supported slavery more than the ancestors of the modern-day democratic party. And while some of the slaves were sold as punishment, the majority of them were kidnapped, then shipped off to America, where they went to the plantations in the South, where they were owned by.... well, democrats, but it's been said that "Since then, the only vestige of that era left on the party is the name “Democrats”. The party itself bears no resemblance at all to the party of that era." So, none of your arguments are valid. And I am moraley opposed to slavery, and I am highly insulted that you think me-a twelve year old-would have already chosen a party. I am not so close-minded as some (not you, just some people I know) as to make a decision this early in my youth. And it's not bad the USA has immigration laws, it's bad that we are fighting ALL illegal immigrants, instead of the ones that actually pose a threat, as well as the legal immigrants that pose a threat. But you can have your opinion.

Depends on what you mean by that.
If you mean a few segregationists Democrats seceded from the Party and joined the Republican party thereby making that party the party of segregation and racism, then no.

Who said, "there were only a few pro-segregation Dems..."?
I didn't say that. That is historical revisionism to fit a narrative.
For the few Dixicrats the Democrat party wasn't segregationist enough, especially in their rhetoric against federal intervention. That doesn't mean it wasn't segregationist at all. Not just back then either or up through the civil rights era.
23yz6v.gif (click to show)

I'd like to say one thing: we all know that the real reason you aren't reading my comment is because you don't like the fact that I brought up some good points, too. News flash: have you ever seen a modern Democrat saying, "Man, slavery was awesome! We should bring it back!" You probably haven't, but if you have, I'll thank you kindly not to judge an entire party off of one or two people.
And if you had read it, you'd know that never once did I say that the parties switched sides. On the contrary, I said that the modern-Democrats sort of branched off of the Libertarians and formed the group we know today. Who ever said that they switched sides? Certainly not me.

I was just trolling (provoking or eliciting a negative response.)
I should have just commented TLTR: too long to read.
Sometimes I just ignore long comments and figure they are rants or tirades that will profit me nothing for reading them.

Oh yeah im with you there. Its completly illogical to judge a whole group of people based the actions of a few. I also believe that those who vote all democrat or all republican at the voting booth without doing research is a bad idea. And if i ever find a democrat running for an elected position or trying to pass something who isnt trying to take away my rights, my guns or tax me to death and is trying to do something positive i would vote for that bill or person in a heartbeat. This may come as a supprise but i wish all political parties were abolished so voters had to do research on who is running instead of voting for someone who simply has a label, gender or skin color. I think that would make our nation a better place but that is just me.

I think you should run for president.

yes because todays KKK are all democrats today as well. and they would vote for a black man. the earth is flat too right? moon landing a fake?

But like I said before, most of the Black slaves were actually kidnapped. If you want to believe that they were all sold because they were meanies, go right ahead. The fact remains that A TON of them were simply kidnapped, then transported to the US. Toward the end, it wasn't even legal, but it happened anyway. And what kind of name is libtard? Is that supposed to be an insult? Because I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously, because you didn't use capital letters in like three or four places that you should have, and that's like a kindergarten lesson.